sophie's fair

Jungle Book (c) Walt Disney Co

King Louie [the ape]: Ha-ha, so you're the mancub? Crazy.
Mowgli: I'm not as crazy as you are, put me down.
-- Jungle Book

God doesn't play dice.
-- Albert Einstein

an excavation site near barcelona, spain was reopened due to the discovery of a 13 million-year-old animal that bridges the gap between earlier, primitive animals and later, modern creatures. the newest ape species, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, is a vital discovery to scientists "who puzzle through the mysteries of early human history."

another recent finding was the "hobbit" (or LB1 of the new species Homo floresiensis) on flores island. according to anthropologist desmond morris, "the existence of 'mini-man' should destroy religion."
People have always been fascinated with this question, in particular what makes humans different.
Some have tried to separate human beings in terms of physical, mental or genetic characteristics.
The trouble with this, as LB1 demonstrates, is that these are simply often different points on a spectrum rather than absolutes.
Within the Christian tradition, some have suggested that the key to being human is our ability of rational thinking, freewill, our moral sense or our capacity to face our own death.
However, the overwhelming view which can be found in the early chapters of Genesis is that human beings are defined in terms of relationship, and in particular their relationship to God.
Being made in the image of God is about being given the gift of intimate relationship with God, and a certain kind of responsibility in the natural world.
That human beings are special in terms of relationship allowed early astronomers such as Huygens to speculate about other worlds without having nightmares about his Christian faith.
The fact that God may have created many other species in the Universe does not diminish the relationship he has given to human beings.
Further, as many historians have pointed out, the Christian worldview encouraged the growth of empirical science - the Universe had to be observed to see what God had done.
The diversity and unpredictability of the cosmos or natural world was therefore a reflection of a God who gives the Universe the potential for extravagance.
Finally, the gift of responsibility brought with it the need for care and compassion to others, the animal kingdom and the environment.
-- David Wilkinson

it angers me that more schools in america are becoming more intolerant toward the belief that there is a Creator who is responsible for giving life to the world. they supposedly encourage free-thinking and yet, are averse to scriptural exegeses.
while i am an animal rights advocate, i cannot accept the stupidity of darwinism.

A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven't come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
It would be wrong to say that creation hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Creationism makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting Creationism is overwhelming.
It is noteworthy that the concept of natural selection was first suggested in the published observations of creationist scientist Edward Blyth in 1835 (24 years before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species). Blyth's work is not likely to have been unknown to Darwin, who appears to have "borrowed" the concept from Blyth, ever since which time natural selection has been erroneously attributed to Darwin and cited as evidence of evolution.
Charles Darwin's contribution amounted to advancing the imaginative (and still highly popular) notion that an abundance of time was the only missing ingredient for a plausible theory of evolution. Modern science has come to seriously question this simplistic approach, however, returning us to a place in which Blyth's observations remain valid, while Darwin's speculative -- but unfounded -- extrapolations come under ever greater suspicion.
-- Timothy Wallace

science is against evolution, and this is why:

Life Happens
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)
The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.
On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.
It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals, scales had to have mutated into hair, breasts had to have evolved from nothing, hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb etc.
None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory. The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.

on september 24, 2001, 100 scientists have come together to declare their skepticism of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. [They suggested that a] careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

relatedly, 12 leading evolutionists have been quoted to say that evolution is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on earth.
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
-- Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

i dont know about you, but i'm sticking to my guns. God is real and that is a consistent fact.

For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible... everything got started in Him and finds its purpose in Him.
-- Colossians 1:16