nature programs, science or superstition?

Three nature programs under review

Read how standard nature programs present both accurate and imaginative material

In the following, I will examine three nature programs on Finnish television. They dealt with dinosaurs, the first animals and the supposed evolution of man. The names of the programs were:

• Secrets of the Jurassic Dinosaurs (Production: BBC/Science Channel/CBC and Radio-Canada, Great Britain 2023.)

• First Animals ( production: Red Trillium Films Inc./CBC, Canada 2019)

• The Human Revolution (Production: Wildbear Entertainment/ABC, Australia)

What can be said about these programs? They are characterized by the fact that they are told from an atheistic and naturalistic point of view. It means that the programs do not accept God's work of creation, but assume that life arose by itself and then developed into its current forms over millions of years. This atheistic view and millions of years are taken for granted in the programs.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with that if an atheistic and naturalistic understanding of the origin and development of life itself is brought forward. If this view is true and true, then we just have to accept it whether we like it or not. It's not worth standing up against the truth.

However, if it is a false view, as I assume, then the creators of the programs themselves are making false and baseless claims. I don't mean that this is done on purpose, but I see it as a result of a false worldview guiding the program makers and researchers.

Anyway, in the following I will briefly discuss these programs and their content. I'll start with a program called Secrets of the Jurassic Dinosaurs (Production: BBC/Science Channel/CBC and Radio-Canada, Great Britain 2023.).

Secrets of the Jurassic Dinosaurs -program

This program tells about one of the dinosaur discovery sites in the Wyoming desert in the United States. The program follows the work of paleontologists as they study the occurrence of more than 600 dinosaur fossils and their footprints. The introduction to the program asks: "What were these huge monstrous lizards like and what events led to their mass extinction more than 100 million years ago?"

What can be concluded from this program? First of all, I emphasize that the scientists appearing in the program are certainly doing good scientific work when they study dinosaur skeletons, footprints and habitats and try to deduce from them what these animals were like, how they moved and what they ate. This is the kind of science that is based on strong research and cannot be questioned very easily. This kind of research should be taken seriously because it has good scientific grounds.

Instead, I will bring up two things that are worth questioning and taking into consideration. They are questions about when dinosaurs appeared on earth and became extinct, and what caused their destruction.

For example, this Dinosaur Graveyard program tells about the dinosaurs of Wyoming, which are supposed to have lived in the so-called during the Jurassic period and that they became extinct more than 100 million years ago. The program takes it for granted that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but doesn't present a single piece of evidence for it. This method of operation is also common in other nature programs. They take it for granted that dinosaurs or other animals lived on earth millions of years ago, but do not present proper evidence that they actually lived that long ago.

So how can we conclude that dinosaurs or some other organisms really lived tens of millions of years ago? How is this known? From nowhere. No one can know with certainty the real age of old fossils if they have not lived at the same time themselves. Whenever we see old fossils we face this problem. Fossils don't have tags to tell when they lived.

We can compare three examples from this area: dinosaurs, mammoths and humans. Often, when old dinosaur and mammoth fossils are found, they may be just as well preserved and in better condition than many human remains. Soft tissues, skin, blood cells, radiocarbon and even DNA can be found in both, which is not always found in even a few thousand old human mummies. Soft tissues, blood cells, radiocarbon and DNA show that there is absolutely no question of millions of years. In addition, fossils of dinosaurs and mammoths can be found right near the surface of the earth. For example, Wyoming's dinosaur discoveries are like this.

So the question is why mammoths are believed to have died out only a few thousand years ago, but dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. Is there any scientific basis for this? The answer is that there is no way to prove it. If the fossils of both are equally good preserved and equally close to the surface of the earth, it is useless to try to claim that one is millions of years older than the other. There is no scientific justification for this. Anyone who claims otherwise is outside of real science.

It is very possible and probable that both animals, as well as man, have lived on earth at the same time. This view found in the Bible is very likely. I don't bother to deal with it any more here, because I have taken a stand on it in my other writings. I myself am convinced that the evidence for the simultaneous presence of mammoths, dinosaurs and early humans on earth is convincing. The researchers do admit the simultaneous existence of mammoths and early humans on earth, but they do not take into account that in human tradition there are also repeated references to dragons that resemble dinosaurs. The term dinosaur was only invented in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, there was talk of dragons, as the following quote says:

The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, s. 265)

So what about the extinction of the dinosaurs? What caused their destruction? I personally understand that most of them died in the Flood, but some lived even after that.

