Are you thinking what I am thinking? [B]

Dinosaur footprints found in Nelson reads the title of a news piece in NZ Herald.

What makes this discovery special is the unique preservation of the footprints in an environment where they could easily have been destroyed by waves, tides, or wind.

Northwest Nelson was largely submerged under the sea between 70 and 20 million years ago and the footprints would have been covered by hundreds of metres of marine sediments.

With the development of the modern plate boundary, New Zealand was uplifted and northwest Nelson emerged from the sea.

Isn’t it interesting that dinasaur footprints are often associated with water. You’ve got to have some unusual phenomenon happening in a very short span of time for footprints to be preserved. Sounds pretty much like The Flood to me.

Well, if science be true, it will eventually meet and agree with the Bible, rightly interpreted. If the previous sentence is not true, it does not matter. Nothing matters after that.

Are you thinking what I am thinking? [A]

My Father, Let My Country Awake

[India 2002]

In Feb 2002, we had the terrible riots in Gujarat, after which minorities–Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians–in India felt uneasy. Everywhere you turned, you did not see the abhorance that you would have thought normal.

For those readers who are not familiar with the 2002 riots, the trigger was the burning of a railway coach in a place called Godhra in Gujarat, killing 58 people, mostly Hindu pilgrims. The event triggered what is thought to be state-sponsored rioting in parts of Gujarat resulting in the deaths of about 2000 Muslims and 300 Hindus.

The following is an article I sent seven years ago, almost to the day, in October 2002 to The Hindu, a leading national daily newspaper in India, not long after the Gujarat riots and days before the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly passed the controversial anti-conversion bill. My article obviously did not meet the paper’s standards and was not published. Happily, the draconian law was annulled some years later in Tamil Nadu, although my countrymen in other states (Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Himachal Pradesh) still live under its shadow.

Although my article was not published, I sent it to a respected friend, whose level-headed and excellent papers were often published in The Hindu.  I am honoured to have received his reponse, which I have pasted below my article.  This friend, Mr. Balakesari, is a retired member (staff) of the Railway Board who also served as Chief Mechanical Engineer with the Southern Railway. Incidentally, he was one of the experts who assisted Justice U.C. Banerjee in probing the burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra in February, 2002.

[From my covering letter : These are time of roiling when religious discord seems to be spreading at an alarming rate. This spread needs to be checked at the intellectual level first. Most of the articles published in your esteemed daily put forward the popular view, which states that all religions basically teach the same thing. But I feel that there is another legitimate view that is more realistic, which states that religions may be really very different and that despite this, there is no reason why we should not all live together in peace. This view needs to be expressed and understood. I have enclosed my article on this subject for your perusal and publication in the ‘Open Page’ section or any other appropriate section of your esteemed daily. I have referred to Prabha Rani's (New Delhi) recent letter to the editor and the article Need for Tolerance by Naresh Gupta on Oct 1, 2002.

I do not subscribe to the view that all religions are basically same and yet I strive to be a good citizen of this country. I know of many like me who bleed inwardly at the kind of religious discord we are seeing. I thought I should put pen to paper and express this point of view. My lack of experience in writing on this subject may be evident in the article but I hope you will consider publishing this article because of its relevance to the times.]

Intolerance for people of other religions is a problem that must be tackled at various levels including at the oft-ignored intellectual level. While the broad and accommodative Hindu view has been expressed time and again, people from the minorities are not so forthcoming with their contributions towards this debate and have thereby contributed to the fuzz surrounding the issue.

Naresh Gupta, in his article Need for Tolerance, acknowledges differences among religions, but goes on to say that, ‘…beneath that diversity there is oneness, which is unmistakable and underneath many religions there is also one religion.’ This is Mr Gupta’s view and he is perfectly justified in voicing it. Incidentally, it is the popular broad view and is held by the vast majority of thinking people in this country, which is why it is important that other views go on record too.

It is perceived that anyone who does not subscribe to the popular view is intolerant of other religions. It is the purpose of this article to show that this is not true. On the contrary people who have understood and accepted the fact that religious differences are not merely skin deep are now free to be truly tolerant of all points of view.

Hindu philosophy accommodates everything and everyone. A good part of the credit for India standing up as a shining example of secularism must go to this fact because the majority of our people are Hindus. Many of my Hindu friends participate in the religious festivities of other faiths.

