Proverbs 17:7 “Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince.”
‘Several different animals communicate on a limited basis with one another. But human speech is unique, leaving those who believe in evolution perplexed. The very oldest human fossils show the bony structures needed to support speech. Evolutionists will admit, in a candid moment, that they have no idea how speech could have evolved. One modern researcher said they have only “inferences based on hunches.”
Some scientists have observed that human beings come with the built in ability to learn and speak. While this idea is not popular among evolutionists, it is supported by the unique structure of the human vocal tract. No other creature has anything like it. The human larynx is placed low in the throat. That placement creates a sound chamber that allows us to make language expressive. Moreover, the placement prevents us from breathing and eating or drinking at the same time. But we are not born that way. A newborn’s larynx is placed higher up in the throat, allowing a baby to breathe and suckle at the same time. By the time a child is six – and has no need to suckle and breathe at the same time, but is learning language – the larynx has moved to its adult position.
‘A 159-year-long debate has finally been resolved. It concerns the first fossil feather ever found.1 Did it belong to a member of the famous bird type Archaeopteryx or not? (Archaeopteryx, an extinct perching bird with fully formed flight feathers, is widely considered the ‘oldest’ bird fossil under evolutionary ‘dating’). The isolated feather is alleged to be 150 million years old, or Upper Jurassic. It was discovered in 1861 in the same Solnhofen Limestone deposit in Bavaria, Germany where the first Archaeopteryx skeleton was later found, also the same ‘age’.’ Whether you are a creationist or evolutionist you should read the rest of this article at https://creation.com/oldest-feather
Genesis 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
‘Phillip McGibbony found a fossil Cowrie shell (above) on our recent Victorian field trip. Today’s cowries live only in tropical and subtropical areas and Phillip’s fossil shell is evidence that the southern part of Australia was once much warmer. Politicians need to take much more notice of what the actual evidence is, instead of what green votes mean to them. Phillip has donated his find to Creation Research.’https://creationresearch.net/exciting-research/climate-change/hot-stuff-on-climate-change/
‘A nuanced evolutionary worldview is emerging, one which arguably points to fulfillment of Bible prophecies concerning the end-times.
Now, the evolution-driven narrative goes beyond the idea that we are “merely evolved animals”. Now, the same narrative goes beyond the conclusion that we have no accountability to “our Maker”. Now, the narrative is more than the idea that we should get rid of “lesser human beings”. Now, many humanist elites, corporatist planners and globalist-minded heads of state openly advocate the idea of “assisting evolution” to actually “hack” human biological programming – to promote “transhumanism”.
Transhumanism is referring to genetic modification and other programming. It includes the insertion of wirelessly rechargeable nano-chips – a thousand times smaller than micro-chips. These chips can link to brain neuro-networks. The express purpose is to monitor what’s happening inside us, provide us with more “information” and elicit certain traits in our physiology, character and behavior. This will supposedly help people become “gods” – at least some of us.
The Bible makes note of this kind of rebellious plotting and assertion of human ego. For example, “Why do the heathen (the nations) rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalm 2:1-3). The Lord, of course, gets the last laugh. “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision” (Psalm 2:4).
In a speech he gave on January 25, 2018, to the World Economic Forum (WEF), top advisor to the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari, said, “Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design.” And, he clarified, “This is not the intelligence of some god above the clouds but OUR intelligent design and the intelligent design of OUR ‘clouds’ – the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud – these are the new driving force for evolution.”
And in an interview for Israeli television on October 29, 2020, he put it this way: “The whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit, and free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me and what I will do in an election or in the supermarket – this whole idea is over.” In his worldview, there is no God, and no Creator transcends natural processes and materials.
Harari, a historian and futurist, dives deep into evolution in his very popular books which have heavily influenced like-minded elite humanist “thinkers and shakers” of today. These include Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014) and Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016).
You can see the overtly evolutionary underpinnings from the book titles. “Homo sapiens” is the evolutionary science classification for “humans”. The genus “homo” is Latin for “man”, and the sub-species “sapiens” clarifies the type of human – “recent” (modern) humans. This would be in contrast to the “supposed” various fossil hominids such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalenthis. Harari’s book title “Homo Deus” is, of course, a play on the same scientific naming system, with provocatively “Homo Deus” meaning “man-god” in Latin. This is supposedly what mankind will now evolve into with the technological manipulations that those at the WEF and others have in mind.
