Global Warming: Mankind = .04 % of the problem?

In a recently published article, global warming alarmists have discovered that huge amounts of Methane are being ejected from soil and ice deposits they believe to have been frozen for 40,000 years. While we all know the earth was created by God just 6.5-8,000 years ago, they don't.

One more detail we know about global warming, and why we must combat it now by exchanging our Hummers for bicycles, right? Not quite. What the article inadvertantly does is to show how slight a contribution fossil fuel burning vehciles and power plants make to the overall "greenhouse gas" mixture. How slight? Well, the article points out that the Methane leak could be as much as 100 times more than all fossil fuel burning on earth. So during a single year, that means that only 1% of all greenhouse gasses come from energy-greedy humans, and 99% (roughly) from innocent old permafrost.

To complicate things further, it turns out that where the "global warming" effect is concerned, Methane is 23 times as potent as Carbondioxide! What does that mean? Well, not only is man putting out 1% as much gas, but the gas he's putting out is 1/23 as potent for global warming. So the end result is that mankind contributes only four hundredths of a percent to the overall global warming picture (which to be clear, is not happenning).

See the article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/ap_on_sc/warming_permafrost

Isomorphic Instantiation

Isomorphic Instantiation is a term that describes what happens when a complex, man-made technology is subsequently found to exist in nature. One such example is echo-location. It's the means by which bats find their way in total darkness by sensing the echo resonance of their own high-pitched chirps bouncing off cave walls. It is different in no substantial way from advanced submarine sonar systems that can identify the class and displacement of ocean-going vessels miles away.

Another such example is what we know as Light Emitting Diodes or LED's. LED's are a form of electro-luminescence that occurs when narrow spectrum light is emitted from a semi-conductor which has been electromagnetically stimulated in the "forward direction". Among other uses, this technology has put nickel-sized lights on the key chains of many Americans. These lights can last ten years without a need for replacement batteries. Yet, this same technology was found to exist in a form of southern butterflies.

Additionally, bacterial flagellum that serve to propel bacteria through a liquid medium, are no different than outboard motors that have spelled death for so many large-mouth bass.

There is no shortage of examples of this observation of advanced design in nature. A wasp that build himself an echo chamber to attract a mate. Ants that farm other species of insect, or grow their own crops for food. There are hundreds of known examples, and many yet to be discovered.

All of these are evidence of our all-knowing God who designed machines of unimaginable, incomprehensible complexity. Scientists have only begun to understand the full inner-workings of single-cell creatures such as amoebas. What hope do they have of fully understanding our own human bodies?

If they were honest, scientists would make their lab verse:

Pss.139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Truth Versus Fact

Science is the pursuit of facts, not truth. A scientist leaves the ownership of truth to philosophers and theologians. The currency of science is the provable, not the believable.

This is the kind of mumbo-jumbo you'd hear if you were a pupil in thousands of biology, archaeology, and paleontology classrooms. But this kind of thinking is a rejection of the concepts of both truth and fact.

Truth is, by definition, the extent of all truisms. Everything that is true is part of truth. In every trial, the man is either guilty or innocent, never both, never neither. Despite what the fallible court may rule, a truth exists. Hidden from all human knowledge, perhaps, but true nonetheless. The thing that is true is also a fact. Fact, in scientific terms is something that is *observably* true, but not different in substance from truth.

The purpose of this rhetorical slight of hand is to disarm the still under-developed critical thinking abilities of young university students. What better way to supplant the truth that the students know than by convincing them that there is room for two truths in their world view: one under the banner of truth, the other flying the flag of fact.

As the impressionable students make space in their minds for the second truth, they never realize that they are doing so at the expense of the first. After several years of thinking this way, they come to realize that the notion of truth versus fact was nothing more than another way to say that whatever is not proven is false. Thus the conclusion: whatever is believed by faith is false!

Secular university can be a dangerous place for young people of faith. Like a minefield, knowing the devices of one's enemy can arm him with knowledge enough to neutralize that advantage.

Facts are always true, and all that is true is also factual. Everything that is not true is false or fiction. That there is a God is not only true, it is fact. Everything that suggests there is no God is false, untrue.

Critical mass is achieved in a compression type fissile reaction when two solid objects are forced together to occupy the same space at the same time, beyond natural mass. This redefines the composition of both in terms of each other. Neither survives in its original state. It's a messy process, I understand.

It is no less messy when two mutually exclusive truths attempt to occupy the same mind at the same time. The composition of both is decomposed, and the subject is left with the belief that there is no truth.

Genetics: Our Greatest Common Mother

For those of you who are familiar with the raging battle between creationists and evolutionists, you have probably heard the argument put in terms of a young versus old earth. Well, an interesting discovery has been made, which I've discussed with some of you over the past few months. It seems that geneticists have found a long strand of DNA that allows them to determine relationships between people without having to delve into history, genealogy, etc. This strand of DNA proves that mankind is a young species!

The kind of relationships I'm talking about sound something like this: "These two boys shared a common mother back five generations, which would put their common mother in roughly 1850, assuming a 21 year generational cycle."

They've discovered a strand of DNA along the human genome that appears to serve no real purpose. It is simply copied from mother to son/daughter, over and over, throughout the generations. This strand is supposed to be an exact replica of the mother's DNA along the same place on the same chromosome. The problem is that almost like a scribe copying a book by hand, there are copy errors, slight deviations from the original. Well, it turns out that these copy errors happen at a fairly predictable rate. Therefore, you can use the actual differences, and number of differences between any two people on earth to conclude how many generations ago these two individuals shared a common mother. Sisters will have around the same number of differences from their mother, though different differences. The child of sister A will have her mother's variations from her grandmother, as well as a few variations from her own mother. The accumulated differences going backwards can be extrapolated to determine how many generations ago, they shared a common mother.

For you data people out there, this is a flat representation of a tree model.

Now the most interesting thing is that they have already taken this technique and applied it to a sampling of people from all the major races and people worldwide. The result: (drum-role) everyone on earth shared a common mother as little as 5,000 to 7,000 years ago.

Now where have I heard those numbers before? Oh, yes!! It's the approximate number of years since Adam and Eve lived as recorded in Genesis, if you take all genealogy data from the Bible, put it on a timeline and trace it back to the beginning, forward to known historical times (c.200 A.D.), and add the known number of years from then till now using historical sources!

It also corresponds to the date that evolutionists claim that two amino acids formed the first complex protein, and thus started the chain of life!!! Oh wait, no it doesn't.

The fact is this is a slam-dunk against evolution and for Biblical creationism.

No, you ready for a bold prediction? They're going to find the same generally corresponding dates (i.e. 5-7000 years) for elephants, horses, birds, fish, cats, dogs, and oh yes, monkeys! When they do, watch them spin it!

The fact is, God designed the genome, and He put this segment in there as an irrefutable proof against what God knew, would become one of the most powerful of Satan's illusions, employed to draw many away from God, and toward "science" (falsely so called - I Timothy 6:20-21), and that is Evolution.

Read the full release of this Associated Press story here:
http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71298-0.html?tw=wn_index_9

Immutability: If it looks like a duck...

You'd be surprised how often a piece of scientific evidence comes along that baffles Darwinists, though mundane in nature and totally expected by Biblical Creationists. Such is the topic of this post. Without paraphrasing, here is the startling, new discovery: "Fossil experts in China have unearthed a 110-million-year-old bird that is strikingly similar to today's birds"!

In this latest case of "if it looks like a duck", scientists have unearthed evidence that they almost admit they didn't expect because it goes counter to evolutionary thought. Once again, rather than coming to terms with their false assumptions, they fane amazement. The see profundity in what should only seem profound to the deeply stoned.

But before creationists rush out and pop the cork on their...uh...diet coke, you should know that the paper's author made compelling arguments that this species, though duck-like, was no duck. You (the name of the paeleontologist) argued in this paragraph:

It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.