Being so accommodative, it is not unreasonable to imagine that Hindus would like to see their friends from other religions reciprocate this generous acceptance. And I know professing Christians and Muslims who do. Recently we heard of the facilities for pooja being arranged in a train by a Muslim. We have heard about our president’s scholarship of the Hindu scriptures. These are admirable traits and readily understandable not just by people who espouse the broad Hindu view but also by the world at large, which is moving towards a new era of openness. Another case in point is the all-religion prayer meeting held by Dr Kalam and staff members of the Rashtrapathi Bhavan to celebrate Gandhi Jayanthi.

But there are other views too that must be respected. Many Muslims and Christians as well as some Hindu sects, atheists etc., will not subscribe to this broad view on religious matters no more than a doctor of the Allopathic school would accept other methods of treatment. And they should not if they are true to their convictions. Some readers might find this rather startling, which is why I feel that this is an important issue about which many are unaware. The lack of clarity in this area is the reason why intolerant and irritable feelings are creeping even into educated circles. If the intelligentsia is clear about this, it might be able to prevent blood baths of the kind Gujarat witnessed.

Prabha Rani of New Delhi recently wrote a letter to the editor of The Hindu where she said, “It is the insistence on the sameness or the desire for it that leads to fascist and terrorist activities. It is respect for differences and the willingness to protect each other’s right to this difference that leads to harmonious coexistence. In an enlightened society, while every citizen should have the right to believe that her/his religion is the best, she/he should respect the other’s right to believe the same.” I think she just hit the nail on the head. The word ‘insistence’ is crucial. The so-called ‘broad view’ by its very insistence on sameness (and its dogmatic assertion that truth is not the exclusive property of a single scripture) can plant seeds of discord in the minds of people. It is not logical or morally right to compel everyone in this country to believe that all religions teach the truth.

Look at it this way. One night, a helicopter dropped pamphlets all over the city announcing a music show. A person sleeping on the street noticed this. In the morning, there were many theories of how the city came to have so many pamphlets. Some said that street urchins were paid to do this, others said that several auto rickshaws had been hired to do this and so on. Most realized that there were many ways this could have happened and were open to ideas. But it so happened that they were only open to ideas as long as the holder of the idea was the open-minded sort and did not lay claim to it with any degree of certainty. However, that one man who saw the helicopter was not open to ideas because he was convinced about what he saw. Does he have the freedom to be closed in his thinking?

In matters of God, and the meaning of our existence, different religions have taken different positions. Muslims believe that Allah is God and none else. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for mankind, that He arose from the dead, and that only those who accept His gift of salvation can go to heaven. Logically there is always room for someone to have got it right, as many already claim to have, and if we care enough about these matters, we need to have the freedom to accept it for ourselves if and when we encounter the truth. Let each person take his/her position with freedom. But our freedom ends where the next man’s begins, which someone pointed out is only till the tip of our noses. And far be it that we should be hurtful or, still worse, harm each other because of what we believe.

Many friends have tried to tell me that all religions teach the same thing. This again is wishful thinking and perhaps a part of the Hindu ethos. Expecting all religions to basically teach the same thing will lead to disillusionment and anger when the differences start surfacing. According to tenets of a particular religion, there may be religious functions that allow only its adherents to attend. In another scenario, all may be welcome to a certain celebration and the invitee belonging to another religion may decline to accept the prasadam. My friend, a follower of a well known Sadhguru, tells me that we cannot know God or self through the mind and that realization has to come from an intuitive or mystic experience. Christianity, on the other hand teaches its adherents to cogitate before accepting any thing as the truth.

No, all religions are different. Maybe no religion teaches its followers to hate and kill but rather to live peaceably and there ends the similarity. We need to understand that there are differences. We are a free country and we can be different. We can practice our religions and we can share our knowledge on religious matters with others. If a Christian then wants to become a Hindu or a Hindu a Muslim, so be it. It’s a free country. Now this last statement is my opinion. Lets not kill each other over religion. Religion is a matter of individual choice.

