(SRL Home)

Jurassic Park (1993)

Check out our Video-Blog - "What was Leviathan?"!

---

Scott's Blog - 8/30/07

Tremors At the Temple

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office today presented the Palestinian Authority with a formal plan in which the Jewish state would forfeit the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – to Muslim control, according to top Palestinian sources.

The sources said Olmert's plan calls for the entire Temple Mount plaza to fall under Arab sovereignty; Jerusalem's Old City holy sites near the Mount to be governed by a Jewish, Christian and Muslim task force; and the Western Wall plaza below the Mount to be controlled by Israel.

Vick at the 2006 Pro Bowl.

Vick and the others are accused of "knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal fighting venture" and conducting a business enterprise involving gambling, as well as buying, transporting and receiving dogs for the purposes of an animal fighting venture.

About eight young dogs were put to death at the Surry County home after they were found not ready to fight in April 2007, the indictment said. They were killed "by hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

Vick first denied the allegations, both publically and to NFL officials. When his friends pleaded guilty to the charges, Vick soon followed suit.

And, as usually the case, he called a press conference and admitted his guilt, using a refrain we have grown used to over the last few years.

I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to bettering Michael Vick the person, not the football player.

I take full responsibility for my actions. For one second will I sit right here - not for one second will I sit right here and point the finger and try to blame anybody else for my actions or what I've done.

I'm totally responsible, and those things just didn't have to happen. I feel like we all make mistakes. It's just I made a mistake in using bad judgment and making bad decisions. And you know, those things, you know, just can't happen.

Dog fighting is a terrible thing, and I did reject it.

I'm upset with myself, and, you know, through this situation I found Jesus and asked Him for forgiveness and turned my life over to God. And I think that's the right thing to do as of right now.

So here is the question: Should anyone believe him?

There used to be an old adage that "There are no atheists in fox holes". Now it seems that when a celebrity stumbles, the attorneys, public relations specialists and spin doctors all agree that an appeal to a "Higher Power" is a great first step toward getting back to how life was before the embarrassing revelation.

If it works for Mel Gibson and Paris Hilton, why not Michael Vick?

But...

What if he is telling the truth? What if this concussive blast of consequences for outrageous behavior has caused a real change of heart?

Is this possible?

Certainly. God is an expert at reclamation projects. He did a pretty fair job with a First Century persecutor of the church named Saul of Tarsus. He later wrote:

God certainly can turn a life around. The big question is how can we know when He has turned a life around?

It takes time.

Time will reveal whether Michael Vick, or Mel Gibson, or Paris Hilton have truly been changed by a new relationship with Jesus .

When Jesus comes into a life, things really do change.

This doesn't mean these personalities will become spotless saints over night. But the genuine presence of Christ in a human heart will result in a process the Bible calls sanctification - our character being conformed to the image and likeness of Jesus.

Over time this change is impossible to hide. It is also impossible to fake.

When it comes to the latest celebrity profession of faith, let's take a page from the old Russian proverb, "Trust-but verify."

Let's pray that the best has in fact happened for Michael Vick, but also keep a weather eye to what kind of man Michael Vick will be five years from now, when the press conferences are over.

COLUMBIA, S.C. - This time, the question was a little easier for Miss Teen South Carolina. After being stumped by a Miss Teen USA pageant question on live television Friday night, Lauren Caitlin Upton's confused, mangled response has been drawing a lot of attention.

The 18-year-old got a chance to redeem herself Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show when she was again asked why one-fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a map.

"I would love to re-answer that question," Upton said. "Well personally, my friends and I, we know exactly where the United States is on our map. I don't know anyone else who doesn't. And if the statistics are correct, I believe there should be more emphasis on geography."

That was much better than her previous response, which included "U.S. Americans" and mentions of South Africa and "the Iraq."

Bless her heart, Lauren didn't duck and cover. In a remarkable demonstration of poise and courage, she faced her faux pas dead on.

I couldn't help but think that Lauren's response is instructive for us as believers. Sooner or later each of us will face the equally nerve wracking experience of sharing our faith with a skeptical non believer. It is entirely possible that we will be asked a question that we feel ill equipped to be able to handle.

I have found in situations like this the best response is to look for a "second chance to get it right".

Simply say to the skeptic, "You know, that is a great question. I'm going to look into that and get back to you with an answer if you'd like."