So there you (as in the reader) have it! You (as in the reader) can't argue with that!! (Don't go too hard on him for his lack of reason in this paragraph, he was probably just trying to keep from being crucified by the Journal Science).

Now, since the dinosaurs supposedly evolved into birds (wink, wink), AND birds were fully-bird at the time of the dinosaurs, scientists are forced to conclude that physical traits attributed to birds, but not dinosaurs, must have evolved very quickly and then remained stable and relatively unchanged ever since. These traits would include flight feathers, webbed feet, and racing stripes.

What they've really uncovered here is called "proof". Just not the kind they wanted. Either they are forced to admit that the layers of strata in which this duck was found aren't nearly as old as they say, or they must conclude that the bird-like characteristics evolved quickly and early in contrast to popularly held evolutionary views. Since re-dating the strata would be far reaching to the point of catastrophic, triggering the revisitting of thousands of accepted "facts", scientists choose to accept the less destabilizing option, that bird features developed early and quickly.

But all this gives rise to a more interesting point. Evolution is an attempt to explain the creation of the species through random and accidental means. It despises the notion of design in all its forms, particularly a Divine Creator. If these random, accidental mutations and variations in the genome are responsible for the creation of the species as evolutionists claim, then there should be absolutely no mechanism to keep these changes from occurring. It is a claim of design that either the bird-like traits developed quickly, or that they stabilized for the ensuing eons. If chance created these creatures and their traits, then the same chance should continue to modify them at a predictable rate throughout eternity! Stability should be impossible in evolutionary terms. And that gives rise to a whole new category of blogs that I've had on the back burner during my couple of month sebatical: Immutability - the ability to remain the same. Normally only attributed to God.

"Evolution the science" is a front company for "evolution the faith".

Article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-dinosaurs.html

Evolution of Evolution: Who...er...What Killed the Mammoths?

Perhaps one of the clearest evidences against evolution is the way they keep changing their story.

Have you ever worked with kids that, when caught, deliver up the most meritorious explanation as to why they were playing baseball in the living room (not my kids, of course), but when examined further, fall back to a more palpable explanation, but completely incompatible with their first story? Well, those kids grow up into Evolutionary Scientists!

You can always tell a person who has no firm opinion or at least no conviction in his opinion. He changes his tune over and over again based upon who his audience is at the time. A confident man holds and defends a position with boldness and conviction. Scientists can be sniffed out based upon their constantly changing story. Remember how Neanderthal used to drag his knuckles on the ground when we were kids? Now, of course, he walks upright because scientists feel that they've filled in more gaps between Neanderthal and chimpanzee. Thus, Neanderthal doesn't have to span so much space between chimpanzee and modern man. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that the newest interpretations always play into the political correctness of the day.

We're all too young to remember the days when evolutionary theories were used to justify slavery, or even the slaughter of the aboriginal peoples of Australia for museum props to further the cause of evolution the world over.

Then there was the decades-old theory about how Jacob Roggeveen wiped out the population of Easter Island by cutting down all their trees, introducing European diseases, and enslaving the native population. This interpretation played into the anti-imperialism mindset of the '60's and '70's, but as of late, has been supplanted by newer evidence. Now, it seems, the native peoples, themselves, cut down their trees shortly after their arrival, which was hundreds of years later than previously thought. Food supply, it seems, was the most likely cause of societal collapse into cannibalism and barbarism...not that the Europeans are forgiven or anything.

Or, do you remember all those paintings in school books showing a bunch of sparsely-clad, apeish men dancing around a well-skewered Woolly Mammoth as he stepped on some poor mother's son? Well, those pages are about to be ripped up, whited out, pasted over, in light of "new evidence". Who knows, that mother might even get her son back.

It seems the latest evolution of evolution is that of how the Mammoths died out. For the past 40 years or so, man has been slandered for having hunted this noble creature into extinction. Corporations and profit motive most likely. Well, that sermon has out-lived its usefulness and now we're on to better things.

According to Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska, climate change wiped out the Woolly Mammoth, not rabid hunters! So mankind is absolved at last...oh wait.

Whatever club evolutionary scientists are using to pound creationists over the head on a particular day seems also to be an irresistible tool to explain all of natural history.

Evolution evolves, but some things never change.

Evolutionists: Out of Sync with Probabilities

The purpose of this too-lengthy discussion is to help the reader interpret scientific papers, articles, and periodicals and understand how much of what they are reading is actually proven fact versus speculation by the author.

Another field of study with which evolutionary scientists are out of step is called Probabilities. It is a sub-study of both Logic and Statistics.

If you've been keeping up with scientific periodicals or just the headlines, you've probably noticed the number of times that the concept of probability comes up. It's usually hidden in phrases like:

"...is likely a result of..."
"...may have influenced..."
"...is the most probable explanation for..."
"...which best explains..."
"...clear evidence of..."

Ok, that last one was mostly a shameless plug. Most of these are short hand for "the only thing I could think of is..." But you're not likely (see there's another probability) to read any lengthy article or publication without also seeing these kinds of phrases to shield the author from peer scrutiny and future discovery. Why is that?

Well, rules for proof have existed for a very long time. Some of these rules have been formalized in the last 500 years to give researchers and philosophers an idea of what will be expected of them if they come forward claiming to have proven some new thing. Some of these rules look like this: In order for a thing to be considered "proven", a thing must be...

• reproducible
• observable
• invariable
• the only remaining possibility
• universally applicable
• atomic (no external dependencies)
• independently verifiable

Many mathematicians and philosophers (far smarter than me) have analyzed the concept of probability and proof and systematized their observations into useable formulas. One such fellow is named Andrey Kolmogorov. He formalized 3 rules of probability:

1. a probability is a number between 0 and 1;
2. the probability of an event or proposition and its complement must add up to 1; and
3. the joint probability of two events or propositions is the product of the probability of one of them and the probability of the second, conditional on the first.

To make it simpler,

• Rule #1: if you are 90% sure of something, then that percentage is equal to 90 over 100 or .9 which is between 0 an 1 as he suggests.
• Rule #2: if the probability is .9, then it's 'complement' (i.e. how unlikely it is) is equal to .1, since the sum of the probability and improbability must add up to 1.
• Rule #3: if the probability of one event is 90%, and the probability of another event is 50%, then the probability of both of these events being true (or coming to pass) is the product of the two, or .9 times .5, or .45 (i.e. 45 percent).

Now, I'm sorry to have dragged you through all of this, but there is a point to it. When scientists say that they are 99% sure of something that depends upon the truthfulness of something else of which they are 95% sure. Then the combined probability of them being right on a whole is only 94%. If those two rely on something that is 98% sure, the total probability drops to 92%.

An example of scientific assertions depending upon one another might be something like: 1) Neanderthals were likely forced north and east out of Europe by more modern hominids. 2) Some of these exiles probably would have crossed the Bering Land Bridge into North America before it's 3) [assumed] collapse 10-11,000 years ago.

There are at least 3 statements of probability here. Two are overt, the third, in square brackets, is implied. That Neanderthals crossed into North America over the Bering Land Bridge depends upon 1) their actually being forced out of Europe, 2) the Bering Land Bridge actually existing. To take it one step further, their crossing also depends upon the land bridge existing at the time that these atheistic scientists say Neanderthal existed. So there is a chain of dependencies, each with its own probability attached.

Evolutionary archaeology, paleontology, biology and zoology offer so many unproven theories, all of which are interdependent. Each tiny thing they claim to have proven is dependent upon hundreds of past unproven statements, and immediately becomes the basis for many future unproven assertions. When the likelihood of each new discovery is added to the formula the total probability, as a percentage, drops.