I have never found any one’s religion an obstacle to friendship. I am very serious about my Christian faith and ever ready to share my religious ideas with friends with all the zeal of a salesperson and yet only when my audience is really interested. No thrusting religion (or network marketing or anything else for that matter) down an unwilling person’s throat. I also listen to their views and we have had many a lively discussion. But all this within permissible limits and with respect for the other’s point of view. As I said earlier, the bottom line is that no one’s freedom should be impinged upon. When we find ways to book those who cross the limits, we should be careful not to fetter our own freedom. To do this we need to understand what freedom entails. If this task is approached on the basis of the premise that all religions teach the same underlying truth, we are likely to end up cutting our nose to spite our face.

Perhaps many readers will disagree with me. They may feel that Indians should realize that all religions basically teach the same things, that all people should be satisfied with the faith they were born into, and that there is no need for anyone to ever change their religion. This is a legitimate view and they have a right to feel the way they do. I know people will have other opinions than I have. So be it. And as long as they do not kill me to have it or try to stop me from having my opinion, they are free to think as they do. It’s a free country.

Mr Balakesari’s response

Behold Ardi

Oldest human skeleton offers new clues to evolution is the title of an article in today’s CNN online edition (dated 01 October 2009).

“This finding points to a deeper sense of our [humans'] interconnectedness,” Samuel Assefa, Ethiopian ambassador to the United States, said Thursday. “We are all Ethiopians at heart.”

 

Ardipithecus ramidus from Ethiopia is neither chimp nor human. 

But Ardi shows us what we used to be.

And scientists have even given us  a picture of Ardi.

 

Sorry for not getting too technical here. The sketch of Ardi is a riot; couldn’t get past it.
I have dealt with this subject with due seriousness in What about Lucy, Neanderthals, etc.

Shame shame

Today’s NZ Herald has an article titled: Most mainstream churches back ‘Yes’ vote in smacking referendum.

This is the ungodly effect of the the world in the church instead of the preserving and guiding salt-light effect of the church in the world.

What more can I say except “Shame shame.”

And “May God have mercy on us.”

Note:
I will not be publishing anymore comments for this post. As author of the blog, I’d like to have the last word and suggest that those interested [click here and] read my other posts on the subject, which I think amply address the concerns raised.
My sincere thanks to everyone who participated.

Scientists closer to finding origins of life

Scientists closer to finding origins of life is the title of an article in today’s NZHerald (dated 15 May 2009). Looks like they are getting really close now, considering how confident they are.

“Scientists have developed an experiment which demonstrates how the very first life may have formed about four billion years ago.”

Wow; what is this about?

“Dr Sutherland believes that he has shown how it was possible to make all the building blocks of RNA from the simple chemicals that would have existed on Earth four billion years ago.”

Amazing! Let’s read on:

“”We haven’t yet made the RNA molecule itself but we’ve made two of the four sub-units or building blocks. It suggests that making the molecule is possible,” he said.”

(Oops!)

Apeman myth

Today’s NZ Herald has an article called:  Apeman myth exposed

We evolved from apes.

“The hominins lived 1.5 million to 4.1 million years ago, a relatively short time after proto-humans and chimps split from a common ancestor . . . Many experts have argued that this ancestor was probably quite chimpanzee-like, and as a result it has been widely assumed that the earliest humans were ape-like too.”

(Sigh)

“Humanity’s immediate predecessors may have had trouble climbing trees, research suggests – so they may not have been as ape-like as many experts believe.
Scientists concluded this after a close study of how chimpanzees scale trees – virtually vertically and with ease – and then comparing chimp ankle joints with those of hominins, humans’ ancestors.“

(ouch!)

What about Lucy, Neanderthals, etc.

Remains of Lucy (Australopithecus afarenis)

Who are the Neanderthals really and what about the mysterious woman named Lucy.  Scientists say that they have retrieved the fossils of ape-like humans who they claim to be the inbetween stages/links of the evolution of man from ape. Can we take them to be humans with some kind of genetic disorder such as acromegaly?  (Hannah’s third question)

When scientists chance upon a set of fossil bones, they have at their disposal, bones, scientific tools and methods, and their beliefs and presuppositions.

Lucy and the other fossils are all just bones that needed to be dated and interpreted by scientists and anthropologists. In this process, many assumptions needed to be made and were made depending on the beliefs of those who made them.

Neither the young-earth scientist nor the old-earth scientist is going to be able to prove beyond doubt, using scientific methods, that their interpretation is right. Young-earth scientists who believe in the Bible know that God created man as man. In fact man was the crown and glory of God’s creation. So these scientists interpret the fossils from the perspective of the Biblical account. Those who believe in evolution interpret fossils according to their faith. But because the latter are an overwhelming majority, when they speak together, the sheer loudness of their argument can be intimidating.  The best way to counter this is by equipping ourselves with information.

