Oh! Ya - thanks for the suggestion; never thought about that. When filling out the profile, I didn't realize the restrictions it would put on those trying to email, cause you're right, there's people here to socialize and fellowship too and I'm certainly not opposed to that.
San Diego County Allows Bible Studies to Continue in Home
The San Diego County has backed down from shutting down a home Bible study after receiving a flood of complaints from people concerned that the county is attempting to "muzzle religious expression."
Related
* Pastor Cited for Holding Home Bible Study Without Permit
"No one respects the right to free religious expression more than I do, and no one would find the infringement of such rights more abhorrent," said county Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard said in a statement Friday.
Ekard said dozens of e-mail and calls have come in to his office as media reports revealed that a county employee told a local couple they could not hold their weekly Bible study without a permit.
The employee labeled their Bible study a "religious assembly."
In a warning letter, Pastor David Jones and his wife, Mary, were ordered to "cease/stop religious assembly on parcel or obtain major use permit."
The Joneses, along with dozens of others, argue that their right to hold Bible studies is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
While many saw the county's attempt as an infringement upon their right to assemble peaceably and privately in their home, CAO Ekard stressed that the county "has never tried to stifle religious expression and never will."
"This is a land issue," Ekard stated, and not an issue of religious expression.
"I deeply regret that a routine code enforcement issue has transformed into a debate over religious freedom in San Diego County," he said.
The county had received complaints from a neighbor about traffic and parking issues resulting from the weekly Bible studies, Ekard noted.
Pastor Jones believes the complaint was prompted when a Bible study member hit the car belonging to a neighbor's visitor. Jones paid for the car damage.
Dean Broyles, president of the Western Center for Law and Policy, based in Escondido, Calif., which is representing the Joneses, believes the county's insistence that this is a parking issue is fabricated.
"Broyles told the Union-Tribune that the officer had asked the couple such questions as "Do you sing?" and "Do you say 'praise the Lord?'"
Ekard is reviewing the officer's actions and re-examining the policies and procedures the county uses "to deal with such complaints."
If the officer is found to have acted inappropriately, Ekard said he will take action immediately.
"[L]et me be clear: religious intolerance in any form is not, and never will be, allowed under any circumstance in San Diego County government," Ekard underscored.
Until the county finds a solution to the matter, the Joneses will be allowed to continue their Bible studies.
Well thank ya, thank ya very mush (that's my Elvis impersonation).
Ya - I've actually been involved with a lot of Carbon 14 research; collecting samples from the Carboniferous (supposedly 300 million years old), samples from the paluxy river in Texas (rocks supposedly 100 million years old with dinosaur tracks in them), etc...
Whadya know - they all came back with C14 dates of 5 to 15,000 years old; so which of the "absolute dating methods" are correct?
At least these dating methods I've had success with - I'm not so sure about my dating methods here...:laugh:
(sorry, that was a really bad joke that came to mind when I realized where I was writing this...)
Ya, I'll try to write elsewhere on the "science" sections; posted a couple there.
And ya - I remember that one article on the subterranean water; if you ever stumble on it again, yes please send me the reference.
Many Christians have serious questions about the days of Creation - were they literal days? And why would it matter anyway?
As you will see, it matters a great deal - this can literally mean whether or not Christ is God.
After all, we are told by scientists (falsely so called) that the earth is billions of years old, yet the scriptures are quite clear about the age of the earth: You know all those pages and pages of boring genealogies? Why are they there? It's so we know the time line of everything - including creation, and the age of the earth.
I won't get into the scientific debate behind the age of earth here, nor will I get into the history of the idea of an "old earth," other than to say it is a bankrupt philosophy from its roots. The idea of an old earth was invented soley to discredit the Biblical account of a global flood.
Instead, I'll focus on the scriptural context here, because there are a great many perfectly acceptable questions surrounding this - questions that I asked too, so I thought I'd share the answers here that I found. I'll gladly discuss the age of the earth scientifically over in the "Science and philosophy" forum, if someone wants to post a question.
James Ussher was the first to spell it out, adding up the genealogies throughout the scriptures and concluded that creation began 9 a.m., Sunday October 23, 4004 BC. It's been roughly 2,000 years since Christ, so that places the age of the earth at ~6,000 years old.
How long is a day?