When evolutionary scientists claim a bunch of things that are "fairly likely", they want us to average all the relevant probabilities, and tack on a few merit points for good measure. 90% of 85% of 99% of 87% of 98% of 94% of 50% of 89% of 99% of 80% of 55% of 95% of 90% of 83% of 99% of 97% of 88% of 92% of 88% of 60% of 80% of 98% of 95% of 92% of 97% of 85% of 99% of 98% of 97% of 94% of 90% of 79 % of 99% = 100%, which is how certain THEY are that evolution is true.

When in reality, the likelihood that all they're asserting is true is the PRODUCT (multiplied, not averaged) of all relevant probabilities, (i.e. 1%); and that's probably too generous!

Evolutionists: Out of Sync with Astronomy

Scientists are a disorganized bunch. From lab to lab, from country to country, from field to field, there is little consistency in what scientists ask us to believe.

Consider the differences in two particular fields of study: Evolutionary Biology, and Astronomy. Evolutionary Biologists ask us to believe that mankind evolved in an unbroken progression from primordial goo over the past 4.1 billion years (plus or minus 15 minutes). Ok, fine. Astronomists ask us to believe that the chances of all life on earth being wiped out by a giant, city-sized (10 kilometers or greater) meteorite are about every 100 million or so years (plus or minus the time it will take you to read this blog). How do these two ideas sync up?

Answer: they don't. In the 4.1 billion years that evolution is supposed to have taken place from goo into macro-creatures such as man, the earth is supposed to have been destroyed, um...lemme see...41 times. So we've just gotten lucky, right? Well, how lucky have we been?

If you want to approach it mathematically, then the odds are 1 in 2^40, or one in two to the fortieth power. To break it down for you, if we go 100 million years without being struck by a very big rock, then we've defied the odds by 1 out of 2. If we go another 100 million years and still haven't been impacted, then we've again beaten the odds 1 out of 2, but now twice. Therefore, we've beaten the odds at a 1 in 4, still not that impressive. For every 100 million years we go without being struck by Synthia McKinn...er... a large meteor (or NEO for Near Earth Object), we have defied the odds by twice the previous 100 million years. So, the 1st 100 million years: 1 in 2 (or 2^1). The 2nd 100 million years: 1 in 4 (or 2^2). The 3rd 100 million years: 1 in 8 (or 2^3), etc... By the time we go 4.1 billion years, the odds are 2^40!!! That's 1 in 1,099,511,627,776! If these were 2.25 inch wide playing cards, then they would span from here to Mars (in it’s closest approach to earth in August 2003), 35 million miles! So pick a card.

In the mind of Evolutionary Biologists, the likelihood of life springing from dead materials by means of unlikely events is benefited by more time. But the Astrologists (using far more empirical methods) show that the more time you throw at the problem (past 100 million years), the more problematic evolution becomes. Each time a massive meteor hits, it pushes the reset button of life, and evolution is forced to restart!

The numbers against the Evolutionary Biologists are so massive that they make the belief in evolution highly mathematically improbable and, well...simply unscientific! They must either accept Divine protection of earth during those 4.1 billion years, or they must accept that the earth is a good deal younger than their illustrious theories assert.

P.S. - Check out this map of NEO's in and around the orbit of earth. These are detected using a radio telescope.

Differences? What Differences?

A global warming article published 23 minutes ago, according to Yahoo! news, claims that differences in data collected from two different sources has been resolved. While surface measurements have supposedly long shown rising temperatures, satellites and weather balloons have shown just the opposite. Really? Since when? Why didn't we hear about these differences before? Oooh, that would have made you look bad! Oh, well, by all means, please, keep us in the dark! After all, we unejukatid folk merely exist to fawn over you brainy scientists whilst you figure out how you're going to make yourself look good again tomorrow!

No, honestly, had you EVER heard the global warming crowd suggest that there was ANY discrepancy in their data? So now, they've once again, gone from absolutely positive to absolutely positive, without discrepancies! Well, how do we know there aren't any discrepancies. I guarantee you, if I live another month, I'll have the opportunity to again rant about another (previously unmentioned) weakness in their theories that has been resolved!

As long as I've been watching the science headlines (about a decade), I've seen this pattern of hide-till-resolved a hundred times. This closely parallels the missing link I've written about before. They won't tell you there's a missing link until they think they've found something to fill it.

They have a word for this in politics too. It's called a "cover up"!

The Fruit of Darwinism

Evolution kills God. That's it's intent.

I know, I know, how can true science have "intent"? But it does. Maybe intent isn't the right word. Perhaps "destiny" is better. Somewhere in the middle I think. When Edison invented the light bulb, it had wide-spread application to humanity and has revolutionized modern life, decoupling industry and even the private citizen from the timing of our solar orbit. When Lenoir built the first practical internal combustion engine, industrialists, inventors, and entrepreneurs laid up nights dreaming up the many applications to which it has today been employed. But since Darwin forwarded his theories on evolution, not one useful splinter of application to daily life has come of it. Has Darwinism had a lesser impact on modern life than the light bulb?

Perhaps, but not less important. While each invention has had it's wide-spread impact on civilization, they've all been useful. Darwinism's most profound impact has been to assault the relevance, or even existence of God! No medicines have been attributed to Darwinism. No machines, no conveniences, no advances in food production, no elongation of anyone's life expectancy can be attributed to Darwinism. Now this isn't true of Biology, Genetics, Chemistry, Geology, or any of the other "raw sciences". But Darwinism isn't among them. How could it be that so much effort, attribution, funding, and lip service be paid to a scientific fixture yet mankind receives nothing in return?

Answer? Because mankind wasn't meant to receive anything from Darwinism. Darwinism has no goals or aspirations except to preach the denunciation of God! Therefore, the more adamantly a particular scientist preaches the doctrines of Darwin, the more you can assert that he hates God.

But scientists don't say evolution is a fact anyway, right? They simply hold it up as a working model, a theory, until something better comes along. No. For something that can kill God in the minds of the masses, scientists are willing to give evolution a bye, an honorary doctorate. Something that can kill God shouldn't be required to pass muster. It should be given axiom-status, sovereign among the sciences. Darwinism isn't required to be observable. It isn't required to be reproducible. No, Darwinism became scientific fact the same way that the king with no clothes became gorgeously appareled: consensus.

Consider these quotes out of a recently published article on Yahoo! News:

"We have proved that one (species) is transforming into the other, so this evidence is important to show that there is human evolution... that human evolution is a fact and not a hypothesis," Asfaw said.
...
"It is the only place in the world where the three phases of evolution could be documented and proved," Asfaw said.

"All (three species) were able to be found in one place, proving that evolution is a fact," Asfaw said. "Successive records that we see here prove that the Afar region is the origin of human kind."

So simply lining up three pins in a row passes for proof of Darwinism according to this learned scientist. Darwinism is grandfathered into the larger family of scientific facts that hold exemption status: 1) Flat Earth; 2) 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire, water; and 3) life on mars.

As I've been sitting here writing this blog, I've noticed several similarities between my paper-clip dispenser and my stapler. Both use metal to fasten pieces of paper. Both are made of black plastic. Both were made in China and are patent-pending!! I think we're on to something!! If I could find a missing link, I might be able to establish the progeny of my less-primitive paper-clip dispenser with my more modern stapler. Hm. Searching... There!! My tape dispenser! I've found the missing link! The missing link was all that was necessary to establish progeny, right? And all located within inches of each other! I've shown proof. Three pegs is all it takes these days. Now to choose a name...Hodgenism? No...

Variation and Natural Selection <> Origin of the Species

I believe in variation and natural selection. There, I've said it.

If you were to listen to modern scientists talk about variations of modern species, you'd think they'd invented the notion of variation. Darwin is credited with discovering variation and natural selection, as though no one had ever noticed it before! The ignorant Biblical creationist dragged his knuckles around for thousands of years, never noticing that Billy didn't look much like Tommy. But that's absurd. While Darwin formalized it into a term, he wasn't anywhere near the first to observe it.

