A Missing Link Without A Chain

Here we go again with another few scientists wishing to market the idea they have found ‘the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage,’ says Hurum. Dr Jorn Hurum’s claims are that ‘Ida’ is supposedly at 47 million-year-old fossil of a 9 month old female, with ‘a foot bone called the talus bone links Ida directly to humans.’ Not to mention her dental analysis (‘the lack of a "toothcomb" or a "grooming claw"’), and optometrist examination (‘forward-facing eyes’).

So, surely if she had eyes, teeth, and feet similar to modern humans, she must be the ‘missing link’. I mean, she ‘shows characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans).’ There is even a marvelous redition of a ‘Death scenario’ to accompany the story also. And look at the above portrait, ‘how Ida might have looked.’ I am thinking that looks pretty close to humans for sure.

Of course, Dr Jens Franzen declares, 'She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line.' And ‘Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the use of the term 'missing link' was misleading.’ Along with ‘Dr Chris Beard, of America's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said: 'I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.'’

I realize that some people like Dr. Hurum may like to claim they have found their ancestry in the creatures of history, but the fact remains all so-called ‘missing links’ are without a chain to connect them to humans; who were directly created by God Himself, without evolution from the other animals He also created.

Chemical Reaction not Evolution, of Fishes and Men

According to Discovery News, ‘Around the world, increasing numbers of male fish are developing female traits -- growing new sexual organs and sometimes even producing eggs.’

As I began to read the article, I must admit I fully expected to see some type of promotion of a proof for evolution. I mean, clearly a fish mutating from its normality would give some type of credence to an eyewitness account of it, would it not? To my dismay, there was no attempt to tie in the discovery with evolution (whether macro or micro), but ‘the phenomenon has been blamed mostly on chemicals that get into the water and mimic the female hormone estrogen.’

With this, I can’t help but ponder the possible similar affect within humans. For a moment, if we consider the article as written, we see the science/research community noticing a change in the fish genetically producing the mutation of male fish becoming female (whether in part or in addition). They reveal their belief of such actions is due to the fish coming in contact with a chemical which blocks male hormones, in conjunction with a chemical which mimics female hormones. But, with this study, it appears that they also realize the affect such could have on humanity, given the thought, ‘the new research found that there are far more of these chemicals in our lakes and streams than anyone realized.’

It must be noted that these researchers see the chemicals as harmful, to fish, mammals, and humans, along with acknowledging the mutation of male-female hormones within the fish is not normal. So, since this blog is Christian in nature, this brings us once again to the thought of homosexuality, transsexual, and possibly hermaphrodites in light of the Scriptures.

Regarding hermaphrodites, I would admit I don’t recall Scripture mentioning such, but all would have to admit that such mutation during birth is clearly out of the control of the individual. I do not believe there would be any stretch of the imagination to assume they do not choose to be born with both male and female organs, but will have to adjust and determine where they stand as individuals as they mature and live in society. Though their physical body may lend struggles in life, I would venture to say they have both the ability of choosing the heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle.

Now, concerning homosexuality (which would include the hermaphrodite who chooses such) and the transsexual (which I suppose is merely homosexual in nature), we have previously cited Scriptural references regarding God’s displeasure with such. Here, we now see the researchers’ claim that a male fish taking upon itself the character and possibly even the physical appearance of a female fish is not normal, but rather a mutation and corruption of nature by way of chemicals, etc.

With this said, my conclusionary thought is: If researchers see the mutation of male fish taking upon themselves the characteristics and physical properties of female fish as abnormal and something to try and fix, why is it that we are told that homosexuality and transsexuality is normal and something to be embraced? ‘After all, people and fish have similar hormonal systems.’

Appeasing the Monkey

Is this article for real?

Is the Church of England, according to Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, apologizing to Darwin, 126 years after his death, basically stating that the church was incorrect to trust the Bible over Darwin’s misconceptions of creation?

Oh my, how far man has bowed to appease the monkey.

---

note: 'monkey' is not a reference to Darwin himself.

Big Bucks - Big Guesses - Big Bang Machine

Apparently, 'At 12:30 a.m. EDT Wednesday, scientists on the Franco-Swiss border will flip the switch on the Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile underground ring where subatomic particles will be accelerated to astonishing speeds and then smashed into each other.' [article]

I couldn’t help but think of the following clip from Men in Black, when I read this article:

Do they hope to create a little universe within this machine, so they can play as a god? I sure hope it doesn’t 'create a black hole or strange self-replicating particle that will gobble up the Earth.' But, just maybe, 'we should expect visitors from the future to arrive soon after it goes into operation.'

:0)

Enjoy!

