Heroes: The Recruit

Well, all 5 parts for The Recruit have been released and with Volume 4 just five days away, Here is the last webisode series in a single playlist. I really enjoyed the series. I hope we see more of Private Mills in volume 4.

Calm down, Putin

Yesterday, I heard of an exchange between Vladmir Putin (pictured), the Prime Minister of Russia, and Dell CEO, Michael Dell. I think Putin overreacted to a simple question.

Michael Dell:

How can we help you?" (in regards to expanding information technology in Russia)

Vladmir Putin:

"We don't need help. We are not invalids. We don't have limited mental capacity."

Talk about getting your hand bitten when you are only trying to offer a hand up. I think Putin has an inferiority complex or something. Where did the defensiveness come from? I looked up in another source to see if I could find out what happened so that I could why Putin was so rude. Another post on a different blog, suggested that some of the hostility came from over-paid consultants from America dispensed really bad advice after communism ended. The article also stated the following:

The slapdown took many of the people in the audience by surprise. Putin then went on to outline some of the steps the Russian government has taken to wire up the country, including remote villages in Siberia. And, in a final dig at Dell, he talked about how Russian scientists were rightly respected not for their hardware, but for their software. The implication: Any old fool can build a PC outfit.

Ouch!

source

Apologetics 315: Are All Religions Created Equal? Doug Groothuis MP3 Audio

Here is a great lecture about to distinguish between religions and how to test if what they are saying is true. By Doug Groothuis (pictured)

Apologetics 315: Are All Religions Created Equal? Doug Groothuis MP3 Audio

Murder/Suicide - Indicative of Hopelessness

We live in a society in which so many people fear the future. Many people have lost the security that they hold on to that give life their meaning. I was reminded of this because I heard today that in the Los Angeles area about a man, Ervin Lupoe, who killed his whole family - 5 young kids, wife - and killed himself. He even faxed a letter into the local television station explaining his actions. He was distraught because both he and his wife lost their jobs at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center West Los Angeles as medical technicians. The letter has been released in a redacted form, but still shows just how distraught Lupoe was. He thought that there was no hope and no one cared. In the letter, Lupoe contended that his boss told him and his wife had been better off if they had blown their brains out rather than show up for work that morning. Kaiser will not confirm this but if that had happened it could have only worsened their situation. Here is a video report:

Embedded video from CNN Video

Here is copy of that letter and here is a report. I think that we need to really ask ourselves what could have driven this man and woman to this level of despair, that you loose all hope that even your children's lives can't be improved. Because of the economic downturn, we are going to see more people loosing the things they hold on to. Ask: What do you hold on to? Your job? We all know that can be gone in an instant. What do you hold on to? What reason would you have for not giving up no matter what valley you find yourself in?

It's easy to judge. It's easy and true to say those 5 children did not deserve to die at the hands of the one who was supposed to protect them. The fact that he thought that he could not do that, could have been what sent him over the edge. With the way things are going, I have to say again, we will have more of these things go on. None of us know what we will do in a given situation. That's why I can't judge. Only by the grace of God go I. What I can say for sure is that my hope is in the one who sustains and keeps me and my family safe. Like David wrote in Psalm 37:25, I can agree:

I was young and now I am old,
yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken
or their children begging bread.

Hope is important for anyone. What is yours? Who do you turn to when life falls apart (and it will to some degree of another)? I turn to the author and finisher of my faith. Jesus.

President Obama Reached Out To The Middle East

I have just heard an account that Barack Obama sat down for an interview with Arab TV. I think it was a good idea. Talking directly to the Arabic Muslim World is an excellent way for Obama to let them know where he is coming from. I'm not happy with all his decisions, but I think that this is a good one. I don't know if it will mean anything or change anything but it's great to see someone trying something different.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nancy Pelosi's Answer to Help Economy

At one time children were considered a gift. A treasure. How do we get to the point, as a society, where the speaker of the House of Representatives could suggest that contraception and birth control could be methods to cut costs and bring the economy back into balance. It's suggesting that children are at best an expense and at worst, a liability. I think it's only a manner of days, when someone is going to suggest abortion as a viable method to save costs. I would say that most abortions in the United States involve terminating a human life in the name of convenience. Human life has become so cheap and will become more disposable if we look at our children that way. Here is what Nancy Pelosi actually said.

Evidence of Evolution Or Unfounded Inferrence?

You may or may not have been following my running debate with several atheists from Australia on my blog and on the following blogs:

http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=341
http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350

I have been studying science and theology my entire life and I am amazed how quickly people who are otherwise reasonably intelligent will come to conclusions that lead them away from God and conclude the Bible is lying on scant evidence, all the while asserting that they are only "following the perponderance of evidence".

Keep in mind, before I go forward, that all this got started because I posted a review on the video called Nephilim Rising in which I stated that there were no transitional fossils showing common descent from one life form to another for human and apes. Of all the things that I stated, I was only challenged on this point with a remark to a fossil discovered in 2004 called Tiktaalik that supposedly was touted to be the "missing" link between fish and amphibians. I quickly put another post together, basically about this fossil, pointing out that not all scientists agree with this assessment. I suddenly had 4 or 5 people attacking me, commenting about my being wrong. The debate spilled out onto one of their blogs, but one good thing visits on my own blog did spike. Thanks for the exposure fellas. It stuck me hilarious that they themselves admitted that Tiktaalik cannot be confirmed to be the ancestor of modern fish or amphibians. If they could then I would have to agree that there would be strong evidence that Tiktaalik is the missing link between fish and amphibians. But it's not. So they argued that it shows that it's possible that such a fossil connecting fish and amphibians allowing them to infer that macro evolution is true. I disagree. They are walking by faith.

