Make $$$ Selling Ads

Category Archives: faith

monkey see = see monkey = understand(?) monkey!

Breathing-Fragile-Life conscientious-ness education faith God humility insights Joan Winifred knowledge mind food science & spirituality study things i learned trust Truth

peakaboo-eye-see-you

Greetings “Human” Reader🙂  This is the third post in a series:
2. unmuting-mutations and 1. evolution-pollution  debunking the so-called “theory”…of Evolution…does NOT meet the criteria for theory: “In science, the term “theory” refers to “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

OOPS, excuse me;) let me be more “specific” for any who may squabble over semantics…”Scientific” Theory: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.” [excerpted on-line dictionary descriptions/definitions of term(s): “theory” and specifically “Scientific” theory that most agree on.]

Relevant excerpted Readings for You:) My-Fellow-Human-Skilled-Reasoning-Reader(s) and TRUTH-Thinker(s)-for-Your-Self-er(s)!!:) 

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

[…]astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”⁠8

Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual changeGenes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”​—Italics added.  (my highlights)

25 Then Hitching (an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe) concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”⁠19

[Excerpted Chapter 2, Disagreements About Evolution—Why? Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pp. 14-24]

Nope, my SOLID faith aka “accurate belief system” is NOT based on credulity (nor doubts) nor (seemingly complicated) fantasy. Or deceptive-imaginative-works of… fictitious/fabricated art(?)

some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.⁠Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”⁠And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠4

Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. […], there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

4. From evolution’s standpoint, why is the absence of living “ape-men” so strange?

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

How Much Fossil Evidence?

5. What impression do the accounts leave about the fossil evidence for human evolution?

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day?

6. (a) Were earlier theories about human evolution based on fossil evidence? (b) Why could evolution gain acceptance without solid evidence?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”⁠5

7-9. How much fossil evidence for human evolution is there now?

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”⁠7

Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”⁠Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”⁠9

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”⁠10 The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”⁠11 Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record.And the true origin of modern humans​—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—​is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”⁠12

(Fossil “Evidence” ?!! Audacity Paucity…PITIFUL!…time to bury evolution! in a creation coffin)

10. What does the evidence show about the appearance of modern-type humans?

10 Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.”⁠13 Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?”⁠14 Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature?

Where Are the “Links”?

11. What is admittedly “the rule” in the fossil record?

11 However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

12. In what has the lack of links resulted?

12 Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

Family Tree…

15 The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”⁠21

16. Why did two scientists omit a family tree for evolution in their book?

16 In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

17, 18. (a) How can what some evolutionists consider “lost” be “found”? (b) How does the fossil record confirm this?

17 Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”⁠22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

18 The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

19, 20. On what are drawings of “ape-men” based?

19 However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face​—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”⁠23

20 Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”⁠24Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”⁠25

21. What, really, are the depictions of “ape-men”?

21 Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”⁠26 So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”⁠27 Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”⁠28

22. How have many supporters of evolution been deceived?

22 In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.⁠29

What Were They?

23. What really were some fossils that had been presumed to be ancestors of man?

23 If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”⁠30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”⁠31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

24. What problems arise in trying to establish Aegyptopithecus as an ancestor of humans?

24 Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus​—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)⁠32 “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)⁠33 Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)⁠34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”

25, 26. (a) What claim was made about Ramapithecus? (b) On what fossil evidence was it reconstructed so as to appear as an “ape-man”?

25 Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus​—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”⁠35

26 What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable​—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.”⁠36 Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature​—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”⁠37

27. Later evidence proved what regarding Ramapithecus?

27 However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.”⁠38 Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws​—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—​sneak into this manward-marching procession?”⁠39 Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.

28, 29. What claim was made for Australopithecus?

28 Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus​—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

29 For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.”⁠40 The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”⁠41 And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”⁠42

30, 31. What does later evidence show regarding Australopithecus?

30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian​—not human.[..]44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47

32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?

32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49

“Serious” Stuff Studied for humble Reflection:

“Why did “inferior” apes and monkeys survive, but not a single “superior” “ape-man”?”

“There is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take (evolutionists’) theorising out of the realms of fantasy”

“Based on just teeth and parts of jawbones, Ramapithecus was called “the first representative of the human family.” Further evidence showed that it was not”

“As is the case in the fossil record, today there is great variety in size and shape of bone structure in humans. But all belong to the human “kind””

“Piltdown man was accepted as a “missing link” for 40 years until exposed as a fraud. Parts of an orangutan jaw and teeth had been combined with parts of a human skull”

Small & Tall…

36. What are the facts regarding apelike fossils of the past, and humanlike fossils?

36 Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created​—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that​—apes, or monkeys—​not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.” [excerpted readings:  Chapter 7, “Ape-Men”—What Were They? pp. 83-98]

{draft 7/25/18 @ 10:57 p.m.

too exhausted to finish this tonight@11:01 p.m.}

In my living world…As a full-grown, heterosexual, mature woman…i can clearly d-i-s-t-i-n-g-u-i-s-h between a full-grown, heterosexual, mature man…AND a monkey at the zoo!🙂 Can You:) ?