First of all, the word used for the "days" of creation is Yome (strong's H3117). Whenever this word is used in association with day and night, it always means a literal day. Whenever it is used with a number (i.e., the "first day"), it is always a literal day. Whenever it is used with morning or evening, it is always a literal day.
So it's as if the Lord, looking ahead to the challenges to our faith we face today, and this great end times deception which was prophesied by the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:3-6), described the days of creation emphasizing that they were literal days:
Gen 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Notice that it invokes evening and morning, a number, and light and darkness (day and night).
Exegetically speaking, there's no doubt these are literal days.
A day to the Lord is as a thousand years?
Of course, another verse in Peter comes to mind to many people:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Of course, I too was taught all the same propaganda in school that everyone else here got, so I was told the earth was "billions and billions of years old." So it's only natural that people would try and work these old ages into the scriptures - however, not only does an old earth not solve the problems for evolution, it causes fatal problems for evolution. (Again, I won't get into that here)
But maybe the earth is older? Maybe the days of creation were thousand year days, and not literal days?
No; then you have a math problem: Adam was created on day 6, lived through day 7, yet died 930 years old! (Gen 5:3)
Futhermore, if you read the passage from Peter carefully, you'll notice it goes both ways: Why is it that we always want to make the days longer, not shorter? It's because of what we've been taught (programmed, propagandized with) here in the "enlightened" culture. Why were they not literal days, but 0.00058 second-long days?
Whadaboutagap?
Is there perhaps a gap between verses 2 and 3 in Genesis chapter 1? Jonathan Sarfati answered this nicely in "Refuting Compromise," by looking at the grammar of the Hebrew writing. Verses 1 and 3 are a wow-consecutive, (pronounced vov-consecutive), verse 2, in the middle, is a wow-conjunctive. In other words, verse 2 can be best described as a paranthetical statement. Let's rewrite the first three verses of Genesis:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
In other words, there is no gap between verse 2 and 3, verse 2 conjoins verse 1 and 3.
The miracles of Christ:
So the question arises: Do you believe in Christ, or do you believe Christ? (ouch, or amen?)
Jesus carried out many miracles that happened instantly, and he spoke them into existence. Why then is it that we have a tendency to believe these miraculous stories, yet we doubt the miracle of a literal, six-day creation? It was the exact same process - Christ (the Creator, John 1:3) spoke everything into existence during the days of Creation. When he visited earth 4,000 years later in the flesh, he spoke miracles into existence that even his enemies did not deny.
The only reason for suggesting an old earth
It cannot be overemphasized that the only reason the old earth was "invented" (and that's what it was - it wasn't "discovered" that the earth was old) was to discredit the history according to Moses. The idea of an old earth was only invented to explain away the evidence left behind by Noah's flood - evidence which is literally everywhere you turn. So by adhering to an old-earth paradigm, what you are really saying is that the biblical account is not correct, for the biblical account claims there was a global flood at the time of Noah.
What Would Jesus Believe?
If you discount the story of Noah, the ark, and the world-wide flood as allegory, then you discredit Christ and the Apostles. Christ and the Apostles were all young-earth creationists!
They believed in the story of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden was a real place, the fall of man was a real event, and the consequences of sin were real consequences:
-Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4, 1 Timothy 2:13
Jonah and the whale was a real story, involving a real person, a real whale, a real event:
-Matthew 12:40
Noah and the ark was a real story: Noah and his family were real people, the flood was a real event, the ark was a real boat, the animals were real:
-Matthew 24:37-39, Hebrews 11:7
There's no getting around it: If we evolved, or if the earth is millions or billions of years old, then Christ is not the Creator, Christ is not God, therefore Christ is merely a man. He may be a sincere man, but he is just a man. The Apostles also believed these stories to be fact.
If all of these men do not know the past, then why should we trust them for the future when they say "Ye must be born again?"
This is the crux of the matter, and it is these issues which caused people like Charles Templeton to convert to atheism.
Templeton was an evangelist who preached to packed-out stadiums of 30,000 people and had thousands come to know the saving grace of Christ through his ministry. Later on, Templeton was overcome by doubts hurled upon him by "scientists" who weren't there at the beginning, but authoritatively claimed that they "knew" the earth was billions of years old, and claimed to be able to "prove it." Templeton would not only become a very outspoken atheist, but he went on to write the book "Farewell to God: My reasons for abandoning the christian faith."