I don't think that one even needs to go to the Bible as a reason to reject macro evolution, but they brought it up. They immediately attacked the veracity of the Bible and seem to think that everyone who believes in Intelligent Design are actually trying to trick people because they are really creationists. I said it before so many times, but here goes: Not all people who believe in Intelligent Design believe that the God of the Bible did it. I do! But not everyone. In addition, to macro evolution, we talked about the origin of the universe, and whether or not the Bible is true. Physics, Computer Science, Theology, History and just about everything has come up. I've enjoyed it although it was like hitting brick. Fortunately, God always sends help when you need it. I wasn't alone because there was one person who was speaking out and agreeing with the Bible. I appreciated that.

One thing that came up a couple of times was the Dover trial from a few years back where again it was up to a court of law to decide whether it was right to teach creationism in public school along with evolution. Seems to happen every decade such a case become high profile. In the 1920's it started with the Scopes trial, but the roles were switched. Then the question was should evolution be taught alongside or instead of creationism? I have found a video on GodTube that documents the Dover Trial, and not from a Christian point of view. I found it interesting that the evolution position was defended using 2 main points of evidence: Transitional fossils and Genetics. The video was well done. They had reenactments of trial testimony, interspersed with dynamic animation, and interviews with intelligent leaders in the field. But they did not present any rebuttal information from experts in the field, so I put together my own rebuttal.

Let's take a look at the Transitional fossil "evidence".


The video does a great presentation of the now accepted view of evolution and this is how I have been taught about what it is. The problem is the theoretical model of common ancestory looks different than the graphic for where these "transitional" fossils are placed in the "Tree of life". They are on a different branch - twig - than the species they are supposed to bridge. To this day, no common ancestor has been found to show us that fish and amphibians share a common ancestor, let alone any other connections evolutionary scientists attempt to make.

Now what about the genetic "evidence"?


Their argument is that because apes have one less chromosome than we do, two chromosomes merged into a single. Their evidence is that you can see that there are two chromosomes stuck together, therefore evolution is vindicated because we can see traits being passed genetically. Problem is that there is no discussion of what those traits are and if theyt are truly common among humanity and apes. It's hinted at that the merged chromosomes correspond to the missing chromosomes in apes, but it's never actually stated. If it were, and I'm not sure if that could be validated, then that would mean that they might have something there. In addition, I liked the presentation of basic genetic theory, however if evolution is true then we would expect to see positive mutations - mutations that give rise to beneficial traits - fairly often. There aren't many, if any examples. The example of a butterfly's color change is an example of adaptation not macro evolution. What we do see in nature is a tendency to steer away from random mutation. The goal is that offspring have as close to a perfect copy of parental DNA code as possible. It's like installing software on a computer...would I want the installed code to be the same or off from what was originally encoded? There are issues that can be raised against evolution because of genetics, but I will put that in a different post.

One more point that a lot of people like to try to use in favor of macro evolution is that there is a consensus among the world's top scientists that evolution is true and the only people who disagree are no-talent, stupid and/or ignorant, fundamentalist hacks who don't know what they are talking about. They call us deluded individuals who blind ourselves to the truth because of religion. (Funny, that is what the Bible says about them!) I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Dismissing people's intelligence and expertise because you disagree with them is not fair. In addition, some don't like bring God up because then it's "arguing from authority". They say that "God said so" is not a valid explanation. I would agree it does not explain how but it does explain why. Besides saying that we should accept evolution because the majority of the scientific community accepts it is also "arguing from authority" and not all scientists agree with the conclusions reached by evolutionists. Don't forget that there was a time when most scientists thought that the world is flat. Or that flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat. We have learned better. One day we will outgrow evolution too and people will have to come up with other reasons to deny the authority and truth of the Bible.

Just so no one thinks that I took the Dover video out of context, I've presented it in the playlist below.



You can even read the transcripts of the Dover case here.

Too Late To Complain About Obama's World View

I have heard today in an article that some people are upset with Obama that during his Inauguration address he equated all religions the same. They are upset because by claiming equality for all religions, they say that he is denying the "Christian" heritage of the United States. I could use this time to discuss the whether or not we can call Americal a real "Christian" nation and what that means, but I'll abstain. Instead I have a question I have to ask these people who are now complaining: When did you figure out that Barack Obama did not share our worldview completely?
By "our worldview", I refer to Bible-believing, Holy-Spirit-filled Christians. I mean he has always been consistent about not putting the Bible above the worldview of the World. I mean didn't they watch Rick Warren's "Showdown at Saddleback Church" last July? I saw it. I know that in his view Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Buddism, and whatever else is just as valid as Christianity and should be treated equally. He has said it so many time. Don't complain now. I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's worldview on this point but it is the predominant viewpoint of American culture today.

Toddler Comments on Bush

I found a video today on YouTube where a little girl lets you know right off the bat what she think of George W. Bush. I noticed by some of the comments that people thought it was in poor taste to put a child up to this. I'm sure that girl's parents taught her what to say, but I've got to admit that my 2 year-old little girl does not like George W. Bush at all. I can't figure out why. I did not teach her to prefer Barack Obama, but it is possible that she has picked up this attitude from me. Here is the video:

Take Red Pill, Naon Tiotami, Not the Blue Pill

This is a post answering Naon Tiotami:
Just so you know, Jack’s comments are blue, mine, Marcus, previous comments are red. My current ones are in Black! This thread's original comments can be found at this link

The reason why we don’t have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.