As believers, we know that human beings were created as human beings. So any fossil bone that scientists interpret as ‘links’ or ’stages’ in human evolution cannot be what what they say it is. The fossil has to be either human or non-human.

For obvious reasons, it is in the interest of scientists, who believe in evolution, to interpret fossils as ‘links’ or ’stages’. How do they manage to do this? We’ll look at the three ways of doing this with examples.

The three ways are:

• Ape fossils made out to be more human than they are
• Human fossils made out to be less human and more ape-like than they are
• Delibrately mixed fossils of human and ape bones (actual fraud)

Lucy—An example of ape fossils interpreted to be human like
Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) was a kind of ape, with body proportions like a chimpanzee, who could knuckle walk, walk on twos with a stooped posture, and climb trees.  Textbooks often show her hands and feet as being similar to humans, but this is an error that is acknowledged. Sadly wrong representations of Lucy abound in museums too.

Neanderthal Man and Cro-magnon Man—Human fossils interpreted to be ape like
I understand that the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnon people were among the people groups who were scattered from the tower of Babel.

Evolution scientists regard Cro-Magnon people as early human beings who were quite intelligent. In comparison, they claimed that the Neanderthals lacked in creativity, language skills and other human traits.

• At least in one case, it has been documented that the ‘Neanderthal’ individual had rickets, which may have contributed to the idea that the Neanderthals were inferior to the Cro-Magnon people.
• Similarly, it was thought that the Neanderthals were incapable of speech until the discovery of a hyoid bone, caused scientists and anthropologists to concede that the Neanderthals could have spoken any human language.
• It was also argued that Neaderthals were not human because they did not use symbols and rituals. This too was proved untrue.

Evolution scientists do not lack imagination and can weave a good story. The Nebraska man (and even a picture of him and Mrs. Nebraska Man in the Illustrated London Daily News) came from the 1922 discovery of a solitary tooth!

We must expect to find (and do find) all kinds of human fossils. The Bible speaks of giants. The Bible also tells us that in pre-flood times, people lived for a lot longer than we do today. Fossils of human beings who lived to the age of 800 probably look somewhat different.

Piltdown Man—A hoax using human skull plus ape jawbone
Piltdown Man comprised fragments of a skull and jawbone supposedly found in Piltdown, an English village, in 1912 by a man called Charles Dawson. For 40 long years, Piltdown man enjoyed the honour of being hailed as a great find in favour for the evolution of man.  In 1953, thanks to the separate efforts of three scientists, Piltdown man was found to be a hoax, a forged mix of a skull of a human and jawbone an orangutan.

Interesting links you could learn more from

• Neandertal Man—the changing picture: An overview of how this alleged ‘subhuman’ is being progressively rehabilitated, despite the evolutionary bias resisting the trend
• Neanderthal children’s fossils: Huge problems have been uncovered in evolutionary reconstructions of Neanderthal children’s fossils
• Piltdown Man: Britain’s Greatest Hoax
• Did humans really evolve from ape-like creatures?
• Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone
• Strange Relics From The Depths Of The Earth

In this post as in the posts answering Question 1 and Question 2, my intention is to demonstrate that:

• the young-earth creationist’s interpretation is very logical and reasonable.
• the interpretation of the majority (scientists who believe in evolution) has serious flaws and is not as foolproof as is made out to be.

Did Noah’s ark have room for a million species?

Currently there are 1 million named species and many more not identified, they say…. Could Noah’s Ark have carried a specimen for all these? What became of the dinosuars; did they die in the flood or before that?  (Hannah’s second question)

There is only one true account of what really happened, and so it is important to read it carefully.

Genesis 6:17-21
Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. ¹⁵ And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. ¹⁶ You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. ¹⁷ And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. ¹⁸ But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. ¹⁹ And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them²⁰ Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. ²¹ And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” alive with you; they shall be male and female.

Genesis 7:1-16
¹ Then the LORD said to Noah . . . ² You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; ³ also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth . . .
⁷ So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood. ⁸ Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth, ⁹ two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. ¹⁰ And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. ¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. ¹² And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
¹³ On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark— ¹⁴ they and every beast after its kind, all cattle after their kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort. ¹⁵ And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life. ¹⁶ So those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.