The interwoven Bible:
There is much more to this, the simple point being, that the moment you question any one part of scripture, you question all of it. It is all interwoven in a powerful way. Some quick examples:
Why was Christ crucified with a crown of thorns? Because he was bearing the consequences of our sins, and one of those consequences was thorns - as revealed in Genesis 3:18.
Why was John the Baptist specifically named John? Why was the angel Gabriel sent to name only two people: Jesus the Christ, and John? Because John is the same name as Noah, and baptism is an analogy to the flood of Noah, and the ark an analogy to Christ. When Christ was baptized by John, the Spirit of God descended on Him like a dove.
Nothing is left to chance - our God is a God of attention to detail: Why a dove? Again, it's an analogy to the flood: Noah released a dove from the ark, which did not return...until Christ was baptized.
All of scripture is interwoven, and it is a fascinating study in the word of God which again, because of space, I won't get into here.
One can now begin to see the relevance of scientific creation. You don't need to be a super-genius, nor understand the technical mumble-jumble. But even a simple understanding of the debates and argument is a powerful sword - especially in the hands of teenagers who are under the continual fire of the gattling guns of the enemy, trying to program them to question the word of God and believe "science, falsely so called."
Over on CM, I can click on a person's profile and see when the last time they logged in was. This is useful for a number of reasons, namely, if this person hasn't been on in over a month, chances are they're taken, fell so madly in love they forgot to remove their profile or something. Or, they just don't care anymore, or got frustrated and left, etc...
Most of the people here use a disposable, free email address, which they may not be checking either, and so they never even realize that people have been trying to contact them, and totally forget that they were even on here.
IDA thought they'd found more intermediates by now!
Posted : 29 May, 2009 07:41 PM
Also from my last newsletter - and again, sorry for the lack of photos (referenced in the article) - but again, I'm sure everybody heard about this in the news, there's no lack of photos of IDA kicking around that you can look at. Enjoy!
4) IDA thought they'd found more intermediates by now (missing link #2)
I was on the road when "Ida" (shown right) was unveiled with much pomp and circumstance. But that wasn't a problem, seeing as how I got about ten emails, a youtube message and three phone calls in one evening regarding this fossil! Thanks to all of those who wrote in - I would rather be inundated by the same story than to miss it.
The find was made public, in time with the publication of the find in the PLoS One (Public Library of Science; an on-line, peer-reviewed journal), a book (entitled "The Link"), a live broadcast television press conference, and a History Channel two-hour special - with limited commercials, just on this fossil. The title of the History Channel documentary? "The Link." (Gee, I didn't see that one coming)
Even Google remade their logo in celebration of this "incredible find"
The PLoS one article is here.
Bold and Brazen Claims:
Named Darwinius masillae, (undoubtedly a nod to the year of Darwin) bold claims were made of course, so it's no wonder that so many people wrote in, asking me about this fossil.
Let's take a look at some of the initial claims made in the media:
One Fox News article ran the headliner "Ancient Primate Could Be Distant Ancestor of Humans," and said:
"In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans."
Oh really? But wait - it gets better! The first line in the Sky News report was
"Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution."
They went on to write:
"The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York....Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle." (Red text emphasis mine)
In fact, you really gotta read the entire Sky News article yourself. Here's some more quotes:
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said.
"This is the one that connects us directly with them.
"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'.
"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."
There's no getting around the claims that were being made here: They were claiming that this is proof of evolution, it is a transitional (or intermediate) fossil, the missing link.
The Missing Link
Actually - last I checked, we weren't looking for 'the missing link' - the entire chain was gone! They even admitted as such in the last quote!
Now, I agree - Ida is indeed a spectacular fossil - some 95% complete, but frankly, Ida thought the evidence would have been better, considering the claims that were made. As you will see, if anything, this is good evidence for Creation and Noah's flood.
Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is written that God created life to reproduce after its kind. Now before the skeptics get their underwear in a bunch, let me address what a "kind" is. I'll go with the blue letter bible's definition:
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved�not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".
The point being, within the Creationary paradigm, change is limited; dogs will always give rise to another kind of dog. Evolution requires major changes - changes in genetics, skeletal structure and internal organs, reproductive systems, cardiovascular systems, etc... These are major changes. And yet, what we see in the fossil record is not change, but stasis, or the lack of change.
