Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”
‘Over a decade ago, British geneticist Dr. Steve Jones, of University College, London, opined that human evolution had ceased. He stated that there are three factors influencing evolution: natural selection, mutation and random change. Jones attributed the end of evolution to men becoming fathers much later in life than earlier centuries and, therefore, having a shorter reproductive period. This, he claimed, led to less deleterious mutations being removed from the population.
Referring to the same three factors, researchers at New York’s Columbia University have reached the opposite conclusion. They state that human evolution continues apace. Lead researcher Dr. Hakhamanesh Mostafavi said, “If a genetic variant influences survival, its frequency should change with the age of the surviving individuals”, suggesting that harmful variants should be less common in older populations, if that deleterious mutation has led to more deaths. His team suggests that “parents surviving into old age in good health can care for their children and grandchildren, increasing the later generations’ chances of surviving and reproducing.”
We should first note that such survival and selection of genetic traits is not evolution. Deleterious mutations are removed by natural selection, but any new mutation is likely to be deleterious to survival in the short term. Besides, none of this involves the creation of new genetic information, so this is not evolution. God made human beings with the genetic abilities to weed out harmful mutations. Positive generational care – a biblical concept – was God’s idea, not the result of random chance.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/are-humans-evolving/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=are-humans-evolving&mc_cid=973ea0d325&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Matthew 16:2 “He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.”
‘One good test of whether a theory is scientific is whether the theory can accurately predict new and surprising findings. If you have a barometer, you may do this all the time. The sky may be clear, but the barometer is falling fast. No matter how nice the weather looks, you know that rain is likely.
Creation scientists believe that humans have been on Earth in their present so-called “modern” form ever since the model first came out. Since that was on day six of creation, humans have been on Earth as long as any creature. So creation scientists have predicted that as we find more fossils, we will find fossils of “modern man” in older and older rocks. Such a discovery would shock the evolutionists!
Evolutionists say that, according to their theory, “modern” humans have been around for only a small part of the world’s history. In their inflated estimate, they say we have been here for only 35,000 years. Evolutionists received a surprise when that age recently had to be almost tripled. A new discovery pushed the date for “modern” humans back 92,000 years. As a result, evolutionists had to admit that we turn out to be older than some of the creatures from which we were supposed to have evolved!
Of course, one has to take the hot air out of those evolutionary dates. They can be adjusted down to a number that fits the biblical calendar. However, the scientific prediction made by creation scientists has proven out. And creationists are predicting that the history of “modern” humanity will continue to be pushed back further and further!
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic Evidence
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
An example of an inscribed clay tablet
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
What Does this All Mean?
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
Conclusion
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
References
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Life sometimes presents what seems like contradictions. The following article says “all bodies are sacred” but then the article goes on to support the murder of the unborn! Reproductive justice is just a phrase for “go ahead it’s ok to kill the unborn”!
‘As Unitarian Universalists, we are outraged and heartbroken that the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court last week announced that they would allow the implementation of SB8—a Texas anti-abortion bill that outlaws abortion after six weeks gestation. We believe that all bodies are sacred. Every person has the right to determine what happens to their own body at all phases of life—including if, when, and how they want to have children. As people of faith, this commitment is part of our deepest religious values: Unitarian Universalism proclaims that all individuals and communities have the right to self-determination, safety, and the resources that are necessary for health and sustainability.
As Unitarian Universalists, we believe that all bodies are sacred. Every person has the right to determine what happens to their own body at all phases of life.
Our faith tradition has a long legacy of advocating for safe, legal, accessible abortion care for anyone who needs it. Unitarian Universalists were among the plaintiffs suing the state of Texas over SB8 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. Unitarian Universalist ministers and congregations were part of the Clergy Consultation Service, which supported people in accessing abortion care before Roe v. Wade. And from developing the most comprehensive sexuality education program in North America through Our Whole Lives, to regularly affirming our support for abortion access and care in resolutions from our General Assembly, dating back to 1962, we have been steadfast in showing up for reproductive justice.
