“My girlfriend probably won’t break-up with me for cheating.”

“I probably won’t crash my motorcycle if I drive drunk.”

“Russian Roulette probably won’t kill me.”

“I probably know what’s going to happen after death.

That last one is a big risk, and can also be stated as such:

I have been compelled to a literal interpretation of Genesis given it being Historical Narrative in nature, and rejected more liberal Theologians that claim a regional flood would have been interpreted as “worldwide” by observers.

Here is some very strong evidence that the Chinese as a people are in fact descendants of Noah:

Thanks to Kang and Nelson in their book, “The Discovery of Genesis” for this info:

It’s debuting this weekend in major cities across America.

While the Logic is circular, the smile a rather creepy, and the definition of Humanism misleading, I give them props for the Santa hats and in doing so referencing a 4th century Saint who battled Arian heresy.

I have often looked down my arrogant nose at those who would dare draw the Gospel out of something that it was never intended to be drawn from. Whether it be “Dr Seuss”, “Sex and the City”, or even “LOST” (all of which have been the subject of Bible studies). I don’t know if it’s that I haven’t been able to listen to 8 hours of preaching and teaching a day anymore and so I’m getting soft. But I found incredible parallelism in the most recent episode of a wonderful Sci-Fi drama known as “Fringe”.

In this episode, “The Observer” abducts a twenty-something against her will, and hold her captive in a dreary hotel room (Observer is a neutral character who literally observes everything, and doesn’t ever get involved).

Just when you think his motives are less than gentlemanly, he turns on the TV so the girl can see the plane she was supposed to be on has crashed into the water, killing everyone on board.

“What makes her so special?” is the question asked by everyone in the show, for Observers aren’t supposed to get involved.

The other Observers realize a correction has to be made, and she must be killed to set the time/space continuum in order. Through a series of events, our hero Observer realizes the only way he can save her is to let himself be killed by the Assassin.

As the Observer is dying, he tells another Observer that he died for her because of love. The hunt for her is called off, because no human has ever caused an Observer to die before. She is too special to kill. The irony is that the only thing that makes her special, is that he died for her.

In case you haven’t seen the parallelism yet, we are that girl, rescued out of our life which was destined to end in death. Upon being presented with the Gospel, we began trusting Christ rather than kicking and screaming at his will (although some of us still do that once in a while

The only thing that makes us special enough to be saved is that Christ died for us. It isn’t because I’m more “sensitive to the Spirit” then someone else, or because I have more dedication and so will not leave the Faith when my friend walks away, or even because I was lucky enough to be born in the USA. It’s because Christ rescued me at the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), and died for me much later in order to rescue me from the direction my sinful life was headed.

*As a side note, a few scenes before a Scientist explains how time is like water running through a straw to us (linear), but to an Observer time is still, like water that is still inside the straw.
Check out the episode on Hulu here.

Here are a few of my questions regarding evolution, I would welcome any answers anyone has, but please cite your source and please use scientific sources not John Doe’s opinion.

I’ll begin my line of questions with this post about the now famous “Lucy” since this is a blog that has been referred to me by a supporter of evolution as a reliable source:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html

Where do the “sketches” come from?  There are no complete fossils from what I could find on any websites to support the picture that most people have of the ape-men that evolutionists claim before us.  In the words of “talk origins” in reference to the number of “skeletons” to support evolution:

“They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.”

If they are so rare where do we get the pictures from?  How do they guess at what formed an entire body based on a few bones?  I looked through several and found zero that had a skull (or even partial skull) to go along with a spine, and even one upper limb and lower limb.  So there would be no evidence of being stooped over, no evidence of any “transitional” beings.  There would also be no evidence of a hairy ape-man, bones can tell us some information about where muscles possibly attached as well as where tendons were, we can see based on bone wear-and-tear a general idea of osteoporosis or previous breaks/fractures but even that would largely be conjecture when the bones are considered to be millions of years old.  Where does the hair come from?

Why are abnormalities not taken into account?  There are genetic abnormalities that would account for someone being incredibly hairy such as generalized Hypertrichosis.  This is an inherited disease characterized by thick hair growth over a person’s entire body.  This is not an ape-man…simply an abnormality that can even be caused by certain medicines or androgen imbalance in women.  Or how about dwarfism?  Several articles refer to “short stature”, even stooped, there is a very simple explanation to being stooped, it’s called Kyphosis, it naturally occurs in much of the population due to age, immobility, osteoarthritis, or any number of common factors none of which promote evolution.  Progeria is another interesting one: this is an abnormal aging, a 5 year old would have the body and diseases of an 80 year old.  If the skull of a child with Progeria were found Scientists would incorrectly assume he was much older than he truly was based on his bone structure.

Why is Lucy said to have possibly been “tree-dwelling”?  Was that based on where her fossil was found?  Was it based on the shape it was found in?  She has no hands, no feet, no head, no complete rib cage, in fact very few complete bones at all except her sacrum (I think…couldn’t tell for sure though).  Was that tilted a certain way?  That could also indicate breaks in her spine, could indicate trauma in the manner she died, it could indicate osteoarthritis of the spine, osteoporosis of the spine, SO many possibilities that are present today.

I am sure there are answers to these questions and I have many more related to each fossil but I’ll keep it short for now and see what responses come.  There are plenty of scientists in this world on both sides of this argument smarter than I am who have argued with a lot more intellect, I’ll just start with the basics for now.

Some are questioning his credibility as a Scientist.

According to Dr. Robert Carter, “Darwin’s greatest gift is not as a scientist; it’s as a wordsmith”.

Dr John Sanford, a Geneticist says, “Darwin built a worldview that has come to be the governing paradigm of the intellectual community; that worldview is now collapsing in the face of new advances in science.”

The story, by the Christian Post, goes on to talk about how the famous “Lucy” is having gender identity issues. Some argue whether or not scientists may have misinterpreted “her” pelvic structure as being male. While this may not seem like a big deal, the premise upon her walking on 2 legs was developed based on pelvic structure.

And besides, if they can’t even tell something as simple as gender, then why are we trusting notoriously unreliable dating techniques to tell us how old she is?