---

Update: 9/22

Ooops, a few problems... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425669,00.html

'It then causes the protons to collide, revealing how the tiniest particles were first created after the "big bang," which many theorize was the massive explosion that formed the stars, planets and everything.'

Really? I think they forgot to write 'revealing how [some believe] the tiniest particles were first created...'

'our closest genetic relatives deserve rights'

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WireStory?id=5246484&page=1

Looks like our 'evolutionary comrades' are finally about to get the human rights they 'deserve'. ^o);

How interesting of a boast, 'Spain did not legalize divorce until the 1980s, but Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education and set up an Equality Ministry.'

ref. Genesis 1:26, Genesis 9:2

EXPELLED...

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Did Tolkien Visit Middle Earth?

Assumingly most have, at least heard the name, if not read, J. R. R. Tolkien’s book, The Hobbit. In his book, he speaks of a place, he calls, Middle-Earth.

But new discovers may have actually found these very hobbits, or the evolutionary trail of their linage, of which he wrote.

All this time, we merely thought his writings were of fantasy and fairy tale, but maybe Tolkien knew something the rest of us did not.

A Few Teeth and a Big Story

Based on “one canine tooth and eight molars”, some researches have determined it is “a 10 million-year-old ape” and that it “suggests that humans and African great apes may have split much earlier than thought.”

So based on only 9 teeth of a missing skeleton, “The Ethiopian and Japanese team named the species Chororapithecus abyssinicus and said it represents the earliest recognized primate directly related to modern-day gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos.”

Although they do seem claim that humans evolved from apes, they admit, “we know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes”. Doesn’t this merely prove there is no FACT of evolution from apes to man, but a suggestion, hope, desire, etc. that man evolved from apes, but we have no idea as of how or when. Hmmm…

Of course, there are still those which have doubts, but have no problem telling us what it MUST be anyway. As Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo says, “If it’s not a gorilla relative, then it’s something very similar to what an early gorilla must have looked like”. Tell us, Mr. Suwa, how would you or anyone else know that, since this was supposedly 4 million years before humans? [According to the article, 10 million year old ape verses humans 6 to 7 million years old.]

Another wake up call to the idea that evolution of humans is FACTUAL is the lack of evidence again noted by, “Peter Andrews, a paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and expert on human origins, called the discovery exciting because the fossil evidence from great apes, the closest living relatives to humans, is almost nonexistent.” Claiming great apes are human relatives with “almost nonexistent” evidence seems mighty interesting to me.

Of course there is still debate over where humans originated from. Interestingly, research suggest, “Past studies based on skull morphology have been weak and have supported both of the human-origin views.” Yet, ““You can’t find the origin of people by measuring the variability of their skulls,” Hawks told LiveScience.” You know what Hawks says is the main problem? “Assumptions”. [““The main problem with the paper is that it takes some assumptions from genetics papers of 10 to 15 years ago that we now know are wrong,” Hawks said.”] Hmmm…

Now consider “assumptions” has the ability to cause problems in theory, and consider the above article based on 9 teeth.

Storks Don’t Bring Babies and Comets Don’t Bring Life

Just incase anyone was wondering if life came to Earth by comets, “For the first time, there are solid data to refute a popular theory that life came to the Earth aboard a comet, Rutgers researchers said Monday.”

I, for one, had/have no more belief that life came to Earth from comets than I do babies are brought by storks, but if one did/has, new research says you might have to drop that idea.

“Deteriorated DNA from microbes, frozen for millions of years in the Antarctic ice, shows that organisms could not have survived the bombardment of cosmic radiation during deep space travel from outside the solar system, said Paul Falkowski, a Rutgers biologist and oceanographer.”

“"It's almost an impossibility for comets to seed other planets with life after they've been in space for millions of years," Falkowski said.”

*Notice the word “almost” is used. Is this due to the idea of “no absolutes” or to leave an out incase they one day find life hitching a ride on the back of a comet?

“The Rutgers study refutes at least part of the "panspermia hypothesis" -- a theory from the Greeks, and popular among many scientists since the 19th century -- that microorganisms and biochemicals were carried to the planet by comets, meteors and asteroids.”

Do Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe?

Recently I came across an article entitled, “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”. (Updated: 10 June 2004)

Dr. Walter L. Bradley claims, “My personal experience as a lecturer supports the growing openness to intelligent design theory in the academic world. Having given over 135 talks on this subject to more than 65,000 students and professors at over 65 major university campuses from 1986 to 2002, I have observed a dramatic change in audience receptivity to the idea that an intelligent designer of the universe may exist. I have noted a widespread acceptance (albeit begrudging in some quarters) that this growing body of scientific evidence demands an intellectually honest reckoning, as no exclusively naturalistic explanation seems capable of rising to the occasion.” (works sited)

Feel free to draw your own conclusions…

Blogger Suggest: 17 Evidences Against Evolution

I found an interesting list today, entitled 17 Evidences Against Evolution, which may have originated from here. I am fully aware of some of the rebuttals.

