A lot about anything from a high standard point of view. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/ en-us Homeschool Blogger Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:48:00 -0500 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:48:00 -0500   In 1894 a lighthouse owner brought his pet house cat to Stephens Island (that little speck of land between the two mane islands that form New Zealand). Shortly there after, the cat appeared on the doorstep with a little bird, crushed in its jaws. By the time the little bird was identified as a new species (the Stephens Island Wren) the cat had killed of the entire population. But the problem isn't only on Islands. It is also a problem in North America and other places. Tens of millions of cats are aloud to roam free in the United States alone and they kill hundreds of millions of songbirds, reptiles, and mammals. The statistics are just as scary in Canada where there are some seven million house cats of which approximately 650,000 do not have owners and are 'wild'. Entire populations of birds or reptiles have been whipped out. So after all that is said, it is a really bad and irresponsible idea for cat owners to let there pets outside. Don't tell me your cat dose not kill things; it dose; it just doesn’t show it. Cats are natural killers and with no natural predators, the damage is immense even from one cat. The conclusion, then, is to keep your cats inside. But it doesn't end there. There is a protozoan that lives in the feces of cats, contaminated water, and undercooked meat. The protozoan is called Toxoplasma gondii and it has been known to give various illnesses (this explains why pregnant woman are warned to stay away from cat feces). Studies show that it may also cause brain damage in people (and cats, which explains why your cat goes absolutely crazy on those certain occasions). So, then, I leave it up to you to decide; to be or not to be? Personally I would say 'not'. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/593975/ Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:48:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/593975/ Baryonyx walkeri               Here is the most complete theropod dinosaur known in Europe at the time of its discovery.   Discovery   It was 1983 that the amateur fossil hunter William (or Bill) Walker stumbled upon a huge curved claw sticking up out of the side of a clay pit in the Smokejacks Pit at Wallis Wood, Ockley near Dorking in Surrey, England. He had tried to dig out the claw but it crumbled between his fingers. Luckily he was able to reassemble the claw and he began to search for what it might be in various fossil identification books. He just couldn’t seem to figure it out. What was it or what did it belong to? Finally, he decided to contact the Natural History Museum in London. They to could not give him a definite answer but decided to come and investigate for themselves. After being directed to the discovery site of the claw, dig team leaders Alan J. Charig and Angela C. Milner began to dig up an entirely new species of dinosaur! After three years of digging in the hopes of finding more. Having about 70 percent complete, it was the most complete theropod dinosaur skeleton discovered anywhere in the world and it was also the only large theropod discovered in England at that time. The description was published by Charig and Milner in 1986 and was named after Walker at about the same time. The BMNH R9951 (HoloType) is now mounted and being display at the Natural History Museum for guests to view. This specimen was probably a juvenile (at about 9 meters long) because of infused bones in the skull. Since then more fragmentary specimens have been discovered but none in nearly as good a condition as the BMNH R9951 specimen. Some are worth mentioning, though. For instance a partial skull was found in the Sala de los Infantes deposit of Burgos Province, Spain. Also some of the famous and plentiful dinosaur tracks of La Rioja, near Burgos, may have been Baryonyx or at least a theropod similar to Baryonyx. Two more claws were discovered in the Niger Republic in West Africa as well as a third on the Isle of Wight in 1996. A more recent Baryonyx find is a vertebrae found near Barnes High. It had a fairly long spine on its back and is supposed to be shown at the Dinosaur Farm Museum. A cast of this specimen was on display at the SVPCA in 2004 in an attempt to prove the synonymy of Baryonyx and Suchomimus (which is very likely, in my opinion). Also, a small claw was found by Martin Simpson and identified as part of a manual ungual of Baryonyx. In 1998 a manual phalange (supposed to be the very one that supported Baryonyx’ large claw) was taken by the Isle of Wight Geology (now Dinosaur Isle) from the Carisbrooke Castle Museum. Often times, when scientists discover a fossil that seems unimportant, they will place it in museum storage or a basement. Such was the case with this forearm found on the southwest coast of the Isle of Wight. Decades later, it was rediscovered in an old box, unclassified and forgotten, in the Carisbrooke Castle. Two snout fragments found in the Aptian of Niger, Africa may have been Baryonyx. A tooth crown from east Sussex, another from Surrey, and seven from the Isle of Wight could also be Baryonyx.   