BLOG

We've all seen the evolutionary line-up of profiles that show an ape on all fours, then an ape upright, then an ape more upright, and so on through a bunch of deformed-looking humans until you reach the climax at the far right, "Modern Man" (who, of course, is always a white European.)  The people who make these charts always claim to have fossil evidence to prove each of these intermediate "hominids," and most of us don't have the knowledge on hand to dispute them.  But if we did a little archaeological research, how well would the Evolution of Man chart hold together?

Remember that in biological evolution, man must evolve from apes.  If he doesn't, that means man was created.  And that would destroy cosmic evolution.  So not only do evolutionists want to believe in ape-to-man evolution--they have to.  Many have built their lives on the theory.

So let's have a little sympathy for the evolutionist archaeologist trawling around in the dirt, sweating with the anticipation that the tooth he has just discovered belongs to a prehistoric, upright-walking ape, okay?  They are only human too.

Ramapithecus was the name given to the species which was said to be an ancestor of man until the 1980's.  Nowadays, it is categorized in the sivapithicus branch, next to orangutans, and is considered a cousin, but not an ancestor of, humans. Good call because the whole species is based on two fragments of jawbone (including teeth) found in India and Africa.  You have no choice but to make some pretty large assumptions in order to conclude that Ramapithicus was a upright monkey, much less a prototype for humans. (See the jawbones here)

The genus Australopithecus ("southern ape") is said to contain the oldest hominids (2-3 million years old).  It is in this genus that the famed "Lucy" skeleton is placed.  Lucy was found in Ethiopia in 1974.  Hopefully one day soon I'll write a whole article about Lucy and her kind--for now just suffice it to say that the archaeologists who found her determined she walked upright largely because of a knee joint they found.  Problem is, the knee joint was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton.  Ah, but they must have been closely related. . .

Peking Man was unearthed in China.  He started out as three molar teeth, but in a few years grew to a dozen skull fragments and jawbones, 7 thigh fragments, a couple arms, a wrist, and about 150 teeth.  Of course, he had a few of his cousins with him.  But he also had some friends.  Elephants, deer, modern humans, and stone tools were found mixed with the Peking Man fossils.  Besides that, a huge ash heap was found nearby.  It appears that Peking Man and his cousins may have been no more than monkeys who became supper for a hunting group.

Piltdown Man is not really worth talking about, but it demonstrates how easily people can be deceived if they want to believe something.  In 1912 a skull cap and jaw were found--the skull human-like, the jaw ape-like.  Evolutionists were convinced they had finally found the missing link between man and ape, and for 40 years they trumpeted the find and saturated the public with "the truth".
But 1953 chemical testing demonstrated that the bones had been stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down to fit them in the jaw.  Evolutionists had been took.
A similar case happened with Nebraska Man, who was completely created out of single fossilized tooth found in Nebraska.  Later it was found to be the tooth of a pig.

Neanderthal Man also deserves a more lengthy exposition.  Except for those who are itching to find an ancient ancestor, Neanderthal Man is nothing more than a modern human who suffered from rickets and arthritis.  There is simply no reason to believe he roamed around naked and killed buffalo by chasing them and pounding their heads with rocks.  Or that he lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Yet despite the sketchy evidence and controversial theories, these and other "transitional forms" are continually drawn out as fact in school textbooks, science articles and television specials.  The reason is because evolutionists have to have them.  Unless they find them, theorize about them, publish them, or even create them, they have no explanation for the origin of man.  Which cannot have been God.

[I am indebted to Dennis R. Petersen and his work in "Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation" (Master Books), which made this blog entry possible]

Out in Minnesota scientists have spent $55 million to plug up an old iron mine with a "neutrino detector."  The high-tech device is supposed to catch elementary particles called neutrinos--specifically those created 450 miles away at Fermilab near Chicago and shot through the ground toward Soudan mine.  Other detectors are being built in Antarctica and the Mediterranean, besides ones already in use, such as Japan's Super-Kamiokande detector.