I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It’s plausible. It’s logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren’t any to find.

That, of course, is a possibility, but… it contradicts the genetic evidence that strongly points towards the inter-relatedness of all living things. The only mechanism we know of that can produce similar genetic sequences is heredity, and, no, a common designer is not an explanation, because it cannot be falsified. Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.
Oh, and one small correction (for myself): Tiktaalik was actually found (and therefore lived) in an ancient river, not an ancient shallow sea. My bad.

It’s weird that my arguments are ridiculed and maligned. Yet you say “Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.” Think about that for a minute. It’s not scientifically verifiable that living fish and amphibians have a common ancestor because none has been found. Just possble fossils that suggest that we may one day find them. So why not reject it. Besides some thing are true because they are true whether of not they are scientifically verifiable. For example if a child’s mother dies when the child is to young to remember her, can the child scientifically verify that his/her mother loved them? No. But we would still tell that child that the mother they have never seen loves them.

I don’t see any “goal post” moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.

Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.

I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today’s fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn’t move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.

This is kind of a moot point, and doesn’t really prove anything, so I’m just going to leave it. Think what you will.

Why abandon this point? I was taken out of context. Bottom line. And the only way to prove evolution is to produce an unbroken sequence. Evolutionist pretend that they have that but they don't

“Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1"

Well, I wouldn’t read the Bible for that. It’s incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I’m not sure what by definition: do you mean “explanation”? If so, I don’t have one at the moment, no one does.

The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don’t know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.

So, you’re saying that the explanation is true by default (that the Bible is true in the way it describes things), and it’s science’s job to find out how? Firstly, how could science find out how? It was a supernatural event, and therefore you could say warp absolutely any data by just saying that God changed the laws of nature at that point. Not an explanation, I’m sorry. Again, unfalsifiable, not worth bothering about.

Not everything God does changes the laws of nature. He often works inside those laws.. You’re immediately going into the nature of “miracles” and I wasn’t going there. For example the Bible tells us when the first rainbow appeared. Now we can explain how rainbows are formed. There are a lot of other examples. I’m planning to do a blog series soon presenting what I have been studying concerning this.

Secondly, who says something came out of nothing? Not the scientific evidence. The Bible does, but we can reject that from the conversation because you would believe what it says regardless of what I say. “Physics agrees with this.” Show me, show me how it does.

You seem more well-versed in biology than physics. Therefore, I’d direct you to any Physics journal in print today. Ask yourself: What was there before the big bang? Right, nothing. Just like the Bible says. How can something come out of nothing. Scientifically if you take sub-atomic particles accelerate them to close to the speed of light, then collide them together you can get other particles springing out of nothing…for may be a pico second. You get particles with its corresponding anti-particle and they cancel themselves out anililating each other; mustn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics right? Yes, Virginia, there is such thing as anti-matter.

Thirdly, what are your reasons for rejecting the, understandably, incomplete hypothesises about abiogenesis? The Bible? Sorry, not good enough. Do you have any scientific reasons? Are any of them not found on this page?

My short answer is that abiogenesis is an “understandably, incomplete hypothesis” as to why I dismiss it. Why would you accept it other than the fact that it eases your conscious in rejecting your creator?

Fourthly, why are some parts of the Bible not to be read literally? How do you know this? Does the Bible say so? Or are you just cherry-picking to make sure it complies with what science you do accept?

The Bible, like a lot of literature is not meant to be taken literally because it uses hyperbole, metaphor, and allegory to make points. In context and a good study of history and culture set in the time it was written it becomes easy to tell what to take literally and what not to take literally. And yes, sometimes the Bible itself says when it’s being poetic or literal!

Fifthly, why would God create the Universe is 6 days? Couldn’t he do it in zero seconds if he wanted to? (This point is not a main one, so don’t devote millions of words going off on a tangent. I’m just curious as to what you think.)

The Bible says it was 6 days. I don’t know why he chose to do it that way. The Hebrew at that point is not even clear on how long a day was. The word translated “day” literally means a period of time. He could have done it in zero seconds, 6 seconds, or 6 billion years. The Bible does not say. God can do anything He wants.

First of all, “Evolution News and Views” is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.

“Intelligent Design” does not equal “creationism”. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell to you.

See, you define “creationism” as your brand of Biblical literalism, but most definitions will define it as any explanation of “creation” (being life, the Universe etc., but not necessarily more than one or all of them) involving a supernatural entity. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist organisation, are heavily biased against evolution (as opposed to being “balanced”, like they would claim), and have stated this right here. (Note: The link is to a copy of a document that was written for the Discovery Institute, and is not hosted on the DI’s website)

You are making my point: you have to define terms. I do not know how the Discovery Institute defines creationism. So talking about them is pointless. I know how I define it. I see no reason to try to defend them. I pointed them out as only a source to show that not everyone agrees that this particular fossil is a good evidence for macro evolution! That is what you need to be answering to not whether or not they Believe God created the universe to some degree or another. Either Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil or it isn’t. Prove it is. Or else admit that you do so by faith.

I know what you’re thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let’s say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don’t you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Sorry. Could you please restate this?