The fact is that in the planning and worldview of the globalist elite are the assumptions of God-less evolution – billions of years to evolve stone-age “apemen” from micro-organisms; one variety called “Homo Sapiens” evolving to become “the dominant animals”; the dominant animals both creating and wrecking things on planet earth in a very short time compared to the “deep time” assumed for evolution; and those dominant animals continuing to accelerate evolution through “better” social structures and through biological and psychological manipulations; enhancing their own evolution to become more and more like “gods” themselves – just as the serpent said in the Garden of Eden.
No wonder the angel at the end of the age in Revelation 14:6-7, “having the everlasting gospel to preach…” says… “to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” … “worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” The angel is driving home the point that together with the redeeming death and resurrection and coming kingdom of Jesus Christ is the foundational fact that the supernatural creation of all things was by the living Word of God! Creation is foundational to everything else.
In the end, the Lord defeats the global collective of humanist pride and its ultimate leader, Satan. Furthermore, in the end and even now, we all have the opportunity to be filled to overflowing with the infinite love of our infinite God! There is always more that He wants to give us. That is the wonderful thing!
The Gospel hymn says it well: “But until then, my heart will go on singing. Until then, with joy I’ll carry on. Until the day my eyes behold the City. Until the day God calls me home.”
‘Sometimes when you are standing outside on a dark night, you may see a “shooting star.” But, is it really a star? NO! It is a random space rock speeding through our atmosphere, burning up with tremendous frictional heat, causing light to streak across the sky. If it is a large enough chunk of rock, it will not entirely burn up, but hit the earth and make an impact crater. How many impact craters are here on Earth? It is estimated that there are about 100. How many impact craters are on the moon? There are 5,185 moon craters that are more than 12 miles across, but if you count the craters less than one-half mile in diameter, it brings the total to about one million! Why are there more craters on the moon than on Earth?
Earth has an atmosphere that burns up space rocks; the moon does not. Without our atmosphere, rocks could be routinely plummeting through our homes at night. Fortunately, our atmosphere is almost 50 miles thick, and as space rocks encounter it, friction is produced, and rocks are disintegrated. Did our atmosphere develop by chance over millions of years? If so, we should find billions of meteorites buried within the rock layers of the earth. We do not. Our atmosphere was set up from the beginning to protect life on Earth. It did not happen by accident and chance; our atmosphere was created by God to protect us! So as you “wish upon a falling star,” thank the One who made it all possible.’ From an email sent by http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
Job 38:4 “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.”
‘Every day, all over the Earth, plants engage in chemical warfare against insects and animals that would eat them. When this drama is described by evolutionary scientists, they usually talk about plants as though the plants were skilled chemists who developed their abilities on their own.
For example, the leaves of the oak tree contain tannins. Tannins form complexes with proteins so that, when eaten, they have little nutritional value. An evolutionary account of how this arrangement came about describes how the trees supposedly developed this strategy for self-defense. Stories like this make one wonder how oak trees gained so much knowledge about animal digestion and chemistry. Some species of milkweed and dogbane produce powerful muscle relaxants that can be fatal to humans.
One might picture, in the far distant past, white-smocked milkweeds working in the chemistry lab. Other “doctor” milkweeds are feeding various concoctions to humans in cages to test their responses. When one tries to account for this without a Creator, the picture can become silly.
The Bible provides an answer that makes a great deal more sense. In Job 38 and 39 the Lord – the Creator – asks Job about dozens of aspects of the creation. In His questioning, He asks Job about the source of the knowledge and abilities found in living things. The answer, of course, is that the creating God, and no one else, designed, built and taught the creation. Other answers simply can’t satisfy.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/plant-self-defense-3/?mc_cid=90ceddb138&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Is that statement really true concerning the aboriginal culture? The majority of the world has swallowed the evolutionary tale which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical teaching. The following is from Creation Ministries International which I trust you will read with an open mind.
‘Today’s feedback from Chris B. of Australia, concerns media reports about when Aboriginal people settled Australia. It’s answered by CMI’s Dr Tas Walker.