See Man = Understand Man(?)(!)

okay, time for references and footnotes, eh?!

Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Chapter 2, Disagreements about Evolution–Why? footnotes:

8. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19.

19. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 103, 107, 108, 117.

Chapter 7

“Ape-Men”​—What Were They?

1. Science 81, “How Ape Became Man,” by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, April 1981, p. 45.

2. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 31.

3. Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52.

4. Lucy, p. 27.

5. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution,” by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41.

6. Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4.

7. New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

8. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 55.

9. Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737.

10. Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.

11. The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.

12. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.

13. The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1981, p. 324.

14. The Universe Within, by Morton Hunt, 1982, p. 45.

15. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.

16. Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.

17. Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.

21. The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.

22. Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84.

23. The Biology of Race, by James C. King, 1971, pp. 135, 151.

24. Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41.

25. Lucy, p. 286.

26. New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3, 1972, p. 259.

27. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 224.

28. Man, God and Magic, by Ivar Lissner, 1961, p. 304.

29. Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pp. 109, 110; Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1983, pp. 201-226.

30. Lucy, p. 315.

31. Origins, p. 40.

32. Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18, 1980, p. 58.

33. The New York Times, “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes,” by Bayard Webster, February 7, 1980, p. A14; “Fossils Bolster a Theory on Man’s Earliest Ancestor,” by Bayard Webster, January 1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16.

34. Origins, p. 52.

35. Ibid., p. 56.

36. Ibid., p. 67.

37. The New York Times, “Time to Revise the Family Tree?” February 14, 1982, p. E7.

38. New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24, 1982, p. 873.

39. Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/​September 1979, p. 86.

40. The Social Contract, by Robert Ardrey, 1970, p. 299.

41. The New York Times, “Bone Traces Man Back 5 Million Years,” by Robert Reinhold, February 19, 1971, p. 1.

42. Man, Time, and Fossils, by Ruth Moore, 1961, pp. 5, 6, 316.

43. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 142.

44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.

45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.

46. Lucy, p. 38.

47. Origins, p. 86.

48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.

49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.

published post July 26, 2018 @1:33 p.m., Florida, USA

Published by:

Evolution Pollution

appreciation Breathing-Fragile-Life conscientious-ness earth education faith God horses humility insights Joan Winifred knowledge logic love mind food science & spirituality spiritual food things i learned trees trust Truth universe wisdom

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.[1]

pollution STINKS!!…:) lol p.u. (puteo/piu) 😉

“The World Health Organization says that between 5 and 6 percent of deaths worldwide each year are a result of air pollution.” (2001/03)

How dangerous is pollution??

“Toxic levels of pollution leads annually to the early death of an estimated 7 million people, according to a new World Health Organization report.”

“It’s not just the air outdoors in polluted cities that poses a danger to public health. About 3 billion people are breathing deadly fumes from domestic cooking stoves and fires, according to the Geneva-based agency. Household air pollution caused an estimated 3.8 million deaths in 2016.” [excerpted www.bloomberg.com/news/air-pollution-kills-7-million-people-a-year-who-reports]

What/how about wearing masks i.e. surgical??

“Taiwan’s leading expert on the effects of pollution, Dr. Chan Chang-chuan, says diesel fumes are a cause of cancer.”

Dr. Chan says: “These masks are ineffective. Much of the pollution in the form of gases and particulates is so tiny that a simple mask has a low filtration rate. Besides, . . . they are not airtight. So they give a false sense of security.” [old quote excerpted Asiaweek Magazine]

FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY!!!…beware.

For me and my research…“Truth” aka True “LOVE” is no where to be found in the “theory”…(not even a theory) of evolution.  The FALSE teaching of Evolution…is a contaminant to clear, pure THINKING ABILITY!  Don’t let someone else think for You!! Investigate for Yourself. That’s what lazy/idle thinkers do…let/allow others do the thinking/mind labor/work for them…they turn over their minds/brains to the likes of Darwin and Others. Personally, i don’t care much for Mind Squatters!