I’m making the point that I realize that you do not believe that evolution is a radom process with things happening all on their own but that evolution is driven by many factors including environment, food sources, and too many factors to keep in mind, let alone predict how they affect one another. To me this show that there must be a God. How else can you explain how all the factors lined up to bring about life in all its myraid forms as we see today?

Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don’t want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).

I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.

In time, in time. I promise, there will be explanations.

Bring it!

Presidential Inauguration 2009

Today is the day. The first black President of the United States has been sworn in. Barack Obama is now officially the President. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. I've been watching CNN all day and I was able to see his speech after being sworn in and I was impressed. It was straight talk. He didn't try to unrealistically raise expectations. I don't agree with everything Obama has said, because some of what he has said does not totally square with what God has said. However, I think he is a better choice than John McCain and I'm really glad Barack Obama won. Here is the speech:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here is the text of the speech:

I really liked CNN's stunt called "The Moment". They asked for all eyewitnesses of the swearing-in moment to send their digital photos to CNN so they can use Microsoft's Photosynth software to merge the photos into a single montage where all the images are uses to make a distinct, 3D image. What is really cool is that they posted the picture on the web and it's being updated as they receive more digital photos. The site utilizes Silverlight to allow viewer the opportunity to move around the picture and to zoom in or zoom out. You can see the picture at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/44.president/inauguration/themoment/. I've put the picture below also:




I also have to say that CNN also reported that Obama's new website is now live. "Cool" is inadequate. You can see it at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Response to Naon Tiotami

Blue is me being quote. Black is his response and Red is my response to his comments

"Um, excuse me. It appears that you are all saying that Tiklaatik is evidence that today's fish and amphibians have the same ancestor but Tiklaatik is not that common ancestor. I so, where is it? What is it? Macro evolution supposes that it is possible to trace an unbroken descent from fish to us, but by everyone's own admission we don't have that evidence. All I said was that we have no transitional fossils which you agreed. We can pretend all we want that one day evidence will be found but so far...na"

The reason why we don't have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.

I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It's plausible. It's logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren't any to find.

"I don't see any "goal post" moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people."

Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.

I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today's fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn't move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.

"Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Genesis 1:1"

Well, I wouldn't read the Bible for that. It's incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).

I'm not sure what by definition: do you mean "explanation"? If so, I don't have one at the moment, no one does.

The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don't know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.

"Not all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views. Also I would like to know what arguments would you guys use against all of these sources that I pointed to against the fossil being used as a "transitional fossils"."

First of all, "Evolution News and Views" is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.

"Intelligent Design" does not equal "creationism". Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they're nuts...but at least they have enough sense to know that you don't get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell to you. I know what you're thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let's say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don't you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!

Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don't want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).

I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.

Tiktaalik? You're Joking Right?

I'm not sure if you read the comment on my post by Dave The Happy Singer, then you know he thinks that my comment on transitional fossils is disagreeable. Then he offers the following link: Tiktaalik: a transitional fossil. I made a comment on his comment and checked out his blog. I realized that it's a simple matter to just look up Tiktaalik to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Here are the facts:

1. Pronounced /tɪkˈtaːlɪk/
2. Extinct
3. Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada
4. Believed to represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibians
5. Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While neither may be ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. (source: Wikipedia)

If an animal cannot be proven to be ancestor of a living animal today, then how can we call it a transitional fossil? Wikipedia defines a transitional fossil as follows:

Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

Unless you can say what animals it is linking, how can such an animal be a link? Not all scientists agree that these fossils are linking fish with four legged amphibians. If Tiktaalik is an evolutionary dead end, meaning that not animals evolved from it, where are the ancestors of amphibians. According to evolution, that animal would be the ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and humanity. However, no such fossil has ever been found. Here are some links showing some other view points.

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance

Tiktaalik roseae— a fishy ‘missing link’

Iconic Status Of Tiktaalik A Hard Pill to Swallow

Review: "Nephilim Rising"

As you may have probably gathered by earlier posts that I've been doing a little research about the "Nephilim" from Genesis 6:4:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

As I've blogged before, the Nephilim are sometimes interpreted as an attempt by fallen angels to insinuate themselves into our human gene pool creating a race of mutants. They understand the term "sons of God" as referring to angels not men in this verse. I have rejected this notion. However I have found a video series on YouTube, Nephilim Rising, that attempts to take this theory and tie in alien abductions, UFOs, and modern phenomenon.


Here is the documentary:

I have several issues with the theories asserted. The first being is that it sounds like the plot from X-Files with some Biblical eisegesis thrown in for good measure. It's not consistent with the Bible to think that:

1. "sons of God" always refers to angels; offered no proof
2. Asserting that Noah and his family were only saved because of their genetic purity, using Genesis 6:9 which says (KJV):

These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

The verses is talking about Noah's moral purity not his genetic purity! Look at the NIV rendering:

This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.