This anti-abortion bill not only violates basic reproductive freedom, it also deputizes private citizens to act as vigilantes who can receive bounties for bringing lawsuits against individuals who receive, “aid and abet,” or provide abortion care. This decision, which overturns decades of legal precedent dating back to 1973’s Roe v. Wade, signals that any state can effectively ban abortion within its borders. Safe, legal, nationwide access to abortion care is no longer the law of the land.’https://www.uua.org/pressroom/press-releases/uus-remain-committed-reproductive-justice
Some folk see racism everywhere! Yep everywhere and in everything!
‘Think it couldn’t get any worse after a Kentucky college claimed that whiteness is terrorism? Well, as our former president (who should still be president) might say, WRONG! It just got worse. College students at UCLA are claiming that soap dispensers are racist.
Yes, you read that right. No, I’m not making that up. College-educated adults are, rather than learning and reading widely or spending their time on other honorable and virtuous pursuits, are instead attacking soap dispensers by claiming that those inanimate soap dispensers are racist.
The basis for this article comes from an op-ed on The College Fix, a great site that routinely exposes leftist lunacy. Here’s what the article claims:
“one UCLA student claimed during the debate, automatic soap dispensers “don’t see her hands” due to the dark pigment of her skin. As another student reiterated, soap dispensers are racist because they force “black and brown bodies” to show their palms — “the only light areas of the skin” — in order to get soap out.”
Ah, brilliant points. Because you have to apply soap to your palms to effectively clean them when rubbing soap on your hands, the machines that make that hygienic task far easier and cleaner than it used to be is, wait for it, racist!‘https://genzconservative.com/soap-dispensers-are-racist/
People may scoff at those who believe the Bible to be the very Words of the Living Creator God but it is they who are proven over and over to be wrong. If they would only believe when it is said that He …hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth… Acts 17:26. Belief in that statement would have seen history changed. The Holocaust would not have occurred along with many other atrocities against mankind. Darwinism is not a friend but a foe, an enemy! The article below states that ‘In the Germanic countries at this time, “Darwinian rhetoric was widely accepted within medical circles and a discussion about race also ensued among eugenically inclined members of the . . . medical community.” https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v13/jewish_inferiority_skeleton.pdf
‘Dogs don’t read the words on a page. Neither did Coco, the famous gorilla that learned to communicate using simple hand signs.So what affords humans the unique ability to read and write, and why do we do it? These kinds of questions drive Zeynep Saygin’s research at Ohio State. Her team’s recent discovery sets the stage for some answers.
Brain experts already knew about the visual cortex—an area of the brain where neurons fire as we interpret faces, shapes, and words. But Saygin’s group seeks to understand what happens in our brains as we learn to read.
The team compared functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data sets from 40 newborns to similar scans of 40 adults. fMRI shows neuron activity within the brain, so the comparison would indicate if baby brains come into the world already equipped with the wiring necessary to perceive and process letters later in life.
Literate adults have close connections between the part of the brain that processes the sight of letters, called the visual word form area (VWFA), and the brain’s nearby language network. The researchers discovered that newborn brains come prewired with similarly tight connections between the two areas.
They published their discovery in Scientific Reports.1
Saygin, the senior author of the study, told Ohio State News, “Even at birth, the VWFA is more connected functionally to the language network of the brain than it is to other areas. It is an incredibly exciting finding.”2
Lead author Jin Li said, “It’s interesting to think about how and why our brains develop functional modules that are sensitive to specific things like faces, objects, and words.”2
Why indeed?
From a Darwinian perspective, our brains’ functional modules would have incrementally developed over eons for our survival. But in what scenario would our ancestors have been forced to read or die? For that matter, how could such pressures reach into and rewire our brains?
On the other hand, if humans came from supernatural creation instead of mere nature, then the possibility opens for God to have intentionally prewired our brains “to see words.”2 And why would a Creator do that?
Reading is the key to understanding the most important information for time and eternity found in the Bible. Scripture says we were created for God, that our sins have driven a wedge between us and God, but that God sent His Son to take our sins upon Himself in order to restore our relationship with Him.
So, it makes sense that a God who has invested so much into us would also have endowed us with the prewiring needed to see letters. That way each can learn to read, take up the Bible, and discover the way back to Him.
whatyareckon 