Size of the ark
Noah’s ark was a lot bigger than we often imagine it to have been. It hasn’t helped to see pictures like the one I’ve used with this post, with the animals visible from the outside and the giraffes’ heads in the clouds.

The dimensions for the ark given in the Biblical account are:

300 cubits  x  50 cubits  x  30 cubits

A cubit being the length of a man’s arm from his elbow to his finger tips, there were larger cubits and shorter ones. Taking the smaller 45-centimeter cubit for conversion to metric measurement, one gets the following:

135 meters  x  22.5 meters  x  13.5 meters

Remember, the ark had three stories; so the total deck area was 9112.5 square meters, which we are told is approximately the area of 36 lawn tennis courts.

Many kinds of animals not taken into the ark
There was no need for Noah to take with him any of the living things living in the waters: fishes, marine chordates and echinoderms, mollusks, coelenterates, sponges, and protozoans. So you have 200,000 species less to worry about.

There was no need too to worry about amphibians or mammals like whales and seals, or reptiles like sea turtles and alligators.

Ah, and there was no need for Noah to worry about a whole host of yummy arthropods like shrimps, crabs, and prawns. Many of the insects could have survived outside the boat too. This makes it another 850,000 less to worry about.

As for bacteria and viruses and the like, they could have taken care of themselves too.

Taking only the “kinds”

An important point to note is that Noah did not take with him a pair of every species but a pair of every kind. It is important to differentiate between these two terms. Kinds would be Dog-wolf-etc., Donkey-mule-horse-zebra-etc., Lion-tiger-cat-cheeta-etc., as against species like Dog, Wolf, Donkey, Horse, Lion, Tiger, and so on.  (God created the kinds, and the species “evolved” from these kinds very quickly, not over millions of years.)

What about dinosaurs?
My impression from what I’ve been reading is that the dinosaurs made it to the ark. Noah did not have to take a couple of full grown Sauropods into the ark. Considering that dinosaurs hatch out of eggs that are all less than a foot long, God could have quite easily sent to Noah reasonably-sized dinosaurs, one pair for every kind, to go on the ark trip. No problem.

Like with all other life on earth, all of the other dinosaurs living at the time of Noah were killed in the flood. This is why we have many proofs of dinosaurs dying suddenly and in flood situations.

Interesting links you could learn more from
How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
Is Noah’s ark a myth?
Were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark?
How big was Noah’s ark?

Are you thinking what I am thinking? [A]

China Displays Aftermath of Dinosaur Disaster reads the title of a news piece in foxnews.com.

Sounds pretty much like The Flood to me. It is not often that a flood is compared to the eruption in Pompeii.

Well, if science be true, it will eventually meet and agree with the Bible, rightly interpreted. If the previous sentence is not true, it does not matter. Nothing matters after that.

Can one argue against Carbon Dating?

. . . I had the same thought about the circular reasoning involved in estimating the age of the earth, and even told my teacher that it sounded absurd. She, being a faithful Christian, told me to write what the textbooks stated for the sake of the exam without arguing. My doubt now is this: The age of fossils is estimated based on Carbon Dating—measuring how much Carbon-14 is present, and using the halflife principle. How can we argue against such scientific procedures?  (Hannah’s first question)

I would rather point you to good online material, which are written by people who have a background in science, than give you an answer myself.

Scientists who are Christians tell us that Carbon Dating is a friend of Christians. This is because, even in the hands of scientists who do not believe in a young earth, Carbon Dating does not point to a millions-of-years-old earth but to one that is less than a million years old. However, even this is far bigger than the 6000 years we want to arrive at, based on the Holy Scriptures.

The problem lies in the assumptions made by scientists when using Carbon Dating. I am not suggesting that they are being dishonest. It is just that they assume that the environment on the earth has been fairly constant, whereas Christians have sufficient reason to believe that the earth’s atmosphere has changed in the last 6,000 years.

Do read the following articles about Carbon Dating.

Does carbon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?
Carbon-14 dating – explained in everyday terms
Carbon Dating—Answers for kids
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?

I would like to quote from the first article because the candle example is useful in understanding the framework of the argument (against the results obtained from Carbon Dating).

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

An illustration may help:
Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.

The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950’s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.