3. The video didn't mention the Book of Enoch, but it says that the flood destroyed the Nephilim and then God chained up the fallen angels who perpetrated the deed of siring the Nephilim and teaching humanity about war, weapons, and magic. Therefore how could said angels be free to seduce the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Sumerians into worshipping them and laying the groundwork for the secret organizations and conspiracies that control history and the fate of nations? If the video's creators are disavowing the Book of Enoch, then they loose any credibility for the Nephilim to be Angelic/human hybrids.
4. The video makes a point out of the War in Heaven in which Lucifer, Satan, lead 1/3 of the angels against the angels loyal to God. The video, as well as many Christians, imagine a long, protracted conflict with heavy casualties on both sides. I can't find anything in the Bible to substantiate this teaching. God is all-powerful. Do you really think anyone or anything, especially those whom he created (which is everything and everyone that has, does, and will exist) could possible stand against the will of God? Scripture suggests more that once, at that moment, Lucifer and his forces chose to disobey and rebel against our creator, The Lord God already had their kicked their butts out of heaven! No war. No shot fired. It was over.
5. There was a montage of images of different people doing a salute or a hand gesture that is supposed to be praising the devil, but no documentation as proof was presented. I was personally offended to be linking Spider-Man to that. I want proof. This post has a picture of Spider-man doing the gesture but it's not the same graphic the documentary uses.
6. The link to alien abduction and demons I think may hold some weight (a different article), the documentary goes further by asserting that their agenda is to create a race of hybrids (taking the idea from Genesis 6:4 that the Nephilim are still with us). Therefore, on the pretense that they are really the ones who created us through genetically manipulating apes, and that they want to help us evolve further and protect, equip, and prepare us to fight another invading force. This force will be Jesus himself. It does not make sense to me because I can't substantiate any of this Biblically and no one in the video did either.
7. The makers of the documentary seem to forget that God is in complete control. Total control. No one, not demon, not angel, not human can do anything against his decree. There is no "secret" organization worshipping the devil, running our world into the ground. We are doing a great job on our own. That isn't denying the fact that there are demons gunning for us, they are. The truth is that the Devil is running the world from the stand point that he isn't trying to oppose the will of God by polluting the humanity. All he has to do is to keep Christians from getting the word out that there is hope.
8. Were the Nephilim giants or human sized? A lot of folks who adhere to the mutation theories can't seem to make up their minds. Biblically it is consistent to accept giants. Remember Goliath was over 9 ft tall! I don't know how to explain the photo at the beginning of this post but these giant people don't necessarily prove that their daddies were angels. There are other examples throughout scripture referring to men of immense strength and size.


9. We must be careful to not jump on what the world says. Many scholars who believe that there was a race of mutant people called the Nephilim accuse the Bible of copying from Sumerian and Babylonian texts and want to use the idea of space alien genetically engineering humanity as explaining why there are no transitional fossils to explain where we come from! See this link.

All of this adds up to tell me that the video or most of the theories it presents are something I cannot buy into. The one thing I do agree with is that the devil is going to try to deceive as many people as he can so that thy miss out on God. Jesus is the only way to God. At least we agree on that.

Crash Landing in the Hudson

Last week, a plane hit some birds taking off from La Guardia airport in New York. The pilot had to make an emergency landing, narrowly missing the George Washington Bridge, and landed the airplane floating it on the Hudson River. God was most definitely looking out: No one died. Here is a simulation explaining what happened.

Martin Luther King Tribute

In tribute to Martin Luther King Jr, on his birthday I am posting his "I ave A Dream" speech from 1963. It still makes a huge impact.

Speaking Out Of Ignorance? Not Good!

I recently saw a video that show cases what happens when a reasonably intelligent person attempts to put together events in a story from which they only have hear-say and pieces of what actually happened. In this video a young lady tries to re-tell the story of Star Wars, however she has never seen it (gasp!!!) or knows what she is talking about. She tries to piece it together based on what she has heard other people say. Add her friend's animated montage based on her re-telling and hilarity ensues.


Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

This reminds me of everytime I hear someone talk about Jesus and the Bible who have never studied the scriptures for themselves. They twist things. Misunderstand things. If their mistaken understanding wasn't so important it would be funny. Instead of just going by what other people say about history and the Bible, we all need to look for the truth for ourselves.

Heroes: The Recruit pt 5

Here is the fifth and final part of the Heroes Webisode series: "The Recruit"

Rick Sanchez Owned Joe the Plummer

I found a video where CNN's Rick Sanchez lays into "Joe the Plummer" so hard you can hear the disgust in his voice. You can tell that he does not like this guy or anything he stands for.

Sorry, Galileo, Move Over

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the invention of the telescope. When I was in school I was taught that the first person to use a telescope to observe the moon and make maps of it was Galileo. Today, I found out that he wasn't the first. I found out from Old Moon Map Corrects History that:

Thomas Harriot made the first drawing of the moon after looking through a telescope several months before Galileo, in July 1609.

The article seems to point out that Harriot achieved this first because he had financial backing that Galileo did not. In fact, while Harriot purchased his telescope, Galileo had to figure out the optics, re-invent the technology, and build his own telescope. Stands to reason that it would take Galileo longer. However, Harriot made such maps of the moon that we now know that no one made better maps for decades afterward. The reason we know about Galileo is that he widely published his results and Harriot did not. I don't know why. It would be interesting to find out.

New Digital Divide?

One of the problems in the United States is the fact that not everyone has the same access to technology due to geography and economic status. For example, children in poor, urban school do not have access to computers at home or at school due to the cost. This is often referred to as the "digital divide". One of Barack Obama's campaign promises was to bridge this gap. You would think, logically, that poorer countries would have even larger gaps, where only the very wealthy can get access to the Internet on demand. I heard of a case in Africa where people had to walk for an hour one-way, to use the internet at the post office. You would also assume that people would not have a lot of skills in using computers also. However, this may not be a problem in China.