Sometimes, we cannot help being adversely affected by air pollution…we may be unaware…of air quality, etc. where we happen to live. Where do our minds live??  Same with many of us regarding the bullying of evolution on our brains…since childhood, etc.  Many of us have been indoctrinated/(brain washed?) with this teaching at a young age…by chance vs. by choice.  (Public) education?? or aka (Public) Pollution?!

Spiritual Air Pollution…propaganda, demonic ideas, controlling concepts…cause changes…an unhealthy spiritual state.

Who’s squatting in Your Mind? taking up residence?  Time to kick ’em out of your house!!

Keep Your Head in the Game—and LIVE!:) Learn what True Love is and what True Love does and what True Love produces! Do your own thorough investigation!! Do your own mind work! It’s well worth the time and effort. 🙂

Check out this: my highlights

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.”⁠As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”5

7. What should the fossil record show if the Genesis creation account is factual?

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12,21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

8. If living things were created, what else should the fossil record show?

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”⁠6

How Complete Is the Record?

9. What did Darwin say about the evidence in his day?

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”7

10. What other disappointment did Darwin mention?

10 The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”⁠8

11. How did Darwin attempt to explain the difficulties?

11 Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”⁠It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

12. How extensive is the fossil record now?

12 Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”⁠11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”12

13, 14. Why have evolutionists been disappointed by the enlarged fossil evidence?

13 After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”⁠13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”⁠14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

14 What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

15. What conclusion did a botanist draw from his study of the fossil record?

15 Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”15

lol…laughable! the irony of evolution lacking any fossil…fuel…no true substance/energy/tractionyet, it’s a very dangerous/toxic gas…false ideology! It has contaminated, shaped and molded/moved the minds of millions…and for some…alienating them from the TRUTH about true source of love & life…the True God/Creator of Life–Yahweh!

Some of us don’t like having any authority in life…or having to answer to a Higher Power…God.  Some don’t like accountability.  They only want to answer to themselves.

And…Some bow/submit to false ideas/false gods, etc….aka let these dictate/control their thinking/lives. Personally, i don’t bow/worship imposter gods…female or male. Or so-called teachings of “higher” education…that don’t elevate my thinking or living…but rather inflate head/ego instead.

No transitional features found. (period)

28. Have transitional forms of bones and organs ever been found?

28 Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures​—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

A whiff? a hint? Fruitless!…yet—rotten fruitage—produced, eh? Lots of “stinky” “dirty” money made off of lies! (including lie of evolution!)  Lies are big business…(so is keeping people sick).  Sorry, but i don’t eat rotten nor rotting fruit…nor buy it for food. Do You?!

The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”33​—Italics added. (my highlight)

30. What does an extensive study confirm?

30 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”⁠34

31. Does the fossil record say something different now from what it said in Darwin’s day?

31 Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠35

But what about horses, i LOVE horses…..

As The World Book Encyclopedia states: “Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.”⁠36Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really support this?

33. Does the fossil evidence really support evolution of the horse?

33 The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line.”⁠37 In other words, nowhere does the fossil evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large horse. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: “Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all​—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush.”⁠38

34, 35. (a) Why do some now question the place of Eohippus? (b) Have any evolutionary ancestors been found for the varieties of fossil horses?

34 Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable says: “It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal.” But do the facts support this assumption? “The fossil species of [Eohippus] show little evidence of evolutionary modification,” answers the book. It thus concedes, regarding the fossil record: “It fails to document the full history of the horse family.”39

35 So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one. And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family.

Time for joanie to shut up…YAY! (You may say;))

When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

37. How does an evolutionist acknowledge this?

37 “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”⁠40

NO! FOSSIL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION!

The above-excerpted reading…promotes “impartial” inquiry! am i an impartial investigator??

As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory​—and we have seen that it does not—​what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”⁠41

Wow! even Sagan sees…”evidence” of design/designer:)

Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”⁠42

{(Regarding concept of Evolution…i see evidence of a designer of a dastardly-deceptive-design…of imagination/fiction.)}

Is it time to take out the trash?? Some things are worth recycling; other things are not!

An impartial inquiry (including touchy topics) is like…Breathing Fresh, Clean, Pure Air…it’s good for Brains. 🙂

Reference Reading: Life–how Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation? Chapter 5, “Letting the Fossil Record Speak” pp. 54-70

Footnotes:

4. New Scientist, book review by Tom Kemp of The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven M. Stanley, February 4, 1982, p. 320.

5. The Origin of Species, Part Two, p. 55.

6. Ibid., p. 83.

7. Ibid., p. 55.

8. Ibid., pp. 83, 88, 91, 92.

9. Ibid., pp. 94, 296.

10. Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 136.