The multi-million dollar price tags on these professional toys (including a $125 million projection tunnel at Fermilab) is enough for us to be able to ask, What do we need to know about neutrinos?  The biggest answers scientists are giving is that our better understanding of neutrinos will influence how we think the early universe formed after the big bang.

But what if I don't believe in the big bang?  What if I'm not an evolutionist?

How much did you say you spent?

Okay, so maybe there are some more practical reasons for learning about neutrinos--electrons, muons, tau particles, and their "flavors"--such as understanding how they interact with gravity and with one another, and whether they really exist in the form we think they do (after all, we can't see them).  I'm all for those.  But I'm not hearing most scientists parading those reasons.  They're all about the creation of the universe and of distant galaxies and solar systems. 

Advice to philanthropists: Check where and why that cash is being sent before donating your next 5 million to "education and research." 
Advice to self: Check where and why that cash is being sent before paying that next 50 bucks.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been elected as the 265th pope of the Roman Catholic Church, adopting the name Benedict XVI.  Some Catholics think the new pope is too theologically conservative for the diverse church, but others expect the best from what they consider a humble spirit.  If you are unaware of the beliefs that set the Catholic Church apart from other denominations of Christianity, carefully read the following transcript of Benedict XVI's first words and blessing:

POPE BENEDICT XVI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard.

I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in your prayers.

In the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help, we go ahead, sure that God will help, and Mary, his most beloved mother, stands on our side.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

(UNKNOWN): Long live the pope!

BENEDICT (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you.

Let us proceed with the blessing.

Holy apostles, Peter and Paul, we trust in your power and in your authority. Please bless us through Lord Jesus, our lord, amen.

Through the prayers and intercession of our lady, blessed John Baptist and all the apostles, Peter and Paul, and all the saints, omnipotent God, have mercy on us, and please remit all our sins with the blessing of Jesus Christ, and lead us into the eternal life. Amen.

May there be indulgence and absolution and the remission of all your sins. After having repented duly, and may your life be blessed, and may you have the consolation of the grace of the Holy Spirit. And may, through your perseverance and your good works, the Lord, in his omnipotence and in his mercy, forgive you. Amen.

And I bless, through the Lord omnipotent, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. May the blessing be upon you and always be with you.

Amen.

(APPLAUSE)

END

In Catholic tradition, Mary, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and all the apostles and all the "saints" are believed to have the power and authority to bless us and intercede on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins.  However, this is in contrast to the teaching of Scripture, particularly Hebrews:

 

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.   -Hebrews 7:23-26 NIV

Israelite priests acted on behalf of the people by interceding for them and offering sacrifices for sin.  However, their sacrifices did not have the power to remove sins;  they were merely a foreshadow of the Great Sacrifice to come.  All those priests are dead.  Mary, John the Baptist, and the apostles are also dead.  None have (of yet) been resurrected.  But Christ has been resurrected, and he is alive today interceding for God's children.  Not only that, he is "set apart from sinners."  What other name under heaven is set apart from sinners?  Who else is worthy to speak to the Father on our behalf?

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made a footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.    -Hebrews 10:11-14 NIV

Jesus Christ offered one sacrifice solo--and finished it and attained a name above every other name.  He does not need the prayers or authority of anyone else to attain forgiveness of our sins.  He himself is sufficient.  To trust in another is to trust in a rival--and God will have none.

 

For spring, stripes are out. . .

"We hope to stabilize the mental states of inmates by giving them warmer and brighter colors," Shigemi Tanimoto, a [Japanese] Justice Ministry official, said in making the announcement Wednesday. "Color experts told us the colors currently in use were too cold and aggressive."

Did you know green and orange are aggressive?  You have it from the experts.  In what the Japan Times calls the "Martha Stewart effect" (the potential puns here are endless), Japanese officials are planning on losing the old gray uniforms, the black-and-white striped pajamas, and the green-and-orange striped futons in favor of "warmer" colors, such as light blue and "mint" green.  It's going to be fascinating to see how the Japanese prison population, er, stabilizes, over the coming months.  Actually, I'm really glad I heard about this now.  The walls of my room are a blend of orange and green paints, and this probably accounts for my cold and aggressive nature.  I see that a redecoration is in order.