This view that water was involved in the destruction of the dinosaurs is also well presented in the "Secrets of the Jurassic Dinosaurs" -program. It tells how the remains of sea animals, such as the dolphin-like ichthyosaurus and belemnites, have been found near the dinosaur fossils. In other words, Sea animals and land animals (dinosaurs) are buried close to each other. How is this possible? I personally understand that this is due to the Flood.

The explanation presented in the program for these discoveries is that the ichthyosaurus first lived in the area so that the area was a sea, and then dinosaurs came to replace it when the same area turned into dry land. However, a better explanation is that both animals have lived around at the same time on Earth, but the Flood has brought these Sea Animals and Land Animals into contact with each other so that they have been buried close to each other. The following quotes refer to how dinosaur bones, plants and tree trunks have been washed together into a big mess, how large stones have been dragged along the bottom of the river and how the dinosaurs ended up in a grave filled with floodwater. These are strong references to the Flood. Today, this kind of burial and fossilization of large animals usually does not happen or is observed. In a disaster like the Flood, it is possible:

Evidence of water has been found in the lower excavation . There are ripple marks in the mud layer , which may have been created at the bottom of a shallow pond.

Phil is not only interested in the bone itself, but also in the way it has been buried. The scapula is found in a mound where there were many other fossils. "Here there are bones, plants and tree trunks that have washed together into a big mess." This is an important clue that may explain why so many animals died here . A large river probably flowed in the area, which flooded with fatal consequences. "Large stones have been dragged along the bottom of the river. It indecates that the river has flooded... The dinosaurs ended up in a grave filled with floodwater ."

This is an ichthyosaurus, a marine reptile . Marine reptiles lived in the time of the dinosaurs... This reptile adapted well to life in water. It even looked like a dolphin. In addition to the predator that lived in the sea, researchers have also found its prey next to it. “These are belemnites, parts of an animal that resembled an octopus ..." The marine animal bones reveal that Wyoming has not always been without a sea connection. For more than ten million years, in the middle of the Jurassic period, this area was covered by the Sundance Sea . “Sundance Sea resembled of the shallow seas of the Bahamas. It sure was beautiful. When the sea disappeared, the habitat changed completely. The fauna also changed completely. Ichthyosaurs were replaced by dinosaurs.

So there were quotes from the "Secrets of the Jurassic Dinosaurs" -program. The quotes show how the dinosaurs died in a Flood-like event. Now these animals have become extinct, as has happened to many other species over the centuries. Extinction is not uncommon, as many species have become extinct even in the last couple of hundred years.

I will also quote from another program about dinosaurs called "Dinosaur Apocalypse" (Production: BBC/PBS/France Télévisions, Great Britain, 2022.). It was shown on Finnish television (2023) and I wrote about that program earlier this year.

This program told about the Hell Creek dinosaur deposit. It highlighted how marine animals, fish, trees and dinosaur remains were found side by side in the same strata at the Hell Creek dinosaur deposit.

The question is; how on earth can fish, ammonites (sea animals), trees and dinosaurs appear buried so close to each other? The program did not know how to connect this with the Flood mentioned in the Bible, but such an event is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of these different fossils in the same strata and next to each other. The program admitted that water was involved in the destruction of the dinosaurs. I'm quoting from this program, which clearly refers to the Flood, and which shows that the dinosaurs died in this great catastrophe. The program also admits that the tsunami that killed the Hell Creek dinosaurs must have been at least a kilometer high:

Here is the freshwater environment of the Hell Creek formation. The shard, glowing in shades of neon red and green, comes from the shell of a spiral-shaped sea animal, an ammonite. This marine organism has entered a freshwater environment where it does not belong. How the ammonites ended up here is a mystery.

The rock layer is therefore porous and about a meter thick. That and other unusual features point to an extraordinary event in Robert's opinion. Perhaps a flood or a mudslide happened here, which buried everything under it in an instant.

Robert's team follows an attractive chain of leads. The first clue is the fossils of fish that experienced mass extinction.

Here is wood. Against it, the carcasses of the fish have been squeezed tight.

Here are some fossils here and there. Here is one and next to it another sturgeon facing this way. Below the pond sturgeon is another sturgeon. Its body goes under the tree trunk and appears on the other side.