In recent years the media has reported ever increasing ages that the Aboriginal Australians have inhabited the continent, and progressively, figures of 10, 20 and up to 40 and 50 thousand years have been given. The evidence of these dates mostly come from artefacts like cave painting or rock engraving. Recently, however, these sorts of dates have been claimed to arise from comparing DNA of Australian Aboriginals with that of the people indigenous to the Highlands of New Guinea. The theory is that at one time they had the same genome, but, genetic drift over time can be seen by comparing the DNA, thus “counting back” to when they were one people.
Is this technique of genome comparison a valid way to date how long Aboriginal people have been living in Australia, or does the technique contain certain evolutionary assumptions? Does CMI have any information refuting such DNA based dating that you can kindly refer me to?
The dating technique you mention is called a ‘molecular clock’. It involves very sophisticated laboratory techniques for comparing DNA sequences. However, like all ‘scientific’ clocks, a date cannot be calculated without making a number of unprovable assumptions about the past (see Fatal flaw). The reason the technique gives long ages is because the rate of genetic change is calibrated to provide results consistent with the standard evolutionary long-age timescale. However, when the rate of genetic change is ‘calibrated’ against the rate actually measured in organisms at the present time the timescales are much shorter—consistent with the biblical timescale.
The article Evolutionary molecular genetic clocks—a perpetual exercise in futility and failure explains the principles of the molecular clock and discusses the problem with the method. In summary, genetic clock methods assume evolution and deep-time by calibrating against the paleontological timescale. In addition, the methods have multiple problems: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates, 2) different taxa exhibit different rates for homologous (similar) sequences, and 3) divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite being calibrated by it. And finally, the molecular clock idea is directly tied to the neutral model theory of evolution, which assumes mutations occur in the so-called junk DNA. However, recent discoveries undermine the idea of pervasive junk DNA, thus negating its foundational premise.
The article Empirical genetic clocks give biblical timelines shows that when measured rates of genetic change are applied, ‘molecular clocks’ yield ages consistent with the biblical timescale. The article concludes, “A straightforward empirical approach constricted to analyses within a single taxa, typically yields dates of not more than about 5,000 to 10,000 years. Thus, when the hypothetical evolutionary constraints are removed, and the data is analyzed empirically, biblical timelines are achieved.”
One recent media article about the dating of Aboriginal occupation of Australia was reported in Science Daily,1 based on research published in Nature.2 This analysed hair samples collected from Aboriginal people across Australia. The genetic relationships between people within Australia and outside Australia from this analysis are likely to be reasonable. All people on earth today are descended from the eight people who were on Noah’s Ark that came to rest in the Middle East, and so the emigration paths described in the paper would be compatible with the biblical account. However, the multi-thousand-year dates are not, for the reasons outlined above.
The article The dating game discusses various efforts to date Aboriginal remains, in particular the individuals dubbed Mungo Man and Mungo Woman, found in sand dunes in south-western New South Wales. This article was published in 2003 but is still relevant. It describes how published dates, based on a range of different methods, progressively rose higher and higher. In 1999, when researchers at Australian National University in Canberra published a date of 62,000 years, other evolutionary researchers objected. It created an international problem for theories of human evolution. Such an early occupation of Australia by Aborigines would require the whole out-of-Africa theory of human origins to be rewritten.
However, the new molecular clock researchers are not so ambitious, citing dates of 50,000 years. Perhaps some sort of a compromise is being sought by settling on a number that won’t run afoul of the out-of-Africa scenario but still have very old dates for Australian Aborigines.
These scenarios for Aboriginal occupation of Australia are based on evolutionary assumptions, and these contradict biblical history. Especially they ignore Noah’s global Flood. However, the Bible provides a solid interpretive framework for scientific investigations into human origins. The first Aboriginal settlers to Australia were descended from people as intelligent and inventive as all other people alive at that time. Like everyone else, they were descended from Noah, who built and managed the Ark, and from a people who developed an advanced civilization around the Tower of Babel. So, as the DNA research reveals, the Australian Aborigines were related to other people groups, including those in India and Papua New Guinea. This aspect of the DNA research fits nicely with the biblical account.