 

In case you didn't know, National Geographic magazine has a new editor in chief, photographer and former associate editor Chris Johns.  As you might imagine, die-hard NG readers are wondering with worried looks if the flavor of the magazine will change over the coming months, as Johns pulls digital photography into the magazine and rearranges the editorial staff, combining the photography and illustrations departments.  Involved in the restructure was the elimination of Kent Kobersteen's position as director of photography, and it seems unclear whether he was fired or stepped down from NG voluntarily.  He is 62, but some photographers who have worked with NG say his absence will weaken the publication.

But Johns promises a commitment to excellence and integrity, and hopes the changes he is making will keep attracting readers. "We constantly need to evolve," he said.  One such change will be an amplification of the short stories in the front of the magazine, such as the "Geographica" section.

Speaking of evolution, Johns' debut issue (April 05) features on the cover a model face (I might add, an ugly one) of a "new species" of human, purportedly discovered on the island of Flores, Indonesia.  The scientists  who found the fossils (and who were supported by National Geographic) are calling their main specimen "Hobbit" and the race they think they've discovered "hobbits" (as if J.R.R. Tolkien knew something we didn't), because of the small, 3-foot-tall size of the skeleton, and the miniature skull.  They dismiss critics who think they've found a human suffering from the rare disease microcephaly (shrunken brain and body) by pointing out that they've found other bone fragments and another adult jawbone, also dwarfed.  As I understand it, they know the jawbone is adult because of the teeth.  The other bone fragments could be of children.

Whoever this person, or this family, or these people, were, they were definitely suffering from the gene deprivation.  Isolated on the island of Flores, they may have not been able to reproduce with anyone but close relatives, and over a few generations developed some serious genetic defects.  As a young-earth creationist, I don't believe the fossils found on Flores are more than a few thousand years old, and I don't believe they should be called a new species.  They've only found two solid specimens, after all, and now they're head over heels about how a race of dwarfs really existed.  What's funny, though, is that they believe their hobbit race lived as recently as 13,000 years ago--yesterday in evolutionary time.  This just proves creationists' point that genetic change can happen very quickly in isolated groups.  There is no need for millions of years.  And don't forget that dwarfishness is the result of less genetic variability, not more.  It's a disadvantage.

But evolutionists don't care.  To them, the hobbits are our ancestors, our great forefathers, whose evolutionary struggle to live perfected us today.  They love finding examples of deformed skeletons and praising them as our creators.

In his first "From the Editor" column, Johns beams, "I could not ask for a better story to kick off my editorship than this."

Oh great.

This new blog is really cool.  ID the Future is a collaborative blog by leaders of the Intelligent Design movement such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Witt, Steve Meyer and more.  Behe reviews Richard Dawkins latest book, and Dembski tells how he really got into ID.
Keep in mind that Intelligent Designers don't usually subscribe to a Genesis-like account of creation, and are not necessarily Christian or even monotheists.  However, they are firmly against Darwinian evolution and, like most conservative groups, they generally are friendly to Christianity. If you like to think deep, check it out.

Rebecca and Annie B. make some appropriate comments in the "Living Will Draft" post below.  Living Wills seem to be more about how you want to die than how you want to live, and not every Living Will is written in such a way as to keep you from dehydrating to death.
Keep in mind though, that a Living Will, a Will to Live, a Dying Will, or any Will gives you the moral permission before God to commit suicide--actively killing yourself to escape situations you don't like.  Is God not in control of the entirety of our lives?

JunkYardBlog warns that if you've ever made a comment about "not wanting to live like that," and someone else was in the room, you'd better draw up a living will to make sure you don't go out the way Terri Schiavo did.  Because Michael Schiavo just began a precedent of killing people based on what you think you remember them saying once.  So, he offers this living will draft that is guaranteed to deliver you from the hands of neurologists, whacked-out family members, Jack Kevorkian, and the ACLU.  Okay, so it's a little mean at points, but didn't these folks have it coming?