The 17 topics are as follows:

1. MOON DUST
2. MAGNETIC FIELD
3. FOSSIL RECORD
4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
5. PROBABILITY
6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
11. DATING METHODS
12. DINOSAURS
13. SUN'S DIAMETER
14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
15. EARTH'S ROTATION
16. WRITTEN RECORD
17. THE BIBLE

I realize that some of the readers of my blog may find fault with this idea (being supporters of evolution), but I believe these writers make some valid points. And I fully believe that if one disagrees with the presented information, they should be able to discuss civilly as to why they disagree, or simply dismiss what is presented.

Faith vs. Unbelief

What I have recently learned on my blog while speaking to Atheists:

1. Acceptance of science’s theory of evolution is not belief that it is actually true, but merely holds that it is the best theory science has. The word “consensus” is used, meaning “opinion”, which cannot be used as authoritatively fact.

2. Science has not/can not prove there is no God (some assume because it is a negative), because He is out of the natural realm.

3. Science cannot prove there is a God, because He is out of the natural realm.

4. To science, God is non testable, because “The idea of a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) is not even considered, because science cannot test or falsify supernatural explanations. They are outside the bounds of science.”

5. Science does not work with absolutes, so all is relative to current knowledge which may change at any given time due to new evidence overwriting old evidence, or “consensus”, meaning “opinion”.

6. I am not to use science to prove there is a God, because science is evidence and fact not belief and faith.

With even this little bit of “consensus” I have gleaned from some of the Atheists comments from my blog, it clearly shows we merely return to the Scriptures context of Faith vs. Unbelief.

When it comes to God, there is either Faith or Unbelief. Science has no apparent voice, authority, or opinion of God, for He is “outside the bounds of science”.

Now before someone jumps at the word “unbelief”, any honest Atheist must adhere to its definition and admit that in fact they hold to “unbelief”.

Unbelief: “the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, esp. in matters of doctrine or religious faith.”

Scripture declares, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Be forewarned that, “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Neither are you who say that you believe in God, but refuse to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior of your life by faith, safe, for even, “the devils also believe, and tremble.”

There must be Faith, for it is written, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

There is no more security in science for any to assume, by its inability to prove God is not, or in oneself by the inability to physically see or completely understand the things of God, to hold to a personal opinion that God does not exist.

It simply boils down to a personal choice of Faith or Unbelief.

I would ask that you, “repent ye, and believe the gospel”.

What then is the gospel?

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Islamic Creationist Sends Scientists His Evidence Against Evolution

In an article by the New York Times, “the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.”

Not really any comments from me on this issue, I just found it interesting.

ADHD Evolution

We are used to hearing that “natural selection” takes “over hundreds or thousands of years” or even longer, but apparently scientists are now suggesting that it has happened in “less than a year” according to an article on the male Blue Moon butterfly.

Does this mean that actually the time frame of millions and millions of years given to the evolutionary patterns of animals could be shortened, since, “the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time"?

Of course I don’t actually believe in macro-evolution (although this would be a story of micro-evolution), but I can’t help but wonder what the science community thinks about such a fast evolutionary process, which goes against their own theory of the long process of evolution.

Rethinking Evolution

Is Darwin due for an upgrade?

Is this to try and plug the holes in the theory?

I can’t help but wonder.

Creation Museum: Affirms A Biblical View of Mankind’s Beginnings

A Creation Museum has just opened in Petersburg, Ky.

You can read the about page or check out their brochure.

A few excerpts from the article at Baptist Press News:

Science, the museum asserts, affirms a literal reading of Genesis. Although many secular scientists scoff at such a notion, the museum's beliefs are more mainstream than evolutionists probably wish was the case. A March Newsweek poll found that 48 percent of American adults believe God made humans "pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

"What I say to evolutionists is, 'Come on, be honest,’" Ham said. "Their starting point is that there is no God. They've redesigned science. … Everybody has a starting point, and everyone needs to admit their starting point, and their starting points determine how they interpret the evidence."

The museum doesn't ignore tough questions that critics of creationism have long been asking: Where did Cain get his wife? How did dinosaurs fit on the ark? If dinosaurs did survive the flood, then why aren't they still around today?

The project also was blessed with the services of Patrick Marsh, who was the scenic designer for the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla. A creationist himself, Marsh joined Answers in Genesis in 2001 and designed the museum, which features recreations of the Garden of Eden and a section of Noah's Ark. Ham calls it a "walk through" biblical history.

Critics already are calling the museum anti-science -- an objection Ham dismisses. He is quick to note that five Ph.D. scientists are on staff.