11. New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

12. A Guide to Earth History, by Richard Carrington, 1956, p. 48.

13. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 6.

14. A View of Life, by Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981, p. 642.

15. Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.

June 2018 @ the “Mind Gym”

–fav local FL place

& fav flowering tree–

Crape Myrtle

7/21/18 @ 8:01 p.m.

p.s. oops…the missing…link?:)…nope, the missing footnotes…🙂

33. The New Evolutionary Timetable, p. 95.

34. Should Evolution Be Taught? by John N. Moore, 1970, pp. 9, 14, 24; New Scientist, “Letters,” September 15, 1983, p. 798.

35. On Growth and Form, by D’Arcy Thompson, 1959, Vol. II, pp. 1093, 1094.

36. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 6, p. 333.

37. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol. 7, p. 13.

38. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 31.

39. The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

40. Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, 1972, p. 120.

41. Liberty, September/​October 1975, p. 14.

42. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 29.

7/21/18 @ 11:10 p.m.

Published by:

bach & handel

appreciation attitude Breathing-Fragile-Life change choice comfort conscientious-ness contentment control courage faith forgiveness healing heart hope Hope humility insights Joan Winifred joy lamentations of the heart music never giving up! patience stress management transformation trust Truth Unity

Balking and handling…
(gently & patiently)

It’s Friday, what else am i gonna do?? Change my attitude?!(insert (or is lose)…snarky/sarcastic tone)

Another Day of the Week?…Nah, liv-ing Friday!

7/20/18 @ 3:12 p.m.

Published by:

(Spineless??) (Mind) Contortionist(s)?! hmmmm

courage dance faith insights Joan Winifred mind food spiritual food study trust Truth

PLEASE READ & THINK AT YOUR OWN RISK…of g~e~n~t~l~y stretching/(exercising within reason) Your Own Mind—Your Own Power(s) of Reason:)

Thinking about: flexibility, hypermobility, and contortion–differing phenomena…and any long-term damage to spine….may be? (mind) front benders and back benders…are spineless? or have damaged consciences? or a damaged consciousness? or are dangerously/fatally indecisive?? or too wishy-washy??  Or just exercising their particular mind-range-of-motion…also, thinking about (mind) performing arts…(i.e. enterology—squeezing one’s body into a small box).

(Mind) boxes various minds stuff themselves in; crowded.

Bodies have healthy/reasonable limits of movement/actions and so? should minds, eh?…to remain healthy & safe, etc. FIT!

Some bodies are more flexible than others…minds…move, moving…

Being a healthy, flexible/open-minded s–t–r–e–t–c–h–y thinker is one thing…however, too much over-stretching can be damaging & dangerous in my P.O.V.

Just doing some “surface” thinking…seems like IF …too overly-rigid or too overly-stretched-out brain..lol…mind …

elastic waist bands serve a purpose!…suppose to hold up your pants/skirt!…yet, when the waist band doesn’t snap back…is over-stretched…it’s not working properly, right?  Yeah, thinking/reading (briefly tonight) about neural plasticity…strengthening and weakening…and shaping, structure, function..(a fascinating subject/topic for me, however, secondary to spiritual topics which i prioritize)…

tests of faith arise, (tests of elasticity? snapping, breaking, stretching abilities/growth) etc. Anyway…these above-mentioned thoughts bring me to this:

Backbone of FAITH and COURAGE based on (sufficient “accurate” knowledge (doesn’t always include every minute detail)) needed for “stability” and spiritually-active-life-saving-decisiveness, eh?

Abraham certainly had backbone!! Not a coward… and not disagreeable!… actually, his test was more of an agreeable test of… “willingly” performing the seemingly “disagreeable” act/sacrifice. Why would he willingly do such an act?

Whose gonna have the last laugh?? (The faith FULL?)…(beware of mind poison, huh?;)

Abraham had already built up his immunity (his FAITH) in God/”true” salvation and the resurrection…(HOPE)

He foreshadowed what God himself was willing and would do in offering up (his beloved son Isaac on altar) for all of humanity…Jesus Christ–God’s Son.

Interesting reading on subject: Abraham, Faith, Sacrifice, Resurrection:

According to a recent estimate, one of the worst pandemics in human history was the Spanish influenza of 1918, which killed tens of millions of people. Other diseases are more lethal in a sense. While they may infect fewer people, they kill a higher percentage of the people they do infect.* However, what if we were to compare sin to such a pandemic? Recall the words of Romans 5:12: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” The infection rate of sin is 100 percent, since all imperfect humans sin. (Read Romans 3:23.) And what is the mortality rate? Paul wrote that sin brings death “to all men.”

