Romans 1:18-25 explains that the wrath of God is being revealed against the sinfulness of impious and immoral mankind. Men suppress the truth by their wickedness. Furthermore, they know that God is divine in nature and has eternal power, because God has made it plain to see in creation. There is no excuse to fail to understand. In other words, if you live in the world and don't see a creator, an "intelligent designer," then you are simply suppressing the truth in sin, and you are accountable for that. The passage continues, saying that evil mankind knew God yet refused to thank Him and glorify Him. Thus, "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." Claiming "wisdom" they became fools and exchanged God's glory (the masterpiece - Biblical creation) for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles (the distorted copy of a copy of a copy of a child's fingerpainting - evolutionary theory). They exchanged the truth of God (creation) for a lie (evolution), and worshiped and served created things (this is the worldview result of evolutionary theory) rather than the Creator (this is the worldview result of Biblical creation), who is forever praised. Amen.
2 Peter 3:3-13 explains that scoffers will mock the return of Christ, thinking that "ever since ... everything goes on as it has since the beginning ..." These scoffers "deliberately forget that long ago by God's Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." They also deliberately forget God's judgment in the worldwide flood of Noah. They mock the return of Christ, because it hasn't happened yet. But the Lord is not slow in keeping His promises. He is waiting for His timing to come, for the last of the elect to be brought to faith in Jesus. And we know that the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and that "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."
Yet "there is no fear fo God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18). How sad!
Here is the text of the article, with my thoughts in bold, in light of the above Scripture passages.
----------------------------------
Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land:
375 million-year-old remains look like a cross between fish and crocodile...
An artist's conception shows what the ancient croco-fish creature known as Tiktaalik roseae might have looked like 375 million years ago.
How can a fossil show how fish made the leap to land? Do you think there's any bias in this opening statement? Next, "375 million-year-old..." I'd like to hear which dating method was used, so I can point out the plethora of assumptions made in that regard. I'm not a paleontologist, but the fossil photo looks a whole lot more like a crocodile or alligator than a fish. And finally, notice that the artist's rendition is what the creature "might have looked like" long ago. Lots of guess-work being portrayed as fact, right at the start.
Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals. Researchers have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they’ve had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.What makes this fossil "in the act of adapting"? This discovery sheds new light? On what? "One of the greatest transformations in the history of animals." Let's worship the creation rather than the creator, huh? I find this next sentence fitting perfectly with the Scriptures passages above. "Researchers have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land..." How do they know? Fossils like the one in this story don't say so. Faulty dating methods based on presuppositional assumptions don't say so either. But they have long known.... Yeah. And then the confirmation that their long-held knowledge is bankrupt. I hear, "They claimed to be wise but showed themselves foolish," when I read that "they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened." A fossil is never going to show how it happened, for two reasons: First, because it never happened, and second, because fossils aren't capable of showing this type of change. Where is any evidence that this is not a crocodile kind of animal. The story, in just a minute, will even say that they haven't unearthed the hind portion of the fossilized creature yet.
The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water. “It sort of blurs the distinction between fish and land-living animals,” said one of its discoverers, paleontologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago.
I love the presuppositional language from the hefty-titled experts. "It looks more like...than the few others..." "Researchers speculate..." "It might have..." "It sort of blurs..."
Experts said the discovery, with its unusually well-preserved and complete skeletons, reveals significant new information about how the water-to-land evolution took place. “It’s an important new contribution to (understanding) a very, very important transition in the history of life,” said Robert Carroll of McGill University in Montreal. The new find includes specimens, 4 to 9 feet long (1.2 to 2.75 meters long), found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. It is reported in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature by Shubin, Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr. of Harvard.
Let me note that, as the article states, complete and well-preserved fossil skeletons are unusual. And that fact only further disputes the so-called "fact" of evolutionary theory. The reality is that the evidence doesn't support their claims. Proclaiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged God's glory for idolatrous, evolutionary icons.
About 375 million years ago, the creature looked like a cross between a fish and a crocodile. It swam in shallow, gently meandering streams in what was then a subtropical climate, researchers say. A meat-eater, it lived mostly in water. Yet, its front fins had bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist, Shubin said. From the shoulder to the wrist area, “it basically looks like a scale-covered arm,” he said. “Here’s a creature that has a fin that can do push-ups,” he said. “This is clearly an animal that is able to support itself on the ground,” probably both in very shallow water and for brief excursions on dry land. On land, it apparently moved like a seal, he said.