If you are dealing with a person whose sole intention is to win an argument or make you look foolish, don't count on a follow up conversation.

 But if you are dealing with someone who sincerely desires to seek truth, your answer and your example will speak volumes.

Two good things will come out of such an honest approach - First, you will discover there are Biblical answers to even the toughest questions, and that answer will be one you will never forget!

Second - You just might have the privilege of introducing someone to Jesus as their own personal Lord and savior.

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear (I Peter 3:15)

---

Scott's Blog - 8/27/07

Fly On, You Crazy Bumblebee!

"I want you to throw out your pre-conceived notions about Christianity for a moment and think about what Jesus said," a national evangelist told thousands seated at the Amphitheater at California State University Stanislaus.

"Who better to tell us what God is like than Jesus?" posed Greg Laurie at the Central Valley Harvest Crusade, his third evangelistic outreach this summer.

Some 48,000 people flocked to the Harvest Crusade with thousands more watching top Christian artists perform and Laurie preach via live webcasts. The evangelistic crusade has been months in the making, involving around 150 churches and 3,000 local volunteers.

Addressing pre-conceived views of Christianity that some visitors may have attended the three-night event with, Laurie affirmed what many believe – that there are hypocrites in the church.

"I'd like to say to you that there are no hypocrites in the church, but there are because the church is made of real people," said Laurie Saturday night. But "just because there are hypocrites doesn't mean that going to get you off the hook when you stand before God," the evangelist and Southern California pastor stressed.

"Jesus didn't say 'follow my people.' He said 'follow me,'" he highlighted. "Jesus will never let you down."

Speaking to those who may view Christianity as a religion of rules and regulations, Laurie mimicked such a person saying, "Ah, man. God is just out to ruin our lives. With all of its rules and regulations, who wants to get into that kind of thing?"

When Laurie had his Christ decision-making moment in high school, he hadn't originally set out to become a Christian. He was part of the party scene and had a mother who divorced seven times. And he thought Christians were Jesus freaks.

"A lot of us are like that. I'm going to draw my own picture of [who] God [is]," Laurie told the Harvest crowd.

And he didn't deny that sin can be fun. "It's fun to sin for a while. We've all had fun. But it comes with a penalty," he warned.

"It (sin) promises freedom but it brings slavery," said Laurie. "It promises pleasure but it ultimately brings misery."

Rather than judging from their own views, Laurie asked the crowd to see what Jesus says about what God is like.

Like the renowned story Jesus told of the prodigal son and the father, God will throw His arms around you and say "Welcome home, son/daughter," said Laurie.

Nearly 4,000 people accepted Jesus Christ over the Aug. 24-26 event. Laurie's next Harvest preaching is slated for New York on Sept. 23.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the Harvest Crusades are anything less than state of the art in technology, organization and presentation.

But there are those who will confidently assert that the time of large gathering Billy Graham style evangelistic outreaches has passed.

People just don't respond to altar calls anymore.

Putting on a crusade costs too much money and generates too few tangible results.

But evidently, like the bumblebee, no one told the Harvest Crusade.

Or the 4,000 people who gave their lives to Christ!

“ For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
      And do not return there,
      But water the earth,
      And make it bring forth and bud,
      That it may give seed to the sower
      And bread to the eater,
      So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
      It shall not return to Me void,
      But it shall accomplish what I please,
      And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

---

Scott's Blog - 8/24/07

Back To Babylon?

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith

Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007 By DAVID VAN BIEMA

Mother Teresa in a Calcutta orphanage, 1979.

Bettmann / Corbis

The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. (James 5:16)

---

Scott's Blog - 8/21/07

"It's Alive!!!"?

Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Aug 19 11:52 PM US/Eastern By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer

- Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they're getting closer.

Experts expect an announcement within three to 10 years from someone in the now little-known field of "wet artificial life."

"It's going to be a big deal and everybody's going to know about it," said Mark Bedau, chief operating officer of ProtoLife of Venice, Italy, one of those in the race. "We're talking about a technology that could change our world in pretty fundamental ways—in fact, in ways that are impossible to predict."

That first cell of synthetic life—made from the basic chemicals in DNA—may not seem like much to non-scientists. For one thing, you'll have to look in a microscope to see it.

