A Report on the Hominid "Nutcracker Man"

I recently read an article in the NY Times regarding the so-called "Nutcracker Man", aka East Africa Man, or Zinjanthropus boisei (Nutcracker Man's Secret: He Didn't Crack Nuts). The article talked about how they were planning on modifying a trait connoted to the hominid: that it did not in fact crack nuts. But what they didn't include: Zinjanthropus boisei was to be reclassified as an australopithecine, a genus in which Lucy is classified. And we know for a fact that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was not a human ancestor, but a type of extinct pygmy chimp. Therefore, "Nutcracker Man" is really just a type of extinct chimp, and the tools found with it may have just been tools used on them, rather than tools that it itself used. See: Who was 'Nutcracker Man'?

More information on the mythology of "human ancestors" will be posted tomorrow.

A Tetrapodal "Missing Link" Re-evaluated

GMA News declares: "Ancient legged fish provides missing link in limb evolution" (See Ancient legged fish provides missing link in limb evolution). For a while now, evolutionists claim that a fish evolved into a land-dwelling tetrapod. But how did they acquire this ability to walk?

Here's the evolutionary theory in a nutshell:

• A fish crawls onto land
• Realizing that it can't breathe air, it goes back into the water
• Some time later, the fish tries the same thing
• The same result happens
• The process repeats for millions of years until lungs and fins develop

You see, the evolutionary process can only give one trait at a time. Any more than that would be punctuated equilibrium, or the belief that evolution happens in sudden jumps in traits. But evolution in that sense is mathematically impossible!

A more rational explanation to the origin of land-dwelling animals is an intelligent design. A supernatural Creator must have created land-dwellers with both lungs and legs, at the same time.

Furthermore, the fossil's legs could've been used underwater, not necessarily for walking on land. Fish such as rosy-lipped batfish do this. Neil Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago even said:

The people who discovered the new "missing link" aren't even consistent with their views on their "treasure".

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog!

The Big Bang Theory: A Review

Many people believe in that a Big Bang gave rise to the Universe. Others believe that a supernatural Creator designed it. Which theory is true? Let's review the facts:

• The Universe is very fine-tuned
• There is order in the Universe
• There is space, matter, time, energy, etc.

Now which theory best explains what we have here?

Big Bang theory

• Two particles appear out of nowhere, collide, and cause a massive explosion
• The explosion hurls matter across space
• Gravity pulls matter together into round lumps; planets, moons and stars form, including planet Earth

Creation model

• "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
• God made a fine-tuned Universe
• God caused order
• God made space, matter, time, energy, etc.

If one were rational, s/he would say, "The creation model makes more sense." Why? Because why and how would an explosion cause order? Where did those particles originate? How did it create time, energy, space, etc? It would male more sense to believe that an intelligent Designer created the Universe.

But how do we know that it was the Judeo-Christian God that created the Universe? For one thing, the Bible clearly states that "God [Himself] created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Also, all the other gods of other religions are not true gods, but idols (more on this tomorrow). Thirdly, all evidence points to original good design by a good God.

Tune in tomorrow for my next blog!

From Nothing to Everything: Refuting Krauss on the Origin of Everything

The Big Bang - Evolution always comes to nothing. 

Some refuse to believe in God and put all their faith in scientific theories. They accept the "theory of evolution" because they cannot accept the Bible's version that man and the universe appeared from nothing. But how can something come from nothing? It must have an origin. Evolutionary thinking desperately tries to link one life form with another under the premise - given enough time, anything can happen. However, on the scientific journey to link all life, the question must be asked: How did the first life originate on our lifeless planet? Did it pop up from nothing, or did it arrive on some cosmic taxi? 
If it is suggested first life arrived from another planet, the question then arises: Where did life on that planet originate? Continued questioning will reach the point of asking: Where did the first source of life originate? There are only two conclusions:

1. it has always been there without beginning, or
2. there was nothing and suddenly there was something. This is the dilemma of the origin of the universe. It either never had a start (infinite past), or there was nothing and suddenly there was something (a Big Bang).

Isn't it odd then, that some cannot believe in an infinite God who created the universe from nothing; but instead would rather accept that our infinitely complex universe (which the human finite mind cannot possibly comprehend), designed itself from a Big Bang (0 = 1). We should question putting faith in scientific theories which refuse to accept that something may originate from nothing - and yet start their original premise with a Big Bang. Evolution is simply the belief that in the beginning there was nothing – the nothing exploded and gradually created everything. (Genesis 1:1)

More on the evidence for such a Creator will be posted tomorrow.