For a while now, I've been aware of China's attempts to modernize and regain the splendor it once had. At one point China was the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Some folk in America have stated a concern that China was not just catching up with us, but surpassing us. I read an article today that points to this idea. The article sites a statistic that more than 300 million Chinese people are regular internet users. I'd assume that they use the Internet for the same things everyone else uses it for: collecting, reading, and sharing information. This caught my attention because I'm not even sure if the population of the United States is 300 million. When I looked it up I got 305,611,925 people for the population of the United States. So roughly about the number of people in China who are Internet users is about equal to the estimated population of the United States! I call that surpassed because that not all Americans use the internet. I believe the same is true in China. In order to see if we have truly been surpassed in the number of citizen on the Internet, we need to know how many Americans are on the Internet out of the total population. As for China, 300 million isn't even half it's population which is about 1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.) Three hundred million out of 1.33 Billion is about 22.5% and in the United States, 220,141,969 people on the internet out of 305,611,925 people total works out to about 72%. Although, all the numbers I used are estimates, I think that these calculations show that relatively speaking, more people in the United States are on the Internet than there are in China. The article points out another cool trick you can get out of this information:

Given the nationality of users of the Internet, our crack team of G4 scientists has determined that there's a 37% chance that you are in China right now. You'd better look out the window to make sure.

It's not just Internet that the Chinese are taking to. There are 633.8 million mobile phone users in that country, and last week, China issued a long-awaited license for 3G mobile phones, so Chinese early-adopters will be able to enjoy the Internet from the privacy of their phones.

Let me look...ok, yup, still Californa. Whew! In my Internet crawling I found some interesting graphics. Here are graphics showing population changes for China.

New Word: "Bushism"

What do you call it when people think you are so stupid...so utterly bereft of intelligence that a name is coined to describe the things you say: "Bushism". Yes, there are things that George W. Bush has said in the past 8 years that will live on and be remembered for several decades to come, but not for their inspiration but because they are funny, silly, and makes you wonder "How in the world could someone like this could have become President of the United States...twice?!!" I'm sure several book will be written. For now here is a video playlist of some of them.

Oprah & The Secret: New Age Spirituality

Disclaimer: I did not see the show that the following clip is taken from, but I can't let it pass. In this clip Oprah has a couple of ministers who were on The Secret DVD who supposedly drop a huge revelation to her audience of millions: "Being gay is a gift from God." I almost fell out of my chair. No where does it say that in the Bible. I could not believe it. The question anyone must ask yourself when ever you hear a "minister" or clergy of any kind: "Is this person speaking the Word of God or not?" You can tell by whether or not anything they are saying conflicts with what God has already revealed in scripture. No clergy can claim to speak for God and then totally speak against what God has already spoken. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin...however like every sin the only cure is a relationship with Jesus. God does not desire for anyone to die in their sins but to come to repentance. The scripture says 2 Peter 3: 8-10

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Here is the clip showing my points:

Sarah Palin....Please go home.

I just saw a news report in which it's reported that Sarah Palin says that she was misrepresents in the video I posted a couple of days ago by those who said that mass media misrepresented her.

The WII is not just a Toy!!!

Google has posted a video showing a way the Nintendo WII can be used in a real world application. An engineer has written software that turns the Nintendo Wii's board peripheral (for snowboard, skateboard, and surfing games) into a controller for Google Earth. Users can virtually surf the earth. The even better news is that he's making the technology freely available (in techspeak "open source"). This means that some people are going to be using it in other applications....endless possibilities.

Some Folks Do Not Know When To Quit

Some one has actually put together a website called www.HowObamaGotElected.com and they will be producing a documentary called "Media Malpractice". Obviously the producers are suggesting that the media swayed the nation to elect Obama. They gave a Sarah Palin the chance to be interviewed on how she thinks of the media.

A New Tablet Device

At this week's CES in Las Vegas there was announced new tablet device: Giinii Movit Mini. It's an IPod Touch like device but it's runs the same operating system as the G1 Phone: Android. It seems really nice. Unfortunately, it doesn't have as much software and support as the IPhone, but the potential is there. Look at the following links for more information.

Google Android Tablet No Threat To Apple iPod Touch -- Yet (GOOG, AAPL)

Hands On Giinii Movit Mini: The Android Tablet

Sony's Answer to Apple: "Oh, Yeah?"

In the 1980's, Sony set the standard in personal media content players with its Walkman. Everyone had one. Sony's monopoly on that market dried up in 2000 when apple released its first IPods. Apple quickly refined its technology to not just include music and audio content but also video and web browsing. I for one thought that Sony had given up on this market and let Apple and Microsoft (with is Zune players) have that market. I was wrong. Their "IPod Killer" was announced this week, referred to as "Touchscreen Walkman". Here is a blurb from G4TV's blog:

The NWZ-X1000 features a 3-inch OLED touchscreen, WiFi, noise-canceling and comes in two sizes: 16GB and 32GB. That, my friends, is all anyone knows about it. No doubt Sony is saving the juicy details for the press conference they're holding in the next hour, so keep your browser pointed to G4's CES 2009 coverage for a live blog of all the juicy Sony details.