For example, look at the fossil fish on the right. This is called Knightia, and is a common fossil in the Green River formation of Wyoming. This fossil fish is supposed to be 48 million years old, yet it is exactly like the modern day Herring. The only evolution that has taken place here is in the name!
Don't believe me? Compare for yourself - look at the photo on the right, then head on over to Wikipedia and look at the photos of herrings.
Now of course, some evolutionists will get hot under the collar and say that environmental changes are what drive evolution. This is a red herring (pun intended) as first of all, this is only one of many dozens of examples I could provide of stasis in the fossil record. Secondly, look at the major changes believed to have taken place in human evolution during the course of this supposed 48 million years.
Nonsense - there is no mechanism for evolution, I deal with this extensively in other newsletters and in my "Complete Creation" video series.
Ida thought there'd be more change!
So what of Ida? Is she really good evidence for change over time?
First, let us remind ourselves of just how good this fossil is.
Dr. Jorn Hurum, the project leader, in a preview interview for the History Channel's "The Link," said
"This skeleton is so complete, that we could actually date her, not only for how long ago she lived, but how old she is too; she's about nine months old when she died. That's comparable to a six-year old human."
Once the media hype had taken its course, some scientists and even the originally hyperactive media, took a more reserved stance. For example, in a later Fox news report, they wrote
"The small body represents a roughly 9-month-old female that probably looked a lot like modern lemurs."
Indeed it does look a lot like a modern lemur. So is this evidence of evolution, or evidence of stasis, and "kinds" reproducing after their "kind?"
As is typical when evolutionists describe a "missing link," they focus on the similarities and/or the differences of a skeleton with other skeletons in order to bolster their case.
For example, with Ida, a couple of media reports pointed to Ida's opposable thumbs and the fact that it had nails instead of claws. Well, take a look at this photo of a ring-tailed lemur (from wikipedia, click here to see a larger image) and see for yourself that lemurs have opposable thumbs (like we do on our hands) and fingernails instead of claws.
Some of these articles focused on differences in the teeth, which again does not in any way rule it out as a lemur - this could be anything from a variation of a lemur, to a mutant. We have people all around us who were born "missing parts," and yet they are completely human.
Much to do was made about Ida's "talus bone" in her ankle; supposedly much like a human talus bone. And yet, the rest of the ankle looks a lot like a lemur's!
By the way - did you know that horses can have variations in vetebrae (spine bone) and rib count? Yup. These are the kind of variations we can see within organisms - and yet these horses are still very much horses. So the presence or absence of a supposed "talus bone" may or may not mean something. Certainly it is nothing over which to make the bold claims that have been made!
In a following Live Science article, other evolutionary scientists also express their opinions that the evidence is less-then-impressive in supporting the claims hurled around by the media:
"On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing," said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. "They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing."
"They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence," said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. "And they failed to cite a body of literature that's been going on since at least 1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis."
"This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly I've got 10 more in my basement," said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
"It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," Beard said.
Science, or propaganda?
This "unveiling" has been a well choreographed publicity stunt, sacrificing good science for the sake of promoting the fossil, and selling books and television programs! Even one of the authors of the article, Dr. Gingerich, said so, as noted by the Wall Street Journal:
"There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study. It's not how I like to do science".
In fact, take a close look at the photograph of Ida's "hand" provided to the media, shown right:
Notice the subtle propaganda here: They have spread the bones in such a way, and then placed the shadow of a human arm and hand in the background. There are many major structural differences between the human arm and hand compared to Ida's. So why did they do this? The same reason that evolutionists hire artists to create reconstructions of the supposed "intermediate" fossils - it's to convince the public of the supposed overwhelming evidence for evolution.
And once again, the evidence is underwhelming, even to the evolutionists!
This is indeed a fantastic fossil in that the preservation is remarkable - even the contents of its stomach as well as some fur was preserved. Gee - that seems like good evidence for rapid burial! Could it have been Noah's flood?
I will simply close off this article with some further reading from skeptical evolutionists. The claims made over this fossil have been exagerated to say the least. It is an excellent example of how so many "intermediate" fossils grab the spotlight, and are emblazened in the minds of the public, only to be very quietly removed from glory later on.... and yet everyone who saw it in the spotlight believe in evolution, in spite of the fact that it doesn't support the theory.