Many today do not see sin and death in such dire terms. They worry about what they call premature death, but they dismiss as “natural” the death that creeps up on humans through the aging process. It is all too easy for humans to forget the Creator’s perspective. Our lifespan is infinitely shorter than he meant it to be. Actually, no human has lived for even “one day” from Jehovah’s point of view. (2 Pet. 3:8) God’s Word thus says that our lives are as transitory as a season’s growth of grass or as an exhaled breath. (Ps. 39:5; 1 Pet. 1:24) We need to keep that perspective in mind. Why? If we see the severity of the “disease” that afflicts us, we can better appreciate the value of the “cure”​—our deliverance.

Jehovah asked the faithful man Abraham to do something supremely difficult​—to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Now, Abraham was a loving father. Jehovah spoke to him of Isaac as “your only son whom you so love.” (Gen. 22:2) Still, Abraham saw that doing Jehovah’s will was even more important than his love for IsaacAbraham went ahead and obeyed. However, Jehovah did not allow Abrahamto do what He himself would do one day. God sent an angel to stop Abraham just before sacrificing his son. Abraham had been so determined to obey his God in this difficult test that he felt sure that his only hope of seeing the young man alive again would be by means of a resurrection. But he had complete faith that God would perform such a resurrection. Indeed, Paul said that Abraham did receive Isaac back by resurrection “in an illustrative way.”​—Heb. 11:19.

14 Can you begin to imagine Abraham’s pain as he prepared to offer up his son? In a sense, Abraham’s experience helps to illustrate that of Jehovah in sacrificing the one he called “my Son, the beloved.” (Matt. 3:17) Remember, though, that Jehovah’s pain was likely more intense. He and his Son had enjoyed associating together for countless millions, perhaps even billions, of years. The Son worked joyously with the Father as his beloved “master worker” and as his Spokesman, “the Word.” (Prov. 8:22,30, 31; John 1:1) What Jehovah endured as his Son was tormented, ridiculed, and then executed as a criminal is far more than we can know. Our deliverance cost Jehovah dearly!

How might we illustrate why we should appreciate the deliverance that Jehovah has made possible for us?

16 Let us return to the illustration given at the outset. Suppose the doctor who finds the cure to the disease were to approach the patients in your ward with this offer: Any patient who accepts treatment and follows the prescribed regimen will without fail be cured. What if most of your fellow patients refused to follow the doctor’s direction, arguing that it would be too much trouble to take the medicine or adhere to the prescribed regimen? Would you go along with them, even though you had convincing evidence that the cure really worked? Of course not! No doubt you would express thanks for the cure and then follow the doctor’s instructions carefully, perhaps even telling others of your choice. In a far greater sense, each of us should be eager to show Jehovah just how much we appreciate the deliverance that he has made possible through the ransom sacrifice of his Son.​—Read Romans 6:17, 18. [excerpts Do You Value What Jehovah Has Done to Deliver You? w ’09]

It’s not that big of a mind stretch to appreciate Abraham’s Act of Faith…the point…Yes, Abraham was a man of Great, Sturdy Faith…faith based on “convincing” evidence…what evidence?! check it out (my purple highlights):

12, 13. What powerful basis for faith in the resurrection did Abraham have?

12 Abraham, who was described as “Jehovah’s friend,” was a man of outstanding faith. (James 2:23) Paul referred to Abraham’s faith three times in his listing of faithful men and women recorded in the 11th chapter of Hebrews. (Hebrews 11:8, 9, 17) His third reference focuses on the faith Abraham displayed when he obediently prepared to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham was convinced that the promise of a seed through Isaac was guaranteed by Jehovah. Even if Isaac were to die as a sacrifice, Abraham “reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead.

13 As events turned out, when Jehovah saw the strength of Abraham’s faith, he arranged for an animal to substitute as a sacrifice. Still, Isaac’s experience served as an illustration of the resurrection, as Paul explained: “From there he [Abraham] did receive him [Isaac] also in an illustrative way.” (Hebrews 11:19) More than that,Abraham already had a powerful basis for his belief in the resurrection. Had not Jehovah brought back to life Abraham’s reproductive powers when he and his wife, Sarah, came together in their old age and produced their son, Isaac?​Genesis 18:10-14; 21:1-3; Romans 4:19-21. [Excerpts The Resurrection a Bible Teaching That Affects You w ’05]

Faith Immunity…Inconceivable??…NAH!😉

7/7/18 @ 9:45 p.m.

Published by:
Make $$$ Selling Ads