According to Robert's theory, the fish caught in the backlog of tree trunks and surrounded by the spheres died after being caught in some kind of flood and were quickly buried in the sediment. That is why they have been preserved so well. What caused the tidal wave? According to one hypothesis, an asteroid hitting the sea caused a tsunami. Now we are talking about a completely different kind of tsunami. It was much higher and bigger than modern day tsunamis. ... Its height was at least a kilometer.

Could a tsunami have caused the stratification seen in Tanis?

So there were quotes from the program "Dinosaur Apocalypse". All the descriptions were related to the well-known dinosaur deposit, i.e. the Hell Creek area, where remains of fish and other marine animals were also found next to dinosaurs (land animals). Sea animals, land plants and land animals (dinosaurs) were buried close to each other.

So what about the time of the dinosaurs' extinction? As I said, most of them died in the Flood, but some lived even after that. This is evidenced by numerous traditions that tell about dragons that resemble dinosaurs. Thus, the extinction of these large animals does not have to be a long time since dragons have been referred to and are found in paintings and statues of the early Middle Ages. For example, early Mesopotamian cylinder seals feature dragons necking each other, with tails almost as long as their necks (Moortgat, A., The art of ancient Mesopotamia, Phaidon Press, London 1969, pp. 1,9,10 and Plate A.). Such a discovery, like dozens of other similar discoveries, suggests that dragons/dinosaurs were known in the early days of mankind. I have written more on the subject in my other writings.

The First Animals -program

Next, we explore the program “First Animals” (Production: Red Trillium Films Inc./CBC, Canada 2019). It tells how a rich fossil deposit, the Burgess Shale, has been discovered in the Canadian Rockies, with thousands of marine animal fossils. They are supposed to have been more than 500 million years old, i.e. they represent the first animals on Earth. The program tells as follows:

An incredible story is hidden in the folds of these mountains. We fly to the Canadian Rockies to look for fossils dating back 500 million years. Fossils of the first animals on Earth.

The place reveals the early stages of animal evolution. Why did the number of animal species explode 500 million years ago? What factors contributed to the Cambrian species explosion? ... Animals appeared only 500 million years ago. Why only then? Before the Cambrian period, the oceans were toxic. The water was oxygen-free and full of bacteria. Then the climate warmed and the melting of the ice changed the composition of the sea water. The oceans became environments suitable for life. Life is born if evolution gets a chance.

What can be brought up from the previous quotes? First, the birth of life. The program says that "Life is born if evolution gets a chance."However, this is wishful thinking for which there is no scientific evidence. No scientist has been able to and will not be able to prove the origin of life by itself to be true, so the program gives false information on the matter. The more the subject has been studied, the bigger the problem is the emergence of life by itself. It is much more reasonable to assume that God created everything. God's work of creation is also proven by the fact that all fossil species, including the Burgess Shale fossils as well as the current species, are completely finished and developed (no half-finished adult specimens have been found in nature). They are not half developed, but fully finished, which fits well with the creation model.

Secondly, attention can be drawn to the claim that the fossils in the Burgess Shale are more than 500 million years old. How is this known? From nowhere. Here again, a claim is made that is impossible to prove true. No one can prove that these fossils are that old. It's impossible because the fossils don't have any tags or information about them being that old.

Because, as stated earlier, it is impossible to estimate the age of fossils. There is no scientific way to show that the mammoth, dinosaur, or Burgess Shale fossil animals are of different ages, that is, lived at different times on Earth. All these animals could have lived at the same time, but in different ecological compartments, just as today there are different species in the seas and on land. They live in different areas but at the same time on Earth. It is reasonable to believe that it has been the same in the past.

Then to the next quote from the program. It tells how dinosaurs, mammals, and insects evolved from Cambrian animals represented by the fossil animals of the Burgess Shale.

I am interested in the animals from which dinosaurs, mammals and insects evolved: the precursors of all animals.

There is something magical about splitting a rock that is more than 500 million years old... Really true. Evolution started from the life of the first animals, and based on that, the family tree of animals was built, which also includes humans. Tons of fossils and more than 200 species of the first animals have been found in the Canadian Rockies. How many species are waiting to be discovered in the caches of stones. What information do the new discoveries bring about the origin of man? The first stages of animal evolution have only just begun to take shape.

I will not discuss the topic further here. I will only state that the evidence for all current species originating from the same primordial cell is still lacking. Fossils do not show the gradual development required by the theory of evolution. The species, both current and fossil species, are completely complete, and there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record. Thus, the previous program makes a completely unfounded claim.