"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon," he said. "The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past."

Creatures Desire To Be The Creator

Science (are at least the article writer) has almost gotten it right about creation in a recent article talking about making synthetic humans for the future.

“It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago a tiny living cell emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns down through billions of generations. Today every living organism—every person, plant, animal and microbe—can trace its heritage back to that first cell.”

The reason I said “almost gotten it right about creation” is because they do admit that creation came from the “dust of the Earth”. Scripture teaches, “the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” [Genesis 2:7]

Where they miss it is that it was not just “a tiny living cell” that emerged all by itself, but entire fully developed mature creations by God.

It is no wonder that DNA is similar throughout humans and animals, for God was our Creator.

The fall of mankind came when they saw the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, which it gave them the desire to make one wise and to become as gods knowing good and evil.

Not really much has changed today, for man is still plagued with three basic issues [1 John 2:16]:

1 - the lust of the flesh
2 - the lust of the eyes
3 - the pride of life

Man still wants to deny there is any God, but self.

The next step is the desire to produce a synthetic “species” so that science can say, “We are your god”.

“Scientists in the last couple of years have been trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes, and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the lab—organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced.”

So forget God, forget Mother Nature, forget evolution, man says “I will create life! - Well, by using what I can find around the lab, because I haven’t figured out how God did it in the beginning yet.”

Cheated By Evolution

An article located at msnbc.com has claimed that there has been found a type of lizard that has no limbs like a snake.

“While modern snakes and lizards are derived from a common evolutionary ancestor, they belong today to two entirely separate groups of animals, or orders. Snakes, over millenia, gradually lost their limbs and developed their characteristic forms of locomotion. But modern limbless lizards are not snakes, Dutta said.”

“The other limbless lizards belonging to different families have been found in India's Nicobar island, in the northeast, and in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh states, he said.”

So apparently what we have is over millions of years a single species developed into two separate species namely snakes and lizards. Then over millions of years lizards kept their limbs, where the snakes lost them (of course scripture says snakes were cursed and lost them). Now we find that some lizards have lost their limbs.

I just wonder how they feel about Mother Nature doing that to them after all these millions of years.

I also wonder why macroevolution would consider just a mouth more “survival of the fittest” than a mouth and limbs. Hmmm….

I also find it interesting that they claim there are limbless lizards, but as for this new one found, they say it is a “new species”. So we have already found limbless lizards before, but we find 1 (one) new limbless lizard and instantly it is a “new species”. Maybe it is just a genetic abnormality.

Greek Mythical gods Brought To Life

Apparently the UK is going to allow animal-human hybrids. The article claims “THE government yesterday bowed to pressure from scientists to allow the creation of hybrid animal-human embryos for stem-cell research.”

National Review Online had an article in 2002 speaking of this same issue of the mixing of human and animal DNA which it labeled as “transhumanism: a nascent and explicitly eugenic philosophy that advocates taking control of human evolution through gene modification.”. Some of their beliefs presented are “they hope will eventually lead to public acceptance of genetic manipulation — not just to improve health, but to change our very natures.” And “They claim humans should not merely be allowed to metamorphose themselves through surgery, cybertechnology, and the like, but should have the right to control the destiny of their genes by means of progeny design and fabrication.”

In 2005 there is an article by the Associated Press of MSNBC speaking of “a flock of about 50 smelly sheep, many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.” It is said “In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.” They do have worries though, as such: “Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?” But they must not be too scared for “In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells.”

Apparently this bill in the UK asks for two things:

1] “allows scientists to create "cytoplasmic" hybrid embryos, which are 99.9 per cent human and 0.1 per cent animal, such as cow or rabbit.”

2] “allows human embryos to be altered by the introduction of animal DNA.”

Of course, “True hybrids - creatures created by the fusion of sperm and eggs - remain outlawed. In all cases, it remains illegal to allow hybrid embryos to grow for more than 14 days or for them to be implanted in a womb.”

Will we one day see movies made by real actors playing the parts of Greek gods instead of costumes and special effects? Hmmm…

Will scientists then use their creations to “prove” the macroevolution process of species to species jump is real?

Your Great Great Granny Was A Chimp

I was recently sent an article Chimps are human, gene study implies (2003) that claimed “The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.”

Did you read that? I mean really read it? “of the most critical DNA sites” – This does not mean 99.4 percent when totally comparing all of man’s DNA with chimps DNA.

Of course, conveniently I ran across another article Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more (2003) stating that the number has dropped to only 95 percent. And remember this is not matching 100 percent of human DNA to 100 percent chimp DNA.

The following is from the article:

---

The 98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared.

Specific examples of these differences include:

1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7

3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.

4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1

5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3

In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome.

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!