"Creating protocells has the potential to shed new light on our place in the universe," Bedau said. "This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role."

Pretty heady stuff, isn't it?

At least until we start reading the fine print.

Let's start with the phrase "life from scratch".

Those who propose to make 'synthetic life' already concede they are working with the amazingly complex molecule known as DNA.

How much of a head start on synthesisizing life is this? Consider that the odds of just one of the complex components of the DNA molecule being formed by chance have been placed at 1 in 10 to the 260th power.

That is 10 with 260 zeros following it. This is a number so large we don't have a name to describe it.

Such numbers are far too large for most people to comprehend. However, the late Sir Fred Hoyle, who was Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University and was not a Christian, illustrated the point this way: ’Now imagine 10⁵⁰ blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion people—standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

 So those who propose to create life in the lab are working with some pretty impressive 'scratch' to begin with.

As to whether this genetic reshuffling will tell us something about "our place in the universe", I couldn't agree more. The scientists involved admit that designing life is a daunting challenge.

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:

—A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.

—A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.

—A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

One of the leaders in the field, Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School, predicts that within the next six months, scientists will report evidence that the first step—creating a cell membrane—is "not a big problem." Scientists are using fatty acids in that effort.

Szostak is also optimistic about the next step—getting nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic system.

His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.

"We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.

Do you catch what is being admitted to in this process? The attempt to create artificial life requires the brightest minds, working with the most advanced technology, under the most controlled conditions.

One might even use the words "Intelligent Design" to describe the effort.

Hmmm. Sounds vaguely familiar.

As in:

For thus says the LORD,
      Who created the heavens,
      Who is God,
      Who formed the earth and made it,
      Who has established it,
      Who did not create it in vain,
      Who formed it to be inhabited:

      “ I am the LORD, and there is no other."(Isaiah 45:18)

Mark Looy of the Answers In Genesis organization aptly points out the almost self refuting nature of these experiments.

Ultimately, experiments such as the ones being conducted today show that a Master Designer created life—that it did not come about by the mindlessness of evolution which scientists are trying to replicate. But these researchers are using their minds and their own creativity to do so—and all to prove that life came around by chance?

 

 

 

---

 

Scott's Blog - 8/20/07


In Harm's Way

Enlarge Image

This satellite image of Hurricane Dean from Monday shows the Atlantic season's first major storm heading toward Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula as a powerful Category 4 storm.

 

Figure 1. Comparison of ‘fossil axe-head’ with a modern axe.

For some time now, a ‘fossil axe-head’ has been reported from a private collection. It was found in a paddock near Warwick, Queensland, Australia. Items such as this are sometimes claimed to be ‘pre-Flood artefacts’ and hailed by enthusiastic creationists and various anti-establishment types to be evidence for an advanced ancient culture. It was therefore important to do a careful study of this object to clarify whether it was indeed a fossilized axe-head or simply a peculiarly shaped rock, since it is commonly known that weathered rocks can take some amazing shapes.

So what did the "credulous creationists" at Creation On the Web.com do?

An object claimed to be a fossilised axe-head, discovered in a paddock near Warwick, Queensland, Australia, was carefully examined. Radiography failed to reveal a shaft hole expected for a modern axe-head. Basic mineralogical analysis matched limonite, a mineral aggregate. X-ray diffraction identified the mineral composition as goethite, a common weathering product of iron-bearing minerals. Thus the suggestion that this object is man-made and stems from some advanced pre-Flood culture is highly unlikely.

The conclusion?

Naturally occurring objects with familiar shapes, such as this ‘axe-head’, are found occasionally. Creationists need to refrain from jumping to speculative, unsubstantiated conclusions of what an object appears to be, since what one ‘sees’ is often not what it truly is. Instead we need to examine these finds carefully. It is most unwise to use spurious evidence to try to substantiate the Bible’s account of history. And there is no need to do this anyway because there is plenty of solid evidence available.

Credulous and gullible? Or unbiased and careful? You make the call.

The straw man argument that the term "Creation scientist" is a contradiction in terms simply doesn't stand up under examination.

Kind of like "molecules to man by chance" evolutionism itself.

To learning much inclined,

(Though all of them were blind),

Might satisfy his mind

And happening to fall

At once began to bawl:

Is very like a wall!”