However, the idea that the Aboriginal people of Australia are a primitive culture that had not evolved as much as people from other cultures is wrong. It’s evolutionary racism. Rather, they lost some of their technological know-how when they reached Australia. This can happen in a generation if parents do not pass their culture onto their children, or if small populations become isolated. Perhaps it was this isolation and the pressure to cope with a worsening climate as the continent dried out after the post-Flood Ice Age. But, they, like all other peoples, are made ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26), to have a relationship with God.
In summary, the dates produced by the ‘molecular clock’ are not valid because it begins with an incorrect calibration and has numerous fatal problems. However, if measured mutation rates are used as calibration then dates consistent with biblical timescales are obtained. But the method still has problems, which is why scientists do not rely on the dates it produces until they have checked other research to decide which dates to accept. On the other hand, the genetic relationships between people groups revealed by DNA comparisons are likely to be reasonably sound, and may help sort out migration routes of people since disembarking from Noah’s Ark in the Middle East about 4,500 years ago.
Ray Tobler, Adam Rohrlach, Julien Soubrier, Pere Bover, Bastien Llamas, Jonathan Tuke, Nigel Bean, Ali Abdullah-Highfold, Shane Agius, Amy O’Donoghue, Isabel O’Loughlin, Peter Sutton, Fran Zilio, Keryn Walshe, Alan N. Williams, Chris S. M. Turney, Matthew Williams, Stephen M. Richards, Robert J. Mitchell, Emma Kowal, John R. Stephen, Lesley Williams, Wolfgang Haak, Alan Cooper. Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia, Nature, 2017; DOI: 10.1038/nature21416.’https://creation.com/dna-research-australian-aborigines-50000-years-ago
When I was a boy growing up in Iowa there was a woodpecker that loved to wake me up early in the morning pecking on a tree outside my window. As a young man I never really gave it much thought other it was annoying but there was more going on than just pecking.
‘If you have ever banged a nail into wood and then tried to extract it you will know how hard it is to overcome the friction that holds the nail into the wood. Woodpeckers are well known for banging their beaks into tree trunks and branches and extracting them at an incredibly rapid rate. Scientists have wondered if the birds’ beaks ever get stuck, and how could the birds extract them. Researchers at the University of Antwerp took high speed videos of black woodpeckers (Dryocopus martius) banging their beaks into wood and it seems their beaks get stuck in about one third of their bangs. However, they are able to quickly extricate them and carry on banging at approximate three pecks per second. The researchers closely studied the video recordings to see how they did this. The birds do not simply wrench their beaks out – they face the same problem as with the banged in nail. Instead, they go through a manoeuvre where they rotate the head end of the beak up, leaving the tip still stuck in the wood. This creates a gap between the upper and lower beak. They then bend their head slightly forward, which pulls the lower beak back, and closes the gap between the upper and lower beak, but leaves a tiny gap between the lower beak and the wood. By sliding the upper and lower beaks along one another the bird is able to “walk” its beak out of the wood. The upper and lower parts of the beak can easily slide on one another as they have smooth keratin surfaces. All this happens in around 70 milliseconds.
Scientists have wondered why woodpeckers have flexible joints between their beak and their skull, as having a rigid skull would make their hammering more forceful. Now we know. The ability to move different sections of the skull and beak is called cranial kinesis and the researchers concluded their study “demonstrates the counter-intuitive value of maintaining cranial kinesis in a species adapted to deliver forceful impacts”.
References: Inside JEB 1 March 2022; Science (AAAS) News 7 January 2022; Journal of Experimental Biology 1 March 2022, doi: 10.1242/jeb.243787.
ED. COM. The scientists were surprised at the high rate of woodpeckers getting stuck, which should lead them to ask: why would a bird take up banging its beak into trees if it was going to get stuck every third bang? Unless, of course, it already had a means of extricating itself. Furthermore, who taught the birds to carry out this precision manoeuvre? It is not just enough to have flexible joints. When it gets stuck the bird has to recognise the problem as well as have the nervous system control to carry out the exact movement needed. It is just as well woodpeckers were designed by the Creator who is smarter than evolution-believing human scientists. Otherwise partly evolved woodpeckers would get jammed in trees and die out in the Darwinian struggle for life.’https://mailchi.mp/creationresearch.net/creation-research-email-news-update-16th-march-1167063?e=ce21bf0337