Personally, I would like more on board memory space. Grant it, it may have SD Card support. I don't know because I haven't seen Sony's Press conference yet. I hope I can see it on G4TV tonight. That is one gripe I have against IPods is that there is no expandable memory capability. This is offset by the ease of connecting a computer to an IPod and seemlessly managing your content, but I admit it: I'm lazy. I'd rather pack music and videos on my personal media player on and on without end. Another thing that lessens my enthusiasm towards the new Walkman is that Sony is rumored to come out with a tablet version of the IPod Touch. It will do everything the IPod devices currently do but with a bigger screen! I love large screens. So unless Sony really impresses us with more features in the Walkman, they should stick to PS3s, PSPs, DVD/BluRay players, and HD televisions!

Mocking Theism

I came across this video from the Makers of the shows Family Guy and American Dad. It's irreverent and maybe even offensive to people like me who believe that the universe was purposely designed and not haphazardly evolved. For this reason, I'd classify it as not just anti-Christian but also anti-Theistic. Theism is the belief that there really does exist a God. However the mocking of Jesus dying for us is a swipe of Christianity. If you are offended by this video, then I apologize. I'm not posting it because I agree with it, but because it reminds us of the mindset, attitudes, and thoughts that we are up against. It is an awesome opportunity to do Apologetics. This video show Seth McFarlane's worldview. What does God have to say about it? What do you have to say?



Here are the three points and objections raised in the video:
1. Evolution means that we evolved from other animals, and Christianity say that God made us
2. How do we know God is a monkey?
3. How do we know God loves us?

The video shows a little boy coming to his father and asking legitimate questions. The humor is supposed to come from the characters being monkeys giving "religious" answers to good relevant questions. The answers are stock "religious" dogma that does not really answer anything and makes Christians sound like there is no reason why we believe what we believe. No where in the Bible does God entirely equate himself to be like us. It's like asking, "How do we know God is human?". To answer this you have to study what the Bible teaches about God's nature and identity.

The monkey is right. We know that God loves us because of Jesus' died for us redeeming us from sin and total death. It's just tossed out there, like only a moron would except it. However there are good reasons to accept this. You don't have to take the assertion at face value. You can research it for yourself.

Evolution does not answer some major questions. Like where does self-awareness and consciousness come from? Where does art come from. Did it evolve how? The Bible however does give an answer. It says that we were created in God's image. We make art because God is creative. We are self-aware because God made us so. There is no explanation for how the electrical impulse in a human brain give rise to personality or consciousness.

Look, Ma, No Keyboard!

Today at the MacWorld conference, Apple has announced a keyboardless notebook. It looks nice. Instead of a keyboard, the notebook has a wheel like the input interface of an IPod. My wife has an IPod Nano and it has such a wheel. It does make navigating and making selections easy, I'm not sure about typing on the thing. There's a demo on YouTube. I was excited about it until I saw the process to type on it. Does not seem easy or intuitive to me at all. See what I mean:

Canonicity Part 6: Gospel of Judas

In the 1970's an ancient book, lost for about 1,700 years was rediscovered. In 2006, it was translated into English and made available through National Geographic. It is called "the Gospel of Judas". It caused a firestorm of controversy because it does not present Judas or even Jesus the way they are depicted in the 4 canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Judas isn't presented as a betrayer but Jesus' partner. Jesus gives Judas special knowledge that he does not share with the other 11 disciples. This information of what is said about their relationship, not to mention Jesus' very personality is really at odds with what we know from scripture. This in the very least should tell us not to take The Gospel of Judas as scripture.

However, our culture today is searching for "alternative understanding" apart from historic Christianity. There is this push to put Jesus on par with every other religious founder/leader like Buddha or Muhammad. That is why the Gospel of Judas caught a lot of attention. It does not hold up Jesus as God, incarnate, who died to propiate the sins of humanity and rose again physically three days later like He said He would - thereby restoring the relationship between believers and God. Jesus died in my place, paying for the sins of my life. This is the gospel according to historic Christianity and is stumbling block at bet best and an offense at worst to the unregenerate human mind. Unregenerate means someone who does not yet believe the gospel as spelled out for us in Scripture.

If you read the Gospel of Judas below you will see none of that is there. It is a gnostic text. Gnosticism was a cult that came to prominence in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. It was repudiated by those who held to the scripture we believe today. It bears no resemblance to Christianity despite the claim that Jesus is at its center. The text itself has no proof to ties to the historical Judas nor anyone who personally knew him or Christ. We can't date it any earlier than 150 AD unlike Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was written in the Coptic language. Coptic is modified Greek so that it can be easily used to translate ancient Egyptian writing. It is good to note that many copies of gnostic texts we do have are Coptic while oldest canonical scriptures we have are in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic which are most closer to the languages spoken by the people who are depicted in scripture.

When it comes to the Bible, we do a lot of "revisionist history" in our culture. Some have suggested that Judas wasn't all that bad. That maybe he did not really understand that they were going to execute Jesus...and he thought that the he was just trying to point him out. You can't get any of that out of the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Judas takes the added step of suggesting Judas was the closest disciple to Jesus, and Judas was under orders to do what he did. It suggests collusion not betrayal. It is so different...but a lie...that is why it caught a lot of attention and then dropped out of media consciousness. The Gnostics were not a monolith of opinion. They widely varied. The Gospel of Thomas (which is another farce some what to shoe-horn into the canon) suggests that Mary Magdalene was the closet disciple to Jesus. Notice that there is no real disagreements in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and I invite anyone to research and they will find none.