Cried, “Ho! what have we here

To me ’tis mighty clear

Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

Is mighty plain,” quoth he;

Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

So was Harrison right? Does it really matter what we call God? Are we really just talking different aspects of the same Supreme Being?

Sounds great in theory. But there is a fatal flaw in this point of view. What are we to do then with the words of Jesus Christ?

Here is the hitch. If Jesus is just one of many valid ways to God, how could He make such an exclusive claim?

And if you are keeping score at home, you also know that inevitably all major world religions end up saying the same thing. "We've got it! We are right and the others are all wrong."

This means that either one is right and the rest are wrong, or perhaps all of them are off base - but logically all of them can't be correct.

 Eastern mysticism says God is impersonal. Western thought declares that He is personal and involved in the lives of his people. Religions like Judaism and Islam say that God can only be reached by fulfilling commandments and rituals. Christianity says that we can never be good enough to reach God by good works and must be saved by God's unconditional love. Is there just one true God? Or many?

Which is it? How do we settle the issue of which spiritual path we will choose?

It really all comes down to a simple question - will we rely on speculation, or revelation?

Why is there so much conflict and confusion surrounding world religions? In essence because they all start from an earth bound perspective and attempt to reach into heaven.

But consider this radical idea. What if there was an alternative to man's view of God? What if we could lay hold of God's view of man?

This is precisely what Jesus brings to us.

In the same mind blowing conversation Jesus had with His disciples recorded in John 14, He takes this issue of understanding ultimate reality to a whole new level.

What do you do with an individual Who not only says "If you've seen Me, you've seen God", but then presents His life as proof positive that what he says is true?

If you are wise, you examine the evidence, consider His words and deeds and make a decision. He either is all He claims to be, or..

The great Christian writer CS Lewis aptly describes the fork in the spiritual road Jesus represents.

Jesus simply won't take his place in a chorus of equally valid religious voices. He did not offer speculation, but revelation. And offered the ultimate credentials to back the truth He shared.

Top Seismologist: Southern California Due For Major Quake

Coachella Valley Region is Long Overdue

August 10, 2007 - A top seismologist is warning that another major earthquake is in our future, a big one that could devastate Southern California, from the desert to the sea.

Lucy Jones, of the U.S. Geological Survey says it's not a question of where but when a big quake will strike the Coachella Valley, sandwiched between the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults.

Jones says that region is long overdue, and the seismic clock is ticking.

Jones says a magnitude 7.8 quake or more could collapse major freeways, knock down buildings in Downtown L.A., kill thousands of people and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

Officials in the Coachella Valley say they're taking her warning very seriously.

As a person who has spent a good portion of my life in Southern California, my reaction to this story was, well, less than panic stricken. Earthquakes are a way of life in the Golden State. Everyone who chooses to live there understands that some day "The Big One" will come.

What will they predict next? Two nations will go to war, but only one will win?

Let's face it, some of what passes for predicting the future is really only a statement of the obvious.

But there are exceptions. Consider the mind blowing implications of just eight Old Testament predictions concerning the coming of the Messiah.

For those who know their Bibles, these predictions may seem to be so familiar as to be old hat.

But what you may not be aware of is the incredible odds against one man in history fulfilling them.

Professor Peter W. Stoner, Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College,  who authored the book “Science Speaks” stated that the probability of just eight particular prophecies being fulfilled in one person is 1 in 10^17, i.e. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000). 

This statement was validated by the American Scientific Affiliation.  This number has been illustrated as follows:

If we take 1 X 10¹⁷ silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they'll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one?

Now that is a prophetic track record that goes far beyond a statement of the obvious.

When we stop to consider that scholars such as Alfred Eidersheim, have identified well over a hundred prophecies Jesus fulfilled at His first coming the implications are stunning. Why did God go to such lengths to provide such a supernatural "heads up" concerning the arrival of His Son?

The Bible's answer is clear.

Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology, ⁸ recently reviewed in Science⁹ and New Scientist.¹⁰

Top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘tailbud’ stage. Bottom Row: Richardson’s photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage. (From left: Salmo salar, Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus, Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens.) Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors, but point to Haeckel’s drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for evolution is now revealed as being based on faked drawings.

Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.⁸ He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.⁸

He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.⁸

The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.

Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).¹¹ In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:

‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ ¹¹

^{http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747}

 

The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).