Characteristics               Although the only fairly complete specimen of Baryonyx is a juvenile (9.5 meters long and 3.6 meters tall) due to the undeveloped skull bones (not fused). Estimates can be made to decide its length as an adult. A fair estimate is 11.7 meters but 12 meters is possible. The claws of Baryonyx are probably its most astonishing feature. Each one was about 35 centimeters long, nearly curved to a half circle and could have been used as a hook for grappling fish and other pray. These claws are not the only feature that suggests that Baryonyx ate fish. Its jaws are exceptionally crocodile-like as will be discussed below. Baryonyx teeth are, unlike most other theropods, sharp and pointed at the tips. They are not serrated at the edges like other carnivorous dinosaurs. Instead, they are smooth, not unlike the modern crocodiles. Although the primary diet of crocodiles, alligators, grails, and caimans is fish, they also eat land animals that come to drink or enter the water that they dwell in. I would presume, then, that Baryonyx did the much same thing. It would have been opportunistic; preying mainly on fish, but it would not hesitate to view any other animal that crossed its path potential pray in addition to fish. Baryonyx also had a bulbous at the end of its upper jaw (minimal in comparison to that of the crocodilian, the grail, but still a bulbous and a bit of a hook none the less) used, likely, for keeping slippery fish from sliding out of the jaws. It also had nostrils farther away from the end of the snout, enabling it has its jaws underwater for prolonged periods of time. This suggest, fairly strongly, that Baryonyx feeding habits where very similar to that of the grail. Later, researcher Emily Rayfield used X-rays to create a computer model of the skull of Baryonyx. The results revealed that, not only did Baryonyx have a head that looked like a crocodile; it also bent and stretched like one. It would have been very good at resisting becoming mangled (minimizing the chance of injury while clinging to squirming prey) and maneuvering quickly to catch fast moving prey. Turning back to the fossils themselves, rather than speculating from computer models, we find that they point to the same conclusion. In the stomach of the BMNH R9951 specimen there was found the remains of a fish, belonging to the genus Lepidotes. This practically tells us directly that Baryonyx was a piscivorous (fish-eater). But don’t jump to a conclusion. Along with the fish remains there was revealed pieces of a juvenile Iguanodon (an ornithopod dinosaur). So, although having a diet mainly of fish Baryonyx was also an opportunist, feeding on anything it could find. That is what I would conclude. Another not-so-crocodilian feature is a small crest or horn just in front of, and between, the dinosaur’s eyes.             Comments   The dinosaur’s Genus, Baryonyx, means ‘heavy claw’ (Greek ‘baros’ meaning heavy and ‘onyx’ meaning claw or nail). This is obviously in reference to the large claw positioned on its slightly longer than would be expected arm (that is, in comparison to other large theropods). The species title was given in honor of its discoverer, Bill Walker. So came about the name of Baryonyx walkeri. We will never know exactly what Baryonyx was like in life, but dragon sightings and descriptions, as well as paleontology, can tell us enough to spur our imaginations onward. That’s what paleontology is all about.   Baryonyx lapparenti               This is the scratchiest of the Baryonyx species because of its fragmentary remains.             Classification                     I have decided to bunch this dinosaur into the Genus Baryonyx. Originally called Cristatusaurus lapparenti, many now consider it to be a synonym to Baryonyx.             Discovery   B. lapparenti was described by Taquet and Russell in 1998 on the bases of jaw fragments from two individuals (MHN GDF 366 and MHN GDF 365) discovered in Morocco in 1973. These are now located in the Heorg-August University in Gottingen, Germany. Although not much can be said from a few jaw fragments, they are incredibly similar to B. tenerensis and B. walkeri.   Characteristics   I have heard the estimate of eight to ten meters and twenty-five hundred to thirty-four hundred kilograms, but its skull was less than half the size of B. walkeri and was a lot smaller. Along with B. walkeri, it was probably a juvenile. It was originally thought to have a horn or crest protruding from the snout but this was later found to be part of the jaw that had been crushed and broken to protrude outward; looking much like horn. It did, however, have a small crest between the eyes along with all spinosaurs.   Comments               I have really said very little about B. lapparenti because of a lack of fossil evidence and hopefully the future will bring some new discoveries. Cristatusaurus means ‘crested lizard’ because of the bone that was though to have jutted out like a horn from the snout. It is still a nice name, though, you have to admit. ‘Cristatusaurus’; say it out loud. ‘Cristatusaurus’.             Coming soon: Baryonyx tenerensis References: Dino-world. Baryonyx walkeri. Feenixx Publishing, Inc. 7/27/2008. http://www.dinosaur-world.com/weird_dinosaurs/baryonyx_walkerii.htm                         Wikipedia The free encyclopedia. Baryonyx. 7/20/2008. Wikimedia. 