Up until the time that Darwin was attempting to rationalize a scientific system whereby he might obviate the need for Divine input, no one needed to come up for a term that observed that Tommy was measly 4' 5" and Billy was a 7' bruiser.

I would liken it to the way that clinical psychologists have "diagnosed" every kind of bad behavior. Hyper-tension, ADD (pronounced ADD), ADHD, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, chemical imbalance, separation anxiety disorder, oppositional disorder, clinical depression and (my personal favorite) conduct disorder. That's the short list, and it grows annually! Why all the terminology, and why now? I'm not one to dump on the pharmaceutical companies. If they hadn't invented Maxalt, I'd have a migraine a couple times a week. But, I do believe that they have a big hand in the tokenizing of many bad behaviors. When they invented drugs to "treat" certain "conditions", they created a market reason to formalize these "conditions". Once formalized, markets grow around these ideas: Experts, doctors, professors, schools, clinics, and the public school (Oops! Freudian slip there). But these "conditions" were described and formalized in answer to a world view that "needed" to remove personal responsibility and destroy guilt, not because formalizing these notions was any "next logical step" in a continuing march toward human scientific enlightenment.

To be sure, Darwin noticed no more than anyone else had ever noticed: That some dogs are brown and some are black; that some people have blue eyes and others, green; that some breeds of cat are more than twice the weight of other breeds. But where the genius of Darwin differed from you and I was in his ability to fabricate the remaining assertions from thin air! A trick not all can master.

Darwin noticed that 1) specimens vary in size, color, proportional distribution of various extremities such as bills, wings, feet, head, etc... 2) that in any particular environment, physical attributes of a specimen make it more suited or less suited toward survival: By differing metabolisms requiring less water or food; by coloration that seconds as camouflage; by having bigger ears for better or worse hearing.

None of these things were new (or even middle aged) to mankind. And, with these observations, I agree. But immediately after that, Darwin and I take a fork in the road because Variation and Natural Selection do not equal the Origin of the Species.

Through a series of "must haves", Darwin asserted that these slight differences from one generation to the next (not corrected for same-generational variations) must account for their gradual formation into today's manifestations of that species from a simpler form of life (full of baseless assertions). He and his intellectual progeny asserted that these variations, given countless generations and infinite time, must have accounted for all variations of life from a single and simplistic life form.

Once the need for God was removed from this perverted worldview, they needed to formulate a theory by which non-life could become life without a need for God; and they're still stuck right there! They had to explain how, without God, and despite entropy, all the matter in the universe got there and how it organized into the complex systems that make up today's cosmos; and they're still stuck right there. They had to explain how fundamental changes could be passed on to the next generation and still produce a viable and virile offspring; and they're still stuck right there. They needed to prove that the descendency of all species can be traced to a single source using their genetics; and they're still stuck right there.

Nothing beyond the antique observations of variation and natural selection has ever been proven. So don't be fooled by the slight of hand employed by Darwinists when they observe no more than anyone else ever observed, and then assert what no one had previously been foolish enough to assert.

Global Warming: Startling New...uh...Paragraph!

It's always tickling to browse the internet in search of the raw hyperbole that makes up the headlines of the global warming movement. Here's an example I found on the ENN (Environmental News Network) website where a member of the National Academy of Sciences calls on critics of global warming to apologize to his children for the grief they've caused them:

Their [his children's] world is going to be hotter than our world, unbearably so in some places. The weather is going to be more violent and less predictable. Precipitation patterns will be different, leading to increased flooding in some areas and droughts in others. Snowpack in the mountains is going to shrink and glaciers are going to disappear. It will be harder to grow enough food or provide enough fresh water for all. Entire ecosystems will be threatened; with humans, animals, and plants struggling to adjust. Indeed, global climate change is already here and it looks worse than we anticipated.

So let's take this step by step, shall we?

"Their [his children's] world is going to be hotter than our world, unbearably so in some places."

It already is. Has this guy ever been out of his air conditioned lab? Perhaps the best thing the average environmentalist could do is go outside sometime!

"The weather is going to be more violent and less predictable. "

...And watch the nightly forecast!

"Precipitation patterns will be different..."

It'll come down in rings and argyles tomorrow. OK? And...

"leading to increased flooding in some areas and droughts in others."

So, more of the same. Hm.

"Snowpack in the mountains is going to shrink and glaciers are going to disappear."

Last remnants of Noah's flood gone. Got it.

"It will be harder to grow enough food..."

Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Sure, I agree with that.

"...or provide enough fresh water for all."

What's it cost to send a guy on that Russian space flight? Cuz' I saw pictures once and there was alot of blue!

"Entire ecosystems will be threatened;"

And that's what kills things: threats. And you can't make threats post 9/11. It's stalking, or even eco-terrorism. No wait, that's PETA and ELF.

"with humans, animals, and plants struggling to adjust."

Moved to Utah. Man! Don't I know!! Butchyano, ya' gotta' evolve.

"Indeed, global climate change is already here and it looks worse than we anticipated."

Well, that wasn't so bad, now was it? Let's see, should I go skiing in the mountains tonight, or biking in the hot West Desert?

Variation: Sub-species

So what do these have in common?

Alvord cutthroat trout
Bonneville cutthroat trout
Coastal cutthroat trout
Colorado River cutthroat trout
Greenback cutthroat trout
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Rio Grande cutthroat trout
Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout
Westslope cutthroat trout
Yellowfin cutthroat trout
Yellowstone cutthroat trout

If you have a keen eye, you might have noticed that they are all, yes that's right, cutthroat trout!! Well, since you're on a roll, see if you can figure out this next one:

What do all these have in common?

Adriatic trout
Marmorata trout
Flathead trout
Brown trout
Ohrid trout
Sevan trout
Apache trout
Cutthroat trout
Gila trout
Golden trout
Rainbow trout
Aurora trout
Brook trout
Bull trout
Dolly Varden trout
Lake trout
Silver trout

Wow! You're on your game today. They're all trout! So why all the various species and subspecies of trout? In the end, aren't they all just...trout?

Well first, you've got these guys called Ichthyologists who do nothing all day long except studying fish. Anytime a topic receives that kind of attention by Harvard brain-washed scientists, it's going to be a bit over analyzed. I'm not really against the study of these fish, or even their categorization and sub-categorization that has become commonplace in the world of Biology.

All my objections come along in the second reason biologists of differing flavors tend to sub-divide species into smaller and smaller groups. See, it isn't very compelling when someone busts in the room and shrieks, "There are only 450 million trout left in the entire world!!!! We must do something!!!!!". However, when they call a press conference to lament the reduction in the number of Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout to only a few hundred thousand due largely to human interference, that grabs the headlines!

I think that the trout anology closely parallels the global warming trend, er...menace, ...er...crisis! Above all, most scientists just want to be worshipped. I tried to find a better word, but that's what it comes down to. They want to be obeyed unquestioningly, thought to be all wise, imputed with only the purest motives, and as famous, quoted, and discussed as deity!

They said the earth was cooling, people bought sweaters. They said the earth was warming, people ate more ice cream. They said there was climate change, but that wasn't even actionable. So what is a poor scientist to do? In search for relevance, they did what many children do when discussing their fathers: they engaged in a tit-for-tat to see which scientist could grab and hold the headlines.

They all sought the title of "foremost expert on climate change". And as the drive-by media is prone to do, they continually shoved the microphone into the face of the most dramatic alarmist. Scientist #1 said that global warming was happening, possibly at a rate of 1/10 of a degree per century; and people yawned. Scientist #2 said it was happening at a rate of 3 degrees per century; and ratings went up a bit. Reports became more dramatic and more alarmist until someone said that in the next 50 years, half of all species on earth would become extinct; and every news agency on earth carried the story!!!