The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’¹

Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.

Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’

However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.

Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’²

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).³

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.⁴ University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’^5,6

Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!⁷

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.⁵

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.⁸ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Ouch.

So what about our evolutionary parade?

More problems were reported today.

WASHINGTON - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

AP Photo: Frederick Kyalo Manthi , Phd, holds the H. erectus complete skull he discovered in 2000

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution;_ylt=AkMYAw.H5D1C6SwDonF9c6.zvtEF

So all that we were told about this so-called factual progression wasn't, well, factual?

But that certainly doesn't mean what it appears to mean. At least according to the white lab coat set.

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continuous self-testing process."

A question - apart from the gratuitous slap at people who might not buy the "goo-to-you-by-way of the zoo" model  of origins - when does "refining the specific points" cross the line to "back to the old drawing board"?

Haeckel faked the data.

Peppered moths don't adapt well to glue.

Now our orderly parade o' evolutionary progress is looking more like a bum's rush for the best seats at an open air concert.

It makes me wonder what "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" explanations we will be treated to twenty five years from now to keep this "leaky" boat afloat.

It reminds me of a quote from Dr. Robert Jastrow director of the Mount Wilson Observatory and author of "God and the Astronomers".

"For the scientists who have lived by his faith in the matter of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries" ~

It also reminds me of a quote from King Solomon.

There is no wisdom or understanding
      Or counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30)

 

---

 

Scott's Blog 8/8/07

Watching the Detectives?

Many police departments around the world have released official statements saying that they do not regard psychics as credible or useful on cases. There are allegations that this is not true and that such statements are part of a conspiracy to hide the effectiveness of psychics.

Australian police have said that they do not accept assistance from psychics. This was in response to an Australian TV show Sensing Murder in which self-professed psychics attempt to crack unsolved murders. ^[2]

Additionally, an unnamed Australian federal police officer was suspended following his seeking the aid of a "clairvoyant" in regards to death threats made against Prime Minister John Howard. A federal police spokesman said they do "not condone the use of psychics in security matters." ^[3]

New Zealand police have said "spiritual communications were not considered a creditable foundation for investigation" ^[4]

Twenty-eight police forces responded to a query from the UK Skeptics to say that they did not use psychics.^[5]

No psychic detective has ever been praised or given official recognition by the F.B.I. or US national news for solving a crime, preventing a crime, or finding a kidnap victim or corpse.^[8][9]

The Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia's official crime research agency, advises parents of missing children not resort to psychics who approach them.^[10] Former FBI analyst and profiler Clint Van Zandt has criticized the notion of psychic detectives and has stated that "What happens many times is that professed psychics allow themselves the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. After the case is solved, they make their previously vague predictions somehow fit the crime and the criminal." ^[11]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective

Doesn't sound very promising, does it?

But for sake of argument, let's grant the possibility of a person coming to the police with a vision, or sense of how a crime was committed, or even where a victim could be found - or even rescued.  The Wikipedia article does concede:

However, police in Britain do maintain a register of psychics "who in the past have proved helpful with unsolved cases"; and Scotland Yard has publicly acknowledged, on a number of occasions, that it approached psychics for assistance in murder and missing persons cases.

Does the fact that this kind of indulgence in occult phenomena "worked" mean that God was behind it?

Not in the slightest.

The Bible tells us that not all spiritual phenomena is from God.

How do we test the spirits? By comparing the message (or even the method) with the clear teaching of God's Word. What does God's Word say about seeking the insight of mediums and spiritists?

You might be thinking, "OK, the Bible tells us not to mess around with this stuff, but isn't a miracle, a miracle? If the end is good aren't we being spiritual soreheads by quibbling over the source?"

There is a fascinating passage that covers this possibility in a stunning way.

Notice what this passage tells us. There very well might come along a person who can do a seemingly real sign or wonder. But the real question is this: Where is the sign pointing us? To God and His Word? Or to the slippery world of the paranormal where experience is king, and "what works" is the highest virtue?

The wonderful thing about putting our trust in Jesus and His Word is that we will find both the ends and the means will be godly, spiritually safe and ultimately satisfying.

And isn't that where we want to be?

Mystery solved.

 

---

Scott's Blog 8/7/07

Is There More Than One Heaven?