You may be asking, "How do I know that the I am not missing anything I need to know about God by not have The Gospel of Judas in my Bible?" Answer is simple: check it out. You can't make it gel with the other 66 books in general or the 4 Gospels in particular. That alone is enough to ignore it as scripture. Read it for yourself it you don't believe me.

Get your own - Open publication

Apologetics 315: Bart Ehrman and Peter Williams MP3 Audio

Apologetics 315: Bart Ehrman and Peter Williams MP3 Audio

I just found this on the Apologetics 315 blog. It's worth reviewing. We need to know how to defend the the authenticity of the Bible. We need to know what we believe, why we believe it, and how to articulate it.

Offending Jews - Embrassing Christians - This is How Not to Witness

Everyone who has heard of Ann Coulter knows that controversy follows her everywhere she goes. Unfortunately, unless you are a white evangelical republican then mostly likely she is offensive to you. I saw a video of her being interviewed by a Jewish American. She was asked what was her perfect dream of what America would be like. Unfortunately, her idea of "utopia" does not match God's ideas in the Bible. I don't like the way she explained why should we all be Republican and Christian. She came off as kind of ignorant. I mean citing "Seinfeld" as an accurate picture of society? She seemed arrogant and uninformed on what "perfected" Jews are. She does accurately point out that Jesus died for the sins of all. She did not have the time to fully explain salvation with respect and gentleness. It was a meltdown and did not advance the kingdom of God at all. To be honest, I hate that when people think of Christians, they think of her. It's a scary world. Take a look. It's a great example of how not to witness.

Four Year-Old Shoots Babysitter

What kind of world is it when a four year-old child premeditatively shoots another human being? I saw a news article today stating that a four year-old boy, angry because his teenaged babysitter accidentally stepped on his foot, announced that he was going to get a gun, left the room, went to where the adults hides a gun and to the separate place where the shells were stored, loaded the gun and then shot his babysitter, wounding him and another teenager. In Ohio!!!!? Not some inner ghetto. I'm still shocked. What I want to know is what has this child seen that makes him think that shooting someone is effective conflict management? And how does a four year-old learn to load a gun, let alone shoot straight enough to hit an intended target? No words.

I'm sure someone would try to blame violence in the media - video games, movies, and television. I blame the sins in the human heart that we are all susceptible to. My own two year-old daughter sometimes hits people when she is angry with them. I know I was the same way. My parents taught me that it was wrong to hit people no matter what they say if I'm not defending myself. I do the same thing for my daughter. More frightening is the lack of compassion and empathy shown by the calculated action that boy went through to. I mean think of it. He had to find the gun. Find the ammo. Load the ammo - one shell. He knew what he was doing. Some will argue that he was too young to understand that he could kill someone. I'm not so sure. Be that as it may I can't say since i don't know the boys heart but I notice a lot of children seem to be lacking compassion. My own daughter, thankfully, shows that she cares about other people when they say ouch or visibly unhappy. She asks "You, Okay?" If this is something you are born with? Is it taught? I don't know but it should be praised and encouraged. If not, more things like this is going to happen....and will be worse when they grow up.

Heroes: The Recruit pts 3 &4

The Third and Fourth parts of the Heroes webisode series known as "The Recruit" has been released.

Part 3: "Do What We Have To Do"


Part 4: "Day of Reckoning"

Nephilim: Not Mutations

As I have written about concerning the Nephilim, some think that Genesis 6 describes Angels marrying Human women and having children, calling them the "Nephilim". Let us look at the scripture in which they are first mentioned in Genesis 6:4 -

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

For a long time I've wrestled with this. The understanding of who the Nephilim were is determined by two facts that the Bible gives about them:

1. The fathers of the Nephilim are called "the Sons of God" - as so many people point out that the Bible uses this title for men and angels.
2. The Nephilim were on the earth "in those days" (before the flood) and "afterwards".
3. The King James Version and many English translations translate "Nephilim" as "giants" instead of the literal translation: "Fallen ones". We are told that they were men and special: "men of reknown".

I found a video on the Internet in which a Pastor explains the two major ideas about who the Nephilim were and he said the same thing that my own Pastor teaches: The Nephilim were not half angel, half human mutations, but just men - fallen and wicked men. Although, I heard my Pastor and know he's right, I still struggled. Why? I see now that I had an itching ear for the other explanation. I have a bias towards science fiction. There is a part of me that finds interesting the idea of angels (turned demons) having children to pollute the human gene pool to try to divert God's plan to redeem humanity. Noah is chosen because he and his family have a pure bloodline. Sounds like a movie (I think I've seen it) doesn't it. The problem is that it has got all the problems that my Pastor, Fredrick Stewart, and Pastor Scott Richards have pointed out. To me nail-in-the-coffin is the point that if point of the flood was to wipe out Nephilim, then we havean example of God failing because there were Nephilim on the earth afterward! That can't be true because you can't fit it in with the rest of scripture or history.

Here is a video of Pastor Scott Richards explaining who the Nephilim are:


I have also found a video on GodTube that asserts to show a picture of a large human-type skeleton uncovered in Saudi Arabia. The problem is that I can tell the one who posted this video is intending to prove that the Nephilim were giants because they were the offspring of Angels and humans. I don't have an answer for why there were nations of giants - people who were 9 ft tall like Goliath. The one thing I am now sure of is that the Nephilim are not the descendants of Angels. Here is video of the "giant" found in Saudi Arabia.


The pictures of this post shows that there are a great many of people who believe that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and humans. Fortunately, there is no scripture that backs it up.