7/27/2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonyx Other references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonyx   http://www.dinosaur-world.com/weird_dinosaurs/baryonyx_walkerii.htm   http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Baryonyx.shtml   http://www.geocities.com/dinowight/baryonyx.html   http://dml.cmnh.org/1997Aug/msg00839.html   http://www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6148&Itemid=67   http://www.livescience.com/animals/080113-fishy-dinosaur.html   http://www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6172&Itemid=67   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristatusaurus   http://dinobase.gly.bris.ac.uk/frontend/dinobase_pageViewSpecies.php?id=874   http://www.projectexploration.org/suchomimus.htm   www.keltationsart.com/suchomimus.htm   http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/98/981112.suchomimus.data.shtml   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchomimus   http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Dinosaurs/Suchomimustenerensis.html   http://the_dinosauria.tripod.com/suchomimus.html   news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/213073.stm   http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2008/01/feeding-adaptations-and-strategies-of.html   http://dml.cmnh.org/2000Dec/msg00555.html   http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5392/1276?ck=nck         http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/588261/ Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:53:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/588261/ I feel that my book, The Spinosauridae, sums up how I feel about evolution so here is that chapter:   Evolution   Introduction               I have decided to devote a chapter of this book to evolution in a whole. The original hypothesis of evolution came about when Charles Darwin was on the HMS Beagle. On this ship he deserted God and attempted to tell the story of creation excluding God. Although the base of modern “scientific” thinking has dramatically changed since then, the nitty-gritty of evolution has basically stayed the same. There are two ‘kinds’ of evolution. The first, macroevolution, is what most think of when they hear ‘evolution’. It is the hypothesis that all organisms today have a common ancestor and that one animal can ‘evolve’ or ‘change’ into a completely different animal. The second, microevolution, is the theory that all animals are capable of changing (not so much evolving, in the common sense of the word), through genetic mutation, into a very similar species. I believe strongly in microevolution but strongly oppose macroevolution, as is discussed below.   Macroevolution               I have already discussed the basics of macroevolution in the previous chapter so now I am going to debunk some of the more fundamental ingredients to this hypothesis. The first is the geological column. Scientists will try to tell you that the lower down into the geological column you go, the more primitive the organisms. Now, before going further, I would like to make note than no animal is primitive. All are more complex than anything man could ever dream of creating. That’s all. As I was saying; if you go higher on the geological column, the organisms should generally be more complex. This is inconclusive, however. Consider this; at least ninety-five percent of all fossils are mollusks. These mollusks are found throughout the entire geological column. Of the remaining five percent, ninety-five percent of that are marine vertebrates, particularly fish. Of that remaining five percent, 95 percent are insects. The remaining five percent of these fossils are reptiles, plants, and mammals. Dinosaurs make up a tiny fraction of this. At the least, I would say that this is inconclusive. So, ignoring the vast majority of fossils found and extracting only the information wanted, it sure could seem like the evidence points to macroevolution. Assuming that the geological column does get older as it gets deeper (we don’t actually know this), and assuming that organisms do get more complex as the layers get higher, than the geological column could very well be evidence for macroevolution. Also, it is very likely (I believe so) that the geological column was formed over a short time during Noah’s flood, as where many layers during the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption. When it comes down to it, it’s your choice, but a lot must be assumed, and it may depend on what your previously conceived ideas were. Some would continue to persist in saying that macroevolution were still possible, but that is their personal rejection of a creator and will, in the end, be their own downfall. (Was that out loud?)             Another major problem for macroevolution is the fact that there aren’t any intermediate forms. No ‘missing links’ you might call them for any organisms. Sadly, scientists teach there are such creatures, but I am about to explain why some of these are not intermediate forms.             Firstly, probably the most common illustration you will see demonstrating stages in evolution is that of the horse. It starts with Eohippus, to Mesohippus, to Merychippus, to Pliohippus, to Equus (the modern horse). Studying the skulls and leg bones only, would show you that they do appear to evolve, one into the other. But looking at the rest of the skeleton will tell you that these are the only bones that seem to show this. The ribs, vertebrae, etc. show no gradual changes.             Another problem for evolutionists is that all five of these animals are found in variously different parts of the world, suggesting that they had evolved separately (looking at it from an evolutionists point of view).             