---

Scott's Blog 8/6/07

Better Off Without Us?

During the course of the debate, Card focused on whether Mormons are moral people, good citizens and why Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney should be supported by evangelicals. He emphasized that Mormons share many of the same values as evangelical Christians and believe Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation.

However, Mohler noted that whether a Mormon has similar moral values to evangelical Christians is beside the point because Beliefnet.com had asked whether Mormons can be considered Christians based on traditional Christian orthodoxy.

“It appears that we are not really discussing the same question,” noted Mohler in his latest blog response.

“The debate has never been about whether Mormons are good Americans or would make good neighbors,” he wrote.

“I dare say that most American Evangelicals and traditional Roman Catholics would find more in common with Mormons in terms of child-rearing, sexual morality, the protection of marriage and family, and a host of other issues, than they would with liberal Catholics or liberal Protestants,” acknowledged Mohler.

But Mormonism from its beginning has rejected traditional Christian orthodoxy, which is part of the core Mormon identity, pointed out the highly-respected theologian. The subtitle of The Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

“A ‘testament,’ that is, other than that accepted by the historic Christian churches,” Mohler highlighted.

Mohler – who is often seen on “Larry King Live” and other popular news show representing the Christian voice – concluded that Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity and is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”

Mormon defender Card readily agrees with Mohler that Mormons do not fit into the Christian category as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy. However, he argues that Mormons should be considered “nontraditional Christians.”

“Despite our deep differences of belief over the nature of God and his plans for his children, we recognize that those who believe in the other Christian faiths have taken a giant step closer to fulfilling the intentions of our Lord,” wrote Card on Thursday. “They are, in heart and mind, Christians.”

He further added, “We ask only the same favor in return. Let’s take that word ‘traditional’ and make use of it. Instead of saying that we are ‘not Christian’…let us agree that Mormons are ‘nontraditional Christians.’” http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070727/28642_Evangelical_Theologian%3A_Bottom_Line_is_Mormons_are_not_Christians.htm

Here we see the dilemma. We all want to be loving and kind. No one wants to play the role of "Phil the Pharisee" in a religious debate.

But does our instinct to want to be tolerant lead us to overlook extreme doctrinal errors like:

There is a Father and Mother God?

God was once a man just like us?

Adam (of Adam and Eve fame) is the God we worship?

The ultimate goal of our existence is to become a god and populate our own planet with spirit children? (See http://www.ccftucson.org/Media/media.htm for documentation from LDS sources.)

 The word "nontraditional" drains the term "Christian" of any meaning whatsoever. It's like calling bacon a "nontraditional kosher taste treat".

And ultimately we aren't doing anyone any favors by ignoring this distinction.

So who is to say who is a Christian?

Ultimately that responsibility belongs to God and God alone. Fortunately he has not left us to flail about in an agnostic fog.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.(John 1:18)

If we are going to grasp what makes a person a true Christian, it only stands to reason we would want to base our understanding on what Christ Himself taught on this subject.

Consider what the Bible has to say on these crucial subjects.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT GOD?

God is our perfect, eternal, holy, loving Father.

“`To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?’ says the Holy One.” (Isaiah 40:25)

The Bible makes no attempt to prove the existence of God, rather it assumes that fact as the basis of all reality. (Genesis 1:1) The existence of God can be confirmed by the unavoidable marks of intelligent design in nature (Psalm 19:1-6), the internal hunger for purpose and meaning in all people (Ecclesiastes 3:11), the supernatural quality of the Bible (Isaiah 46:8-10), and the historical reality of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

The Bible declares that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:5), who exists in three Persons (Matthew 28:19). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal in nature as God, yet separate in personality (Luke 3:21-22).

The Bible tells us that God is completely unique (Isaiah 46:9). He is sovereign (Revelation 15:3-5), all powerful (Luke 1:37), all knowing (Isaiah 40:28), eternal (Psalm 90:2), and unchanging (James 1:17). God is also described as holy (Revelation 4:8), completely just (Psalm 37:28), the absolute source and embodiment of truth (I John 1:5) and unconditional love (I John 4:7-8). He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and all things exist for Him and His glory (Romans 11:33-36).

WHO IS JESUS CHRIST?