But even that wasn't enough. Some out-of-step, but trend-following moron went and declared that it was just too late, that the damage was done and we must all now sit and wait for our impending doom. The room went silent and everyone just stared at each other. Then they all declared with one voice that the guy who said it was just an extremist.

Why? Why was he an extremist, but not the guy that said we had 50 years? Now can people who deal in billions of years really quibble over a 50 year gaff? Oooooh! Because if it's too late, then there's no need for scientists, no point in signing the Kyoto Accord, no need to spend billions of dollars on more stringent emissions standards, no need to waste further news cycles covering the next one-upist. We might as well eat, drink and be merry with what little time, and few trees we have left! I mean, what headline could be more alarming than "too late"? I know, "Scientist: Global Warming May Cause World-Wide Flood!!" Nah.

If you sub-divide species into smaller and smaller classes (see "smaller class sizes are good" by the NEA), a slight fluxuation in numbers of any one sub-species has a much greater impact than if it were rolled up into the world population.

Imagine the headlines if these sorts of tactis were used on the human population: "harvardous enlightenus conneticus americanus makes the endangered species list; traditional culling curbed in light of new evidence!"

Missing Link: Or Missing Chain

Darwinists always talk about finding the "missing link". This puts into the minds of readers and conversationalists these two or three long segments of chain that lack only a single link or so to become one harmonious, singular chain. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Image some company builds a mile-tall concrete pillar to the bottom of the ocean floor somewhere between Europe and the continental United States, and puts a 10-foot long segment of road on top of the pillar, complete with yellow lane stripes and a light signal. While conservationists would certainly decry the traffic signal as "light pollution", the company could hardly claim to have constructed the first intercontinental Pan-European highway!

Yet, evolutionists with a million "missing links" yet to fill, hold a cereal bowl full of disconnected chain links in their hand and celebrate profusely when someone walks in the room and drops another disconnected link into the bowl, marking the near completeness of the chain.

What's worse, genetics has further complicated their quest to build their chain. What if one of the links was bronze, another was copper, another was lead, another was steel, another was brass, and the last was tin? In that case, the links you have don't even belong to the same chain! So you're even further from completing some ethereal chain!

As tissue specimens are collected and gene-mapped, we are able to tear apart each link and discover what it's made of. If one link's genome is 600,000 "base pairs" long (the size of some bacteria), while another link's is 3 billion "base pairs" long (the size of a mouse or human's), then they can't be from the same "chain" of decendency (and this ignores the coding of the base pairs!).

To a member of the genomics or bioinformatics community, sorting out which link belongs to which chain is as simple as is sorting pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters for you and I.

Scientists know that they don't have anything like a singular, cohesive chain. But they are slaves to their masters in the scientific community. If they want to be published or promoted, they must tow the line and pretend to be as confident in evolution as all their peers pretend to be. It's too bad that a few more honest scientists won't step up and declare the weakness of or at least question the accepted dogma. In our age of communication, haven't we had enough demagoguery?

For my part, I'd sooner buy a "gold" chain from a guy named "glitz" on a Chicago street corner than what Darwinists are selling.

Altered Beast: Looks-like Doesn't Mean Is-like

Genetics are a wonderful thing! We all have 'em!

In addition to giving humanity hundreds of new and effective medicines, genetics research has also debunked a number of old wives tales that have plagued history through the ages, such as the Cooks Arrow fable, claiming that a Hawaiian arrow head was carved out of the bone of British explorer, Captain James Cook.
Another mighty exploit of genetics research is to finally bring down another fable of slightly greater proportions: Evolution.

Genetics is the bane of Darwinists! Just when everything seemed to be going their way, Francis Crick had to come along and discover DNA, now known to be the building blocks of life on earth. When discovered, Genetics was the hope of Darwinists to finally stamp out the arcane beliefs of the superstitious population of earth (i.e. religious people). Through mathematical probabilities, it should be simple to show the phylogeny of "related" species down through time. Yet, the hopes of Darwinists shortly gave way to fatalism in face of the evidence (which is why evolutionary bilogoists don't dwell on it).

This quote appeared in the magazine Science, November 1980:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomeno of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

How damaging has genetic research been to the evolutionary faith? First consider this Coelacanth and Lungfish are (still) considered to be close relatives, as well as link-species in the lineage of the recently discovered Tiktaalik roseae. But the 1997 mappings of their genomes has not bourn out this classification. In an article discussing the problems of Clelacanth-Lungfish progeny, the Lungfish genome is found to be at least 35 times larger than Coelacanths:

Noonan said that coelacanth’s close relative, the lungfish, could also fill in the genetic gap between land animals and fish, but the coelacanth has one practical advantage: “The lungfish genome is enormous,” said Noonan, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. At 35 times the size of the human genome, sequencing the lungfish is an unlikely proposition. In contrast, the coelacanth genome is smaller than that of either humans or mice.

So by genetic (true scientific) ways of reconning, Coelacanth and Lungfish are about as related as Ecoli bacteria and elephants!! If you don't like my conclusions, listen to the observations of another scientist out of SanDiego, CA:

Upon reviewing the molecular phylogenetics it is quite clear that the relationship between teleosts, tetrapods, coelacanths and lungfish is not resolved. Different datasets tend to support different hypotheses, and generally none of the separate datasets, or even combined data, deliver really decisive support for a single tree. There are obviously many gene specific molecular evolutionary artefacts. The project could expect to resolve the phylogeny, and as this has been used as a test case, would contribute to improved models of gene evolution underlying phylogenetic analyses - possibly better algorithms.

So in spite of the evidence that their theories are completely wrong and disproved, they still hold on to the belief that there is an evolutionary model out there, yet to be discovered, that holds the key to consistency between evolutionary taxonomy and documented genetics.

Evolutionists use nice paintings and simplistic drawings to show what, to the casual observer, appears to be clear descendency of species from protozoa to modern man. But in the face of genetic evidence, their theories fall like Enron stock prices!

I would assert, I think reasonably, that related species must have related genomes. If the genomes are widely different, then the species cannot be related. I would further assert that no animal species is closely related to man. Man is the special creation of God, set apart, and in God's image. Any superficial resemblances with Chimpanzes are just that: superficial.

In all likelyhood, the dogs are related to each other. The cats are related to each other. The apes are related to each other. The ants are related to each other. But the ants are not related to the apes which aren't related to the cats which aren't related to the dogs (and would tell you so if they could talk).

Missing Link: Transitional Species Debunked

Debunked is probably too strong a word, but those that broker in the truth shouldn't have a hard time picking out nonsense and propaganda when they see it! Below is my thoughts on the latest discovery by scientists of what they are calling a transitional species between water-bound fish and land-roaming (terra-ferma) amphibian. It was written in response to an email from a friend directing me to an article on slashdot.com that announced this discovery:

Hey Jason,

How are things?

I thought you would like this recent article from the athestic anarchists at slashdot....

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/06/0217250

Alan

My response:

Alan,

Things are pretty good. I do miss Unishippers sometimes. Things there were more practical than here working for the government. It sure is nice to drive 15 minutes to work though (on a clear day with no construction!).