The following quotes refer to this point, the lack of gradual development. These quotes are comments from well-known paleontologists and fossil experts, and they certainly know the fossil material well. There is no reason to believe that dinosaurs, mammals and insects have evolved from the so-called of Cambrian animals. Variation in organisms does occur within the framework of their heredity, but the idea of all animals being inherited from the same original cell is wishful thinking for which no evidence can be found. The so-called evolutionary tree, i.e. the family tree of animals, which was mentioned in the quote and which describes this type of development, is false. It is much more reasonable to believe that all species have been simultaneously on earth from the beginning as a result of creation, but some of them, such as dinosaurs and some of the species of the Burgess Shale deposit are extinct. This model fits the facts better.

It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)

Stephen Jay Gould: I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (1).

Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (2)

What about the discovery site of the organisms in the Burgess Shale deposit? It is over two kilometers high in the Canadian Rockies. The program refers to how this area, which is now high on a mountain, used to be the former seabed, but then the animals were trapped under mudslides and died. Now the fossils have to be removed from the stones with a hammer and chisel, because they are stuck in the hardened mud:

When a promising wall is found, samples are searched for by chiseling rocks. If creatures are found in the rocks, a mine is established…. You never know what will be revealed inside the stone. It is known that this place was once the bottom of the ocean. During the Cambrian period, the seas teemed with life until the animals were trapped under mudslides and died. The mud hardened into shale, and the animals remained hidden inside the rocks for over 500 million years.

According to the researcher, there are "ecological snapshots" inside the stones. There are animals here that lived together and were buried together under a mudslide. Their fate is only a small part of the story that is being revealed to us 500 million years later.

When you split a rock, you never know what's inside. It feels amazing to see for the first time an animal that has been trapped in the mud for 500 million years.... This corner is off. Wonderful. What's in it? Here is a school of fish.

What can be concluded from the above? Ideas about 500 million years can be ignored because there is no proper evidence for them. Instead, the cause of the animals' death becomes clear: they were caught under mudslides. Otherwise, no fossils would have been preserved from them until these days. This matter again points to a Flood-like event where mudslides buried these animals. Fossilization usually does not occur, but in the great lood this may have happened.

What about the Burgess Shale marine life Discovery site at an altitude of more than two kilometers and far from the sea? How did these organisms get there? According to the theory of evolution, marine fossils from the Cambrian period should be found in the lowest strata, but here they appear at the top, i.e. above dinosaurs, humans and land animals.

Surely the most reasonable explanation is the Flood, which according to the Bible covered all the high mountains. This is proven by the fact that fossils of marine animals have been found in all mountains: the Himalayas, the Andes, the Alps, etc. Marine fossils are even found on Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world. A quote from a book from 1938 shows how fish remains were found on Mount Everest:

In the glaciers of the Himalayas there are bones of oxen and horses. An avalanche of ice that originated on a glacier at an altitude of 5000 metres brought such bones. A large English expedition, reaching almost the top of Mount Everest, discovered petrified fish at these heights lying on the mountain. (3)

The conclusion from the above is that the Flood is the most likely cause of the Burgess Shale fossils, like the other fossils that occur in the soil by the millions. Today, hardly any fossils are born. It is a very rare event.

Hundreds of Flood stories that occur in different parts of the world among different peoples also testify in favor of the Flood. The widespread circulation of this narrative is good evidence for the historicity of the flood.

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78)

If the world-wide Flood was not real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions, large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these tales as individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable. (The Earth)

The Human Revolution -program

Finally, we move on to the examination of the third program, "The Human Revolution." (Production: Wildbear Entertainment/ABC, Australia). In the introductory speech of this two-part program, it is said that "in the series, we learn about the evolution of man from his original home in Africa to the conquest of the world. How has man developed as a species, how have different cultures been born and how have we shaped our environment?" In addition, the program tells how the earliest primate is supposed to have lived in Africa seven million years ago. Modern man is supposed to have evolved from this earliest primate, as shown in the following quote from the program:

If we go back to the very beginning of human history, the earliest primate from which modern humans can be considered to have evolved, that was seven million years ago in Africa. Human history goes back seven million years. The period is extremely long and there are very few fossils.

What can be said about this program? It is very similar to the previous programs. There is a lot of good scientific stuff in it, which certainly cannot be questioned. However, the age and hereditary relationships of fossils can be questioned.

First, the age of the fossils. As stated earlier, it is impossible to determine the exact age of fossils. The creators of the programs talk about millions of years as a matter of course, but how do we know this? From nowhere. It is impossible to date fossils as millions of years old, because the fossils themselves have no labels or information about them being that old. It could just as well be thousands of years. The age numbers in question are based only on the assumption that evolution and the millions of years it requires are true.