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

“In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1, 14)

Jesus’ identity as God is demonstrated in His eternal existence (Micah 5:2). He claimed oneness with the Father (John. 10:30-33), worthiness of worship (John 5:23), to be the giver of life (John 5:21) and the ultimate judge of all mankind (John 5:22). God the Father refers to Jesus as God (Hebrews 1:8-9). The Bible also tells us Jesus is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:16-17). Jesus validated these claims by doing things that only God could do. He forgave sin (Mark 2:10), lived a perfect, sinless life (I Peter 2:21-22), demonstrated omniscience (John 1:48) and dominion over all creation (Luke 8:22-25), and bodily rose from the dead (John 20:26-29).

While Jesus Christ is fully God, to save us He left Heavenly glory and took on human nature at His birth (Philippians 2:5-11). He did not cease to be God, but voluntarily laid aside the independent exercise of His attributes as God. His humanity is seen in that He possesses a human body (Gal. 4:4), that manifested human needs such as hunger (Matthew 4:2), thirst (John. 19:28) and the need for rest (John. 4:6). He experienced human emotions such as compassion (Matthew 9:36), sorrow (John. 11:35) and temptation (Hebrews 4:15).

Because He is fully human, Jesus could be our substitute, dying on the cross for our sins (I Peter 2:24). Because He is fully God He offered Himself as a sinless sacrifice of eternal value to pay the penalty due us for our sins (II Corinthians 5:21).

The Holy Spirit is a person, and He is God.

“The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4)

Unlike an impersonal power or influence, the Holy Spirit has intelligence (I Corinthians 2:10-11), feelings (Ephesians 4:30) and a will (I Corinthians 12:11). As a person, He can be lied to (Acts 5:3), insulted (Hebrews 10:29) and even grieved (Ephesians 4:30).

The Holy Spirit is God, as demonstrated in His role in creation (Genesis 1:2). He is all knowing (I Corinthians 2:12), present everywhere (Psalm 139:7), and all powerful (Psalm 104:30). He is also the One who revealed truth to the writers of the Bible (II Peter 1:21).

The Holy Spirit is actively involved in the life of a child of God. It is He who shows us our need to be saved (John 16:7-11). He indwells us at the moment of salvation (Romans 8:9). He provides the power to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8). He leads us into all truth (John 16:13), gives us assurance in our relationship with God (Romans 8:16), and prays passionately for us (Romans 8:26-27). He also bestows upon each believer spiritual gifts for the benefit of all (I Corinthians 12:4-11).

Although all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, each believer is also commanded to be constantly filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). This “coming upon" experience of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) may be received by simply asking God for this blessing (Luke 11:11-13).

None of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12, Romans 12:6-8) will pass away until we reach our eternal destination in the presence of God (I Corinthians 13:8-10). Until that time, the gifts of the Spirit are to be practiced decently and in order with Biblical direction for their use (I Corinthians 14:40). The ultimate proof of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of a church or an individual believer is love (Galatians 5:22-23).

Our term “church” is derived from a Greek word which literally means “belonging to the Lord”. The church is made up of all people who by faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ have been born again as children of God.

“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone...(Ephesians 2:19-20)

The church was not founded by any man or group, but by God Himself in the person of Jesus (I Corinthians 3:1). He alone is the head of the church (Ephesians 4:15). Jesus promised that he would build the church (Matthew 16:18). Jesus’ purpose for the church is that we would be with Him forever as His bride, completely free of spot or blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27).

We become part of the church not by completing a set of requirements or rituals, but by the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (I Corinthians 12:13). We are each given gifts by the Holy Spirit to use in the ongoing work of building up the Body of Christ ( I Corinthians 12:4-11).

The goals of the church include worshipping and loving the Lord (Revelation 2:4), encouraging one another in love and good works (Hebrews 10:24-25), reaching out to the lost and dying world with the Good News of salvation in Jesus (Matthew 28:18-21), practical expressions of care for the needy (James 1:27), and helping produce stability and maturity in the lives of believers (Ephesians 4:11-13).

http://www.ccftucson.org/about/doctrineal_statement.htm

 Granted there are many issues that sincere born again believers in Christ can and do disagree over. But in any real discussion of our spiritual standing we must understand that there are negotiables and non negotiables.

If we agree with the Bible on these non negotiable issues we are Christians.

If we disagree we are not.

<<< Older Posts

Newer Posts >>>