I read this article a few days ago in 3 different forms. I had to laugh, though at their outlandish speculation. I like your description of them: “athestic anarchists”. If you read carefully, there is no real evidence that this is a missing-link species. Consider these telling observations:

1. In the 2nd paragraph, they say that this find is in the class of Archaeopteryx which, they assert, bridged the gap between birds and reptiles. Problem is, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Archaeopteryx was anything other than just a bird. The whole body of evidence for Archaeopteryx being a bridge species is that they found it in a NE Chinese rock formation (Yixian) that, they asserted, predated the evolution of birds. Since birds didn’t evolve yet, they assert, Archaeopteryx must have been at least partly dinosaur! Interesting logic. If you’d found precisely the same fossil in strata that was dated, they assert, at say 300,000 years, then they would have said it was a new species of bird. But because of the strata it was found it, it must have been part dinosaur. What Archaeopteryx actually was is bedrock proof that birds were around as contemporary with the dinosaurs that supposedly turned into birds (a very new theory, even as evolution goes).
2. They also called it a “crocodile-like” animal. Well, if it’s like a crocodile, then why liken it to a fish!
3. The people who classified the find said it “probably had both gills and lungs”. Well that would certainly support their claims! But they didn’t find gills or lungs. All soft tissue was decayed an absorbed by the surrounding rock. No soft tissue survived (or normally does)! It really was just mindless conjecture to plant a picture in reader’s minds that would tend to support their claims that this animal was a transitional form.
4. I love this paragraph: Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language Inuktikuk - shows that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water.” So a name they gave the animal is evidence of evolution? Huh?!?
5. They say it had a “more primitive jaw”. Again, how do they know what a primitive jaw would look like. How do they know that a different jaw is a “more primitive jaw”. Imagine if they applied this logic to humans! Are blacks or aboriginal more primitive? Are Caucasian characteristics more modern? Pure racism. Darwinism is the basis for much of modern racism, as well as anti-Semitism. Again, baseless assertions.
6. Keep in mind that they didn’t discover through this find that fish crawled onto land. They “knew” that long before! The previous claim was the Coelacanth. They asserted that it’s fleshy fins would have allowed it to climb out of the water and go for short strolls. They had asserted dozens of things that they knew about the behavior and significance of the Coelacanth, and then they found some swimming around. Now there are 7 locations across 1000+ miles of the Indian Ocean that refute every claim they ever made about the behaviors of Coelacanth. Before, they were only 100% sure. But now, they’re 100% sure!!
7. Click here to read the description of the American Crocodile. It has webbed feet, scales, and (not in this article, 2 lines of rigid fins down it’s back and tail. How does this make it a fish?
8. Otters, seals, sea lions, manatees, beavers, alligators, crocodiles, caiman and many other species go between land and sea, this doesn’t make any of them “transitional forms”.
9. When they say: “Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animal both in terms of its anatomy and its way of life”. This is raw assertion. They found this fossil less than a month ago, and they claim to already know it’s “way of life”??? This is preposterous! If their brand of science was employed by CSI, every criminal would get off and every prosecutor would be in jail for contempt. This is not even circumstantial evidence; it’s something worse.
10. What they didn’t find: They didn’t even find the back half of the animal (though that didn’t stop them from drawing/painting/modeling it). The back half could easily shatter their theories. They didn’t find, nor could they, any evidence that this fish actually lived in shallow water, ever left the water, ever went in the water, ever anything. It’s all a total fabrication, as is all their retelling of 300 million years ago.
11. If evolutionists want to prove their theories, they won’t do it by asserting that one species looks like a cross between species A and species B. They’d have to do it by showing that evolution beyond the borders of the “kind” can happen. Of this, there are NO examples! While men range in height from 21 inches to 9+ feet, they don’t turn into anything other than men! Darwinists the world over are dancing on what they think is the grave of “intelligent design” (they say), but they haven’t made one inch of headway!
12. When scientists have tried to assert relationships between variant species, it looks plausible on the surface. But when you look at anatomy (where available), and the genome (where available), their theories break down quickly. They have totally disprove most of what they used to believe about even the simplest species of bacteria. When examining the genomes, they found out that they were far more different than originally thought.
13. What the scientists found was not a “developing species” like they try to portray through slight of hand. What they found was a fully-functioning species in it’s own right. I would assert (with equal authority, i.e. pulled it out of my ear, that what they found was merely an extinct species of whatever. Keep in mind that the notion of taxonomy and “species” was made up by a man (Carl Linnaeus) in the 1700's based solely on superficial resemblances. By their ways of reckoning, a turtle is more closely related to a rock than a person! The “species” are not related the way evolutionists assert. They are very wrong and they prove it daily. They just don’t admit it. Note: Linnaeus beleived in creation.
    

Anyway, that’s just my thoughts off hand. I haven’t researched this deeply like I’d like to do some time. Unfortunately, the people who discovered this find are being very tight lipped about the find, and only supplying details and photos that would seem to support their assertion. They’ve learned by experience that if you can get the majority of the scientific community to buy into it before releasing the rest of the find, it’s highly unlikely than any amount of contrary evidence will change their minds later. No one likes to admit they’ve been duped!

Hope all is well at Unishippers!!

Altered Beast: So Much From So Little

I love a good suspense story just as much as anyone. Y'know, the kind where the hero is entombed in an inescapable prison that is shortly to become his grave! But then, at the last remaining second he produces from a hidden compartment in his highly polished wingtip shoes the one weapon for which the sinister villain had composed no contingency: a paper clip! The hero somehow cracks open a circuit box, uses the paper clip to short circuit the building's electronic security system, and opens a way of escape that not even he knew was there!

There's something heroic about someone who can take nothing and nothing and make something of it. Such is the case with the latest dino-discovery in southern-Utah's Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, newest addition to America's menu of wilderness lands. When University of Utah graduate students went exploring for dinosaur bones, they came across unequivocal evidence of the truthfulness of evolution!! What was it? A new species of dinosaur (74-76 million years old) that was a clear transitional form between the raptor family of dinosaurs and modern birds. It was complete with blue feathers, a large tail-feather ploom reminiscent of Cleopatra, a large toothless beak, long arms that were destined to someday become wings, and several other distinguishing features designed to let heroic paleontologists of the future know that this dinosaur wanted to be a bird, but surgical options weren't available (or no health insurance).

So what must it have been like, there at the dig sight as these UofU graduate students hushed to silence as one young Darwinists brushed aside the red-brown dirt with a super-delicate paint brush-looking-thing to reveal the never-before-seen blue feathers? I can almost hear the gasps for air as a handful of dirt was swished aside to reveal the bright-yellow toothless beak, a huge, newly-evolved advantage in an age of huge meat-eating predators because...er...uh. Anyway, I wonder if anyone expected the array of colors or radial arrangement of the tail feathers that comprised the great animal's tail?

Er...what? They didn't find any blue feathers? Oh, not any feathers at all? Well what about the yellow beak? No??! Well, surely the long arms, then? No!!??!! Just hand and foot bones? Well how do they even know they were from the same animal? Oh, they don't?

Well, this story seems to have been a non-starter folks. Sorry for the alarm. It seems they only found a few hand bones and a few foot bones and decided to heroically conjecture (see "pulled out of shoe") the rest into existence. I too am embarrassed at this much-ado-about-nothing. It seems that our paleo-psychotic friends were again suffering from exposure, can easily happen down there with the highest UV index in the country. Seems they used the hand bones and a cross-reference to some bird uncovered in China to assert that they were, um...related. Apparently they weren’t any better at border enforcement 75 million years ago.

So I wonder what they intended to prove with all that conjecture and bone-reading? Ooooh. Evolution again. But I thought it was already proven? Why are they still trying to prop up that old theory? Why don't some of them fork off and try to prove something more useful, like gravity or entropy or something?

The lesson, kids is this. When scientists claim to have discovered some huge thing that finally shows the Bible to be wrong and God to be dead, read the fine print.

Altered Beast: Feathered Dinosaurs

Feathered dinosaurs...now there's a concept. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems like every dinosaur uncovered suddenly has "evidence" of feathers. Until recently, dinosaurs were thought to have had rough, heavy skin since they were "reptiles, not lizards". But then the most amazing thing happened: they found a dinosaur with feathers (dramatic music here)! So, they uncovered a fossil of an ancient specimen of a dinosaur with skin, feathers and small teeth! Did you find it at the pond? Um...it might have been a Canadian Goose...just thinking out loud here.