Now how do they know where it swam? Or what it ate? How do they know that it ahrd front fins and not merely front legs. We are supposed to trust the "researchers." "Researchers say..." doesn't tell me anything. Why should I believe "researchers" for the sake of their word. I've certainly noticed researcher bias in the past. Gee, I wonder if any of these particular researchers already believed the theory of evolution when they examined this evidence? Do you think any creationist researchers were asked their opinion? Not that we should automatically believe them either.... How should we go about examining this evidence without presuppositions?
The fact that it's skeletal construction is similar to other creatures doesn't say anything to support evolution. Rather, it points to a Creator!
"It basically looks like a scale-covered arm.... This is clearly an animal that is able to support itself on the ground, probably.... On land, it apparently moved like a seal." Don't you love the language of this "expert"!?! Maybe it was a scale-covered arm, like a crocodile. Maybe it could support itself on the ground, like a crocodile. Maybe it had fins like a seal. None of that says anything about evolution, without the presuppositions. Why not say, "Maybe God made this creature and it was different thatn anything we've ever seen, but it has since gone extinct thanks to the sinfulness of mankind. Forgive us and save us from this corrupt generation, O Lord!"
It might have pulled itself onto stream banks, perhaps moving from one wet area to another, and even crawled across logs in swamps, said Daeschler. The researchers have not yet dug up any remains from the hind end of the creature’s body, so they don’t know exactly what the hind fins and tail might have looked like.
"It might have... perhaps..." It's nothing but loaded presuppositional speculation. And, oh yeah, they've haven't seen it's hind section yet, so they don't know "exactly" what the booty of this thing "might" have looked like. How can you know "exactly" what it "might" have looked like? Absurd.
The creature was dubbed Tiktaalik (pronounced “tic-TAH-lick”) roseae, and also had the crocodile-shaped head of early amphibians, with eyes on the top rather than the side. Unlike other fish, it could move its head independently of its shoulders like a land animal. The back of its head also had features like those of land-dwellers. It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said.
Once again, the language gets in the way of an interesting story. "The creature...could move its head independently ... like a land animal.... The back of its head had features like those of land-dwellers." Maybe it was a land animal?!?! But then the presuppositions get in the way. "It probably...."
Yet, the creature’s jaws and snout were still very fishlike, showing that “evolution proceeds slowly; it proceeds in a mosaic pattern with some elements changing while others stay the same,” Daeschler said. If one considers adaptation as a process of collecting tools to live in a new environment, the new finding offers “a snapshot of the toolkit at this particular point in this evolutionary transition,” Daeschler said.
The fossilized creature had a crocodile-shaped head and front fins with bones that corresponded to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and wrist.
"Evolution proceeds slowly." Time + Chance = Anything you want! It's funny that many evolutionists, who of course are attempting to account for the lack of transitional fossil evidence, suggest that evolution proceeded very quickly. This is often called punctuated-equilibrium. Once again, the similar features to those of fish and land animals perhaps points to an "intelligent designer" rather than a random meaningless mutational accident.
In fact, much of its value comes from this insight into the order in which those tools appeared in fish, said Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, an expert unconnected with the study. Knowing that detail about the transition from fish to land-dweller, she said, “might help us to unravel why it happened at all. Why did creatures come out of the water and get legs and walk away?”
Oh Jennifer.... You're unconnected with the study and yet you offer your presuppositionally-biased, "expert" opinion anyway. Thanks for leading so many astray! But even your testimony leaves us with "might help us unravel why... creatures came out of the water and got legs and walked away." It might? It would if it could but it can't so it won't. How sad. Maybe, instead of poor expert-Jennifer's opinion, we might hear God's testimony on the matter, since He was there and brought it to pass according to His sovereign will and pleasure and purpose?!
It’s impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates, she said, but if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, “you’d probably come up with something like this.” Shubin said the researchers plan to return to the small rocky outcropping that yielded the fossils and recover more material. “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot,” he said.
"It is impossible to tell...." Thanks so much for the proof of evolutionary theory. Ah, but "if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate...." Doesn't this just display the errors of their presuppositionally biased efforts to claim wisdom? Doesn't this just display the reality that, professing to be wise they became fools? And then, even with that, "you'd probably come up with something like this." Very scientific....
The site is in Nunavut Territory, and “Tiktaalik” in the creature’s name comes from the traditional language used in the area. It refers to a large freshwater fish seen in the shallows.
No comments:
Post a Comment