The last and, in my opinion, the greatest problem with this sequence is the fact the most ‘primitive’ of these animals, Eohippus, should be in the lowest geological column, while the most ‘advanced’, Equus, should be in the highest. Both these animals are found in the same rock layers together! Surprise, surprise. And although they continue to show this in museums around the world, the evolutionists already know the problems with this sequence. Dr. Niles Eldredge, the curator at the American museum of Natural History and a believer in Macroevolution states the following. “I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in his museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable…” (As quoted in Exploring Creation With Biology, by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell, 1998, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.  p. 289)             There have been innumerable claims on ape/human missing links but most even the evolutionists have declared inaccurate. One, though, has stood longer than the rest. Called Australopithecus afarensis, it is evident from the hip that the animal could stand upright. Of course, even modern chimps can stand upright. And, as would be expected, the Australopithecus knuckles showed that it walked on them just as much as a modern chimp. But once again, when it comes down to it, it will depend upon your preconceived ideas.             There are, of course, many other claims for intermediate links such as Archaeopteryx, numerous hominids (as the evolutionists refer to them as), and lobe-finned fishes but none have ever proven to be valid and none will. Yet, I can not say that they are definitely not intermediate forms. The only thing that can make up your mind is your previously conceived ideas, or the acceptance of Jesus’ loving gift of eternal life.   Microevolution   Microevolution is obvious and all around us. During the Industrial Revolution, as the amount of pollution to the air raised, the bark of some of the trees turned sooty black from the filth. The white moths with black speckles that lived in the forest where soon appearing black with white speckles. Obviously the white ones where more noticeable to predators and were devoured more often than those with darker markings. Before long, the dark moths where breeding with dark moths making even darker moths, which produced even darker moths, and so on. The gene for light colored moths was lost. This happens often, as was the case with the Galapagos finches. During a drought, only the finches with beaks most able to eat a secondary diet of insects rather than seeds could survive and live on to become a new species (as scientists classify them). It is not evolution, as some may suppose, but natural selection. The finch has not become an eagle (although some have become entirely carnivorous due to the curse), or a dinosaur, or anything else but, instead, it has stayed a finch, as should be expected. It is a loss of genetic information; the moths lost the gene of light coloration, certain finch populations lost the gene for the regular finch beak. This can happen, not only through natural selection, but also through mutations, as was probably the case with many of the finches.   Comments               My final comments on evolution have to do with dinosaurs (finally). Were dinosaurs feathered? I can blatantly tell you that no dinosaur has been found with feathers; yet. Although, many have been found with fuzz running down their backs it could have been anything; fur (that is an interesting thought), braces to hold the backbone rigid, or even a new material; a form of bristles. Three animals, claimed as dinosaurs and definitely feathered, have been discovered and claimed as missing links. Archaeopteryx (mentioned earlier) had fully formed feathers, toes that could move back and wrap around a branch (like modern birds), entirely functional wing muscles for flight, and overall birdlike. Although it had teeth, so do other modern birds and this proves nothing.             The second ‘dino-bird’ is Confuciusornis, a 100% bird by all means except the claws on its wings (Archaeopteryx also shares this feature). But many birds today also have claws on their wings such as the hoatzin, the ostrich, and others.             Lastly, Caudipteryx, I believe, is a bird, but I have done little research on this animal and I might even say it is completely unique in itself and is neither bird nor dinosaur. God did create many strange creatures. But it did have fully formed feathers and I admit (depending on the artist) it can look dinosaur like. But so can the previously described animals if they are illustrated to appear more reptilian than not. Fossils can tell us a lot about dinosaurs…but art fills in the rest. I love being an artist.             My last point would be that many dragon sightings, cave drawings, and dragon descriptions of the past point to Dinosaurs and people living side by side together. The synonymy of dinosaurs and dragons is all too evident to me. If you have any questions about the previous chapter extracted from my book, please don't hesitate to ask. Here are my references for this chapter: Dr. Wile, Jay L. and Durnell, Marilyn F. Exploring Creation with Biology. Printed by: Cincinnati, OH: The C.J. Krehbiel Company. Published by Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.   Lightner, Jean K. ‘Identification of species within the sheep-goat kind (Tsoan monobaramin)’. Journal of Creation. Volume 20(3) 2006, ISSN 1036-2916.   Silvestru, Emil. ‘Flying dinosaurs, flightless dinosaurs and other evolutionary fantasies’. Journal of Creation. Volume 20(2) 2006, ISSN 1036-2916.     