Further reading:
The Sydney Morning Herald
Fox News online
AIG has an excellent compilation of quotes from skeptical evolutionists here.
From my most recent newsletter, sorry - I can't post photos here, but just an internet search and you'll find LOTS of photos of puijila, or follow some of the links in the article. Enjoy!
Ancestor of the seal: Proof of evolution? (missing link #1)
I was swamped with emails from alert readers about the supposed "seal ancestor" found in the Canadian high arctic, as reported in Nature magazine.
Thanks everyone, don't worry about swamping me, I'd rather be swamped then miss a good news item.
While this is a spectacular find to be sure (estimates are that they managed to recover some 65% of the skeleton), it is merely excellent evidence of a dead creature. It is lousy evidence for evolution.
The Canadian Museum of Nature has a page devoted to this fossil:
http://nature.ca/puijila/index_e.cfm
Most people, when reading an article or report, start reading at the top. After reading this analysis, you'll probably find yourself reading articles starting at the bottom from now on.
Let's glean some comments from some of the major news reports on this item first, and you'll quickly get a grasp of why so many people were asking me to comment. I've highlighted the contradictions in red.
The Windsor Star touted Puijila with the headline "Arctic Fossil 'Missing Link,'" saying
"A Canadian-led team of scientists working on a remote Arctic island has discovered the fossilized remains of an extinct forerunner of the modern seal -- a stunning new species hailed as the "missing link" in land-to-sea evolution predicted by Charles Darwin." (emphasis mine)
The Physorg.com website ran the headline as "Fossil evidence of missing link in the origin of seals, sea lions, walruses found in Canadian Arctic" (emphasis mine).
With such bold headlines and claims, one can quickly see why so many people were writing to me for an opinion. I will merely quote straight from the mainstream media in response. If you scootch down to the bottom of the CTV news and CBC news articles, you'll notice some contradictions between their headlines and the information in the article itself:
CTV news had the bold headline "Canadian fossil find sheds new light on seal evolution" (emphasis mine) claiming
"The Puijila darwini is the oldest and most primitive pinniped skeleton found to date, though the scientists say it is not a direct relative of today's seals. Instead, they believe modern seals, as well as the Puijila darwini likely evolved separately from a common ancestor." (emphasis mine)
CBC news claimed "Arctic fossil points to missing link between seals and land mammals" (emphasis mine), and ended their report with a major statement that would be easy to miss:
"Because Puijila lived at around the same time as some flippered pinnipeds, the researchers believe it was not the ancestor of modern seals, but that Puijila and seals shared a common pinniped ancestor." (emphasis mine)
Whoa - did you catch that? Did you notice the contradiction between the headlines, the bold claims made in the various articles, and this one single, stunning fact? The pinnipeds were already around, therefore Puijila could not be the ancestor of the seal!
Puijila is a fascinating find, and while it is excellent evidence for a dead thing, and it can be interpreted within an evolutionary construct, to say that it somehow "proves" evolution is just plain false. It is just as easily interpreted within the creation context as a unique organism... assuming it is indeed unique. The variations within dogs is a classic example of how wide and varied creatures can be, and the similiarities between Puijila and the many examples of Otters makes me suspicious it's simply a variation of the Otter, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.
Ah - don't take the "views" count too seriously - although I can see why you would say it was "creepy" haha! :laugh:
I know I wound up going back to some profiles in my favourites, cause as I was going through the profiles, I'd save ones in my favourites that caught my attention. So I would pick #1 and try to contact her. My experience has been the same of course, that everyone else has - I wait for days, no response....
So in the meantime, I look around at the other "favourites" to double check and triple check - what was it that caught my attention? Was there anything I missed?
Also in the meantime, I don't want to be approaching multiple women at once; so I'm waiting to hear back from this one lady I sent an email too. Eventually, I get fed up, move on - okay, who's next? I approach another lady, she never writes back... ad naseum.
Also, some people are just plain forgetful. they see someone on a discussion board, or whatever, and try to remember - "Okay, what's the scoop with this person?" and they go back and look.
However - y'know what, if someone's got you in their favourites, and it's obvious to you you wouldn't be interested, then ya - perhaps a "remove from someone else's favourites" button would be a good idea.
