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.