http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/579315/ Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:39:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/579315/ As I have mentioned before, rock music is wrong. To convince you of my opinion I will take you step by step through the facts. Then you can form your own opinion if you don’t already have one. The first thing that should be clarified is the definition of rock music. Rock music is defined by its beat. It can be soft rock, acid rock, or ‘Christian rock’. It is still rock. Whether it has inoffensive words, or even worshipful words (as is the case with ‘Christian rock’) it is still rock music. Rock music is very primal and fleshly; having a way of making one act without thinking and get pleasure from it without knowing why. It will also make the listener angry or emotional for no apparent reason. These are the downfalls of rock music. The advantages of rock music are not nearly as numerous. Some might say that it is enjoyable...but are you willing to put your personal preference above what is good for Christians to listen to? Anger without a purpose, lack of thought, and often action without thinking are all shortcomigns of what Jesus wants. Others may say that because the world enjoys rock music we should have rock music in the church and Christian holms as a form of outreach. We, as Christians are to stay a step above those who have not accepted Christ, rather than doing what they do merely to give them a false impression of what Christians should be like (I have already given some good reasons not to listen to rock). If you can think of anymore good reasons to listen to rock (or even reasons not to, if you support me on this issue) please email me. I would love to dig deeper into compromise in the church as a subject, but I should stay on the same track. Drums (bongos included) are among the most ancient of instruments, yet for some reason they are never mentioned as an instrument of praise in the bible. They are, in fact, not mentioned at all (take a look for yourself). Cymbles are, but drums are not. And again, these instruments tend to have the same effect as rock music along with electric guitars. Better to be safe than sorry, though I do not believe it is a salvation issue. If you have any questions, points or comments, do not hesitate to email me about rock music. I ask that you keep your emails polite; I do not tolerate bad language, and insults do not make a point (except, perhaps, that you do not agree and are angry; I want to know why).   http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/576845/ Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/576845/ As a Christian, my faith in God, The Creator, and the fact that he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross is the foremost of all my beliefs. Some of my smaller, but still established, beliefs are the fallowing, most of which I hope to discuss in the future.   -I believe that rock music is very primal and it, along with various instruments (including drums, bongos, and electric guitars) are to be avoided by Christians. I have found it is possible to blend these instruments with others without it sounding to ‘fleshly’ but most often this is not the case. -Evolution is the direct negligence of The Creator. Although it is my faith and love for Jesus that keeps me from believing this hypothesis, there is no evidence supporting it that has not been disproved.   -Although I believe that global warming is there, I don’t believe it is a problem. Throughout history the world has experienced waves of heat and waves of cold and I believe this to be no different. I love nature and creation but our primary goal as Christians is not to save the earth, but to save as many people (bring them to the faith) as we can before the earth is destroyed. The bottom line for global warming; I realy don't know enough to form a firm opinion.   -Compromise is wrong. Christians should never compromise there standards for anything. To often Christians (particularly the modern church) compromise there faith to fit in, keeping people from feeling left out, to keep themselves from feeling left out, etcetera. The modern church is far to excepting of the world's evil. We are in the world, but we are not of it.   The above is only an outline of what I believe. Hopfully I will be able to elaborate on this in the future. As for my personal doings, I am (as said above) an enthusiastic naturalist. This shows in all my hobbies; which are many. Photography has become a major part of my summer and I hope to display some here, on my blog. My photos are composed mostly of nature, particularly up-close photos of insects, flowers, and herps. Scenery is also a common subject. My artwork is composed of people, and nature (more often than not; dinosaurs, as these are my favorite creatures). It is worth mentioning that I consider nude art, or anything similar to it, perverse. I go for hikes frequently while sketching and writing notes on what I see. Camping makes up much of my summer vacationing with my family, whom I am extremely grateful and owe much respect. I have plenty of pets. The number is continually fluctuating but some of my zoos permanent residences are a pair of Leopard geckos, a community tank of tropical fish, two Red eared slider turtles, and one Mississippi map turtle. I have had experience in keeping Pacific tree frogs, Red-legged frogs, Bull frogs, Rough skinned newts, Northwestern salamanders, Long toed salamanders, Wandering salamanders, Northwestern garter snakes, Valley garter snakes, Northwestern alligator lizards, House crickets, Darkling beetles, Ground beetles, other insects, and various fuzzy family pets. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/576360/ Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:10:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/focusonmylord/576360/