No, really! Scientists put out material, including full-motion 3D animated films designed for children showing with complete certainty that dinosaurs evolved into birds. One documentary I saw showed 3D dinosaurs morphing into birds; something that's much easier to do on computers than in the real world. But among themselves, they still hotly debate the evidence that badly contradicts itself. In one frank statement, a North Carolina professor said:

Not everyone agrees. "Vegavis was originally described as belonging to an extinct group; now all of a sudden it's a duck," says Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, who proposed the big bang idea.

Yixian's birds have scarcely helped. The 20 or so species have a bewildering mix of primitive and advanced features - the toothed jaws and long tails of dinosaurs, plus the short tails and horny beaks of modern birds. The controversy will only be solved when more fossils come to light.

Do you mean there's controversy within the scientific community? Then aren't the 3D movies kinda' jumping the gun a bit? Now I can at least understand this sort of journalistic infidelity from the New York Times. After all, they're trying to beat the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to the punch. Minutes matter in their field. But I don't understand this sort of "jumping the gun" from scientists who are studying topics that they believe span billions of years of evolution! Shouldn't "getting it right" trump "getting it fast" where scientific discovery is concerned?

The similarities between "feathered dinosaurs" and modern birds are so striking that to call them anything else but birds is kind of a leap. Their only reasons for calling them feathered dinosaurs are that they were buried in rock that Darwinists claim is a hundred+ million years old, which is before birds evolved! Now isn't that scientific (rhetorical "no.")!

Imagine a forensic pathologist is studying a murder crime scene (I know, ...more symmetry than analogy!), and decides that the victim has been dead for approximately 48 hours based on certain physical hints. Then, a young lieutenant produces a surveillance video tape from the hallway camera that details the struggle and subsequent murder, as well as contains a time-date index in the upper right corner of the film showing the murder to be only 6 hours earlier. So the investigator asserts the only logical conclusion: the body must have fallen into a time-altering worm hole that caused the body to experience 48 hours decay in only 6 hours! No! The only logical conclusion is that the forensic pathologist was wrong. The indicators that he relied upon to form his conclusions were wrong!

This is precisely the kind of leaps that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists routinely rationalize. They see feathers in a fossil that they've always thought pre-dated the evolution of birds. So they conclude exactly the wrong thing: that dinosaurs turned into birds. From the evidence, birds obviously did exist along side the dinosaurs. Their rationalizations that dinosaurs turned into birds are nonsensical, nearly random unless you also take into account their unwavering belief in evolution itself. These sorts of illogical rationalizations permeate all of modern evolutionary sciences. The formula basically looks like this: Since evolution is definitely true, whatever conclusion satisfies the truthfulness of evolution, however unlikely, must, therefore be true (a twist on Sherlock Holmes).

The gradual development of feathers also violates evolutionists assertion that evolution happens through long series of beneficial changes, often imposed by environmental factors. Feathers served no purpose until they were at a point where they could be used to fly. Why would dinosaurs carry around non-beneficial feathers for millions of years while unable to make use of them? Perhaps they were anticipating flight? "I know they're hot sweetie, but someday your great, great, great grandchickens will be able to fly"...oh wait.

Perhaps God created them the way they are. Did dinosaurs have feathers? Perhaps, but not because they evolved that way. They'd have them for the same reason that chickens, turkeys, ostriches, emus still have them today: because God liked them that way.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Missing Link: My Gap Theory

Ever notice how scientists always claim to fill some colossal gap in the fossil record and, thus, the human evolutionary chain? What's interesting is that they never really admit such a gap exists until they discover some "transitional form" that fills in the afore unmentioned gap! Scientists give the impression that the fossil record is pretty much complete, and speaks with one voice about the origins of man. But when you catch them in a frank moment (y' gotta' be pretty alert), they sometimes admit how sparsely the fossil record is populated.

Their theories about how fossils are made (casual, every-day circumsces) are just flat wrong. Creationists, on the other had, believe the majority of the fossils were created through cataclismic events. The Bible has a great explanation about how the fossils got here. It's called the flood of Noah. Of course, the last thing (and I mean, the very last thing) that scientists want to do is lend credibility to something so "unscientific" as the Bible. Yet, given what an evolutionist expects to find, the fossil record is terribly "incomplete".

To use an analogy that we can understand, let's imagine that we wanted to write a thesis on the topic of what people wore in the 1980's; and so we hire a research firm to give us all available photographic records of people walking down a populated street in down town New York City in the '80's. The evolutionists on the project believe that there were clear and constant video feeds that should render a very complete record of everyone who ever walked down that street. The creationists, on the other hand, believe that the only record was from occasional snapshots taken by tourists on the street and city survey teams that were working on a re-surfacing project for the city public works department. Well, after a few weeks, the research company comes back with around a hundred snapshots that represent only fractions of a second from about once every few months during the '80's. Only about 10 seconds of lens exposure was recorded in all the photos combined. The creationists on the project are delighted with the quality of the prints and the broad sampling available to them to write their thesis. The evolutionists on the team, however, are irate that only 100 snapshots could be salvaged from the many video cameras and millions of miles of film that they believe should be available from the '80's.

So the creationists believe that all the available photographic artifacts were recorded during only a tiny portion of time compared to the decade being studied. The evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that the available photographic artifacts are a full and complete record of everyone that passed by for a full ten years.

Well, that's the situation that we have with the fossil record. Creationists are delighted with the snapshots that make up the fossil record. They are fascinated by the variety and broad representative sampling available to them. They know that the fossil record only represents a few moments in time when the conditions were right for forming fossils. They don't believe in the transition from one kind of plant or animal into another, thus they don't see any "gaps".

Evolutionists, however, who fashion themselves the stewards of the fossil record, are puzzled. They hide their embarrassment at the incompleteness of the fossil record given what they expected to find based upon their theories. They contrive fancy theories as to why skin sometimes fossilizes just fine, but whole species groups, such as marine animals constructed mostly of cartilage, don't. They come up with far-fetched ideas to explain why the layers of strata as they believe them to be, aren't found anywhere in the world, and when found, are often found out of order! They have no explanations for some anomalies such as why many petrified trees are standing right through their precious layers of strata that are supposed to be composed of build up and sediment from millions of years per layer! They come up with complex systems of relationships between disparate species and try to classify every new find as a "gap filler". They entertain B-class contrivances to help explain why some things vanished and where other things came from (see dinosaurs to birds) given no previous fossil record of those species. They've learned that ridicule is a powerful tool, and that by speaking with a unified voice (see global cooli...er...warming), the majority of people will be intimidated into asking few questions.

Creationists are increasingly less intimidated by the poor logic and naked faith of the evolutionary, pseudo-scientific world. As science advances, many of scientists' original beliefs fall to new evidence. Yet their faith continues. Each generation of scientist thinks he's an authority and scoffs at Christians. Yet the next generation of scientist comes along and disproves the last generation of scientists, claims to "really know", and, again, scoffs at the Bible. When you consider this pattern throughout modern history, the Christian you see over there quaking in front of an ape-man display at the Field Museum in Chicago, is probably just chuckling.

See this article for an example of research and interpretation that counters what the lemmings of the scientific community suggest.

Archaeology: David's Palace

This will be the first installment of my Archaeology series. The point of this series is to show that the Bible is a reliable source of information regarding actual people, places and events. These sorts of finds are, frankly, too numerous to blog on all of them, but I want to highlight the big ones.

Historical revisionists have long questioned and even dismissed out of hand substantial claims documented only in Holy Scripture. One such item is the recent (1997) discovery of King David's Palace. This article documents how a 49 year old archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, used the Bible to locate King David's Palace, lost since the 9th century B.C.E.! There are now many authenticating features that make it highly unlikely that this find is anything other than David's Palace, even if the Bible had not been used to find it.

The article, as well as other sources, point out how the Palestinians and some secular archaeologists have scoffed at the existence of the Biblical David, or at least of his significance in Hebrew history. After all, the existence of a man like David that whipped his contemporary neighbors into submission isn't too comfortable for Canaanite descendents.