Secondly, it is worth paying attention to hereditary relationships. In the theory of evolution, it is assumed that everything started from one primordial cell, from which all current life forms then developed. Humans are also believed to have originated from the same primordial cell and, in the final stages, from ape-like creatures, from which modern humans, Homo Sapiens, gradually evolved.

But as stated, gradual evolution has never been observed in fossils. This also rules out human development. Evolutionists can arrange the fossils of people or supposed human ancestors found in the ground in some kind of order of development according to their beliefs (evolutionary tree), but this evolutionary tree has nothing to do with real science. The problem is that fossils do not prove gradual development and, secondly, that it is not possible to prove what is inherited from where.

The issue is also made problematic by the fact that it cannot be shown that the supposed human ancestors were substantially older than ordinary modern humans. Evolutionary theory requires this, but in fact the remains of modern humans are repeatedly found in strata considered to be just as old or even older than the remains of their supposed ancestors. This suggests that the supposed ancestors of man and modern humans have been living simultaneously on earth all along. It even more clearly rules out development, and shows that it never happened.

As for this particular program, it does not deal with the earliest supposed ancestors of man, such as, for example, the Australopithecus class, which is believed to have lived 4.2 to 2.0 million years ago. This in itself is a good thing, because Australopithecus was certainly an ordinary ape, not a human or a human ancestor. I have referred to it in my other writings, where several researchers consider it to be a common ape, because the shape and size of its skull and other features of the skeleton pointed in that direction.

So what is left? There are no like ordinary people and monkeys. The program talks about Homo Erectus, Denisovan man and Neanderthal man, but they were certainly all ordinary people, similar to modern man. The program admits that these groups have interacted and crossed paths with each other. This shows that it has always been about ordinary people.

"There has been a lot of crossover. Some groups have been successful, while others have lost. DNA shows that the human species generally crossed with each other." We are used to thinking of the evolution of humanity as a tree, where each species forms its own branch. In the light of the new information, the whole appears more like a network. Different species have interacted and crossed with each other. As more information about Neanderthal people and Denisovan people accumulates, it is revealed that the species have not completely disappeared. Some of them have been preserved in modern humans.

Today it is admitted that the differences between the previous groups are artificial. Their body structure resembles each other. Homo Erectus and Neanderthal man are certainly sturdier than many modern humans, but similar shapes occur in modern humans as well. In addition, the cultural and artefact finds related to these groups show that they were ordinary people.

Furthermore, several researchers have come to the conclusion that these groups should not be considered separate from the Homo Sapiens class. Therefore, they have proposed to include Homo Erectus and other groups in the category Homo Sapiens. They see the differences between Homo erectus, Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens as so insignificant that they consider everyone as a normal human. Among others, Milford Wolpoff, who is said to have seen more of the original hominid fossil material than anyone else, has proposed and pursued this point of view.

These examples show how it is questionable to believe in human evolution. The evidence for it is weak or completely absent. It is more reasonable to believe that man has been ready and perfect from the beginning. So I see that the Human Revolution -program is based more on imagination than real science. It's about turning to fables and lies.

Finally, one more matter mentioned in the program will be examined. The program referred to the fact that human ancestors originated in Africa and later migrated from there to different parts of the globe:

The family group of hominids repeatedly branched into several different species. One of the oldest was Homo erectus, or upright man, who is considered the first hominid species to walk upright, like modern humans. Homo erectus spread from Africa to Europe and Asia about two million years ago. Later, other hominid species also migrated in several waves to different parts of the globe... The history of spreading is still incompletely known.

What can be answered to the previous one? First of all, it must be stated that several researchers have questioned the Africa hypothesis. They have always considered it weakly justified. Even the program admits that "The history of spreading is still incompletely known".

However, there is a much more justified starting point for man's original home: the Middle East, i.e. especially the region of Mesopotamia. There are simple reasons for this, such as that people's traditional information points to this region, that the first buildings and cities were built in this region, and that the world's cereal species originate from the same region. This view also appears in Genesis. The following quote tells more about the subject. The concept of Africa, to which e.g. Darwin believed, can be dismissed as unscientific.

William Dawson asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning.

Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result." (4)

REFERENCES:

1. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

2. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in Godrey (ed.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

3. Raamatullinen aikakauskirja, p. 17

4. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175