Once again, the Bible proves its worth as a guide for actual people, places and events. Does it prove there is a God? No, but it is evidence that the Bible isn't the fictional collage of stories as purported by the atheistic, pseudo-scientific community of our day.

In future installments, I hope to blog about the re-discovery of the Hittite Empire, the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great, and many other significant archaeological evidences that bear out the historical accuracy of the Bible.

The Lazarus Effect: Coelacanth

One of the most notable in my Lazarus series is the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth was a large fish with an average weight of 176 pounds (80 kg) and up to 6.5 feet (2 meters) in length with unique characteristics that lived (according to learned scientists) somewhere in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods (390 million years ago). What interested scientists the most was this fish's fleshy appendages at the base of certain of his fins. These appendages must surely have represented a "transitional form", they asserted. These stubby appendages were certainly the progenitors of arms and legs (which is why they had 6 of them, bottom and top)!

A "transitional form", by their definitions, is one that exhibits characteristics of two types of modern animals, and must, therefore, have been a middle species between one and the other. The keen observer will note that lately, every dinosaur "discovered" seems to have feathers! This is because scientists have altered their model (this word makes fantasy theory sound more like operable facts) to assert that the dinosaurs didn't die out at the beginning of the ice age, they merely turned into birds (Ah, I see)! On a side note, check out this article that refutes thier claims about feather evolution. So in the millions of years that it took to transition from dinosaur to bird, they merely wore arctic clothing by Canada Goose.

Anyway, the learned scientists boasted about how the discovery of the Coelacanth proved their belief that cross-species evolution did happen! Evolutionary artists even painted pictures of the Coelacanth using their fleshy fins to crawl out of the water to feed, possibly lay eggs, or just see who won the super bowl that year! Now we know that they never came anywhere close to the surface (300 - 700 feet deep).

Well, imagine their surprise (code for embarrassment) when in 1930, someone discovered a Coelacanth swimming around the Indian Ocean. Since that time, at least 6 sites have been found to host living Coelacanths spanning a thousand miles. The "startling" thing about this (and all) Lazarus species is the way that when found, they appear to be identical to their 390 million year old counter parts!

So how did this fella’ survive all this time? How come there aren't any Coelacanth fossils from those early layers of strata till the present? Shouldn't there be a consistent record of Coelacanths from then till now? Shouldn't all layers of strata from 390 million years ago till the present contain examples of the Coelacanth? And why didn't he change over the eons? Could it be that the earth is only 6-8,000 years old and he hasn't had time to change? Isn't is possible that the Bible's account of history is true, and that God's declaration in Genesis that each should produce after it's kind (which would eliminate the possibility that the Coelacanth is the progenitor of the Clydesdales [though I must admit, they do both start with a "C"])?

For scientists theories about the fossil records to be true, it is impossible for the species to have "gone silent" in the fossil records during all the years from then till now. As they do daily, they disprove evolution each time they find a Lazarus species.

The Lazarus Effect: Squirrel-like Rodent

Click here to see another Lazarus species, this time a rodent thought extinct for 11 million years. But it's understandable this time that scientists didn't find it earlier. It must have been a very tiny squirrel-like rodent. They said they found it inside Laos. Do you know how tiny you'd have to be to get inside a laos?

Here's an alternate link if Yahoo decides to archive their story.

The Lazarus Effect: Pine Trees

This is the first blog in "The Lazarus Effect" series.

According to "scientists", the Lazarus Effect happens when a species only known from the fossil record from eons gone by suddenly re-appears walking, breathing, floating, or just standing there, as is the case in this first blog. The name, of course, comes from the Biblical story of Lazarus (John 11) who was raised by Jesus after he was dead four days, buried and "stinketh" (11:39) until Christ resurrected him.

The phenomena is so astounding because, according to the learned scientists, the fossil record (read: atheists' bible) "goes silent" on some species some millions of years ago (usually round numbers of 5 or 10), and no such species is found in "newer" layers of strata. To see a 120 million year extinct fish or a 65 million year extinct dinosaur walking around does present some problem for these learned men (and women,...er...persons). For these species to have flourished many years ago and for many of such species to have been fossilized in the past, say the Jurassic period, yet for none to have been fossilized from then till now (65m years) is, well, against the odds, shall we say.

When presented with (oh, no!) another Lazarus species, instead of revisiting their shabby theories to something more palpable (I can think of one or so), they instead pretend to celebrate the discovery. If it's a problem anomaly, let it be THEIR problem anomaly!

Now just to be clear, the term "Lazarus Effect" isn't quite the right term. See, they named it that to pretend like they believe it really came back to life after tens of millions of years. But they don't really believe that and wouldn't say they did. What they really believe, and what really astounds them, is that this species ("kind" is a better word), has been around all along, but we didn't know it. With all the people walking around (billions at last count...or was that cheeseburgers?), the chances of no one seeing one of these in, say the last 45,000 years (when they say we started tooling ewes, or was it using tools? Can't remember!) are again, against the odds.

So I think it only appropriate to propose a new term; let Lazarus rest in peace. Maybe the "We were wrong effect!" Doesn't ring. Hm. Maybe the "Egged Face" effect. Better. Well, feel free to write in with your proposals. But try to keep it catchy.

If you've hung on this long, you're pretty determined, so here's the link to the first article that shows one of these Lazarus species ... to scientists' astoundment...something or other. It depicts a rare, but obviously not extinct, species of pine tree, the Wollemi Pine, that some tree guy came across in Australia. It was supposedly extinct for 200 million years.

Clear Evidence

Some people require proof before they will believe. This bars them from ever understanding and thus believing the greatest truths. The greatest truths are those concerning God and eternity. This blog isn't for them.

My purpose isn't to convince an unbeliever of the existence of God. Nothing I'll post here, or could post here could possibly accomplish that. My purpose is simply to present evidence that God is real. The cynic still won't be convinced.

A coworker of mine and I were having a discussion that landed (inevitably) on the topic of evolution. When I told him that I didn't believe in evolution, he came back with his experience in horse breeding, suggesting that he'd observed evolution in action. After several more volleys, he finally stated his standard of proof: "If they'd show me human tracks superimposed upon dinosaur tracks in the same layers of strata, then I'd believe them." Right away, I told him that they (the ambiguous "they") had uncovered just such evidence in many places on earth. Within a few days I'd found the book and page that documented an example of this in southern Utah, about 43 miles southwest of Delta. Here, sandal-clad human footprints overlaid trilobite fossils from before the dinosaurs (in evolutionary thinking). These fossils were supposedly from the Paleozoic or even Cambrian period (around 250 million years ago), yet they were superimposed by indisputably human footprints, which, in evolutionists thinking, couldn't have been been made until just 45,000 years ago! Scientists immediately labeled them a hoax until they returned with the man to uncover many more that he'd not discovered. When I showed my coworker this evidence, he said, "Hmph, that's interesting." and stomped off angry, rather than convinced. Such is the mind of the unbelieving man.

But perhaps a Christian, teetering on the edge, caught between the teachings of his pastor and the Bible, and the ridicule so overwhelmingly flowing from the world's demagogues (i.e. the media, university professors, apostate religious organizations, etc...) will think again before abandoning the faith to follow a different faith, today known as "science".

It is my intention to post on a handful of recurring themes:

1) Scientific and historical evidence that the Bible is true.
2) Evidence that the Darwinists are greatly changing their theories daily.
3) An attempt at explaining how true science is consistent with the Bible (and not the other way around.)

So I hope some of these things are encouraging to you as they have been to me. Once you learn to be suspicious of the scientific community, it's startling how many other things start making sense.

I would hope that anyone who reads this would accept the axiom of Colossians 1:18b "...that in all things he [Christ] might have the preeminence."