Missing Links

Atlantic Productions / revealingthelink.comAnswers in Genesis has posted a preliminary comment on the missing link story. The "missing link" looks a lot like a modern day lemur, save a couple of variations, has opposable thumbs like every other primate alive today, and bears relatively little in common with humans (outside of common mammalian and primate features). In short, it seems to be just another animal, not really anything special.

Let's not forget, however, that there are so many holes in the evolutionary chain connecting people to other primates that to speak of "the missing link" is comical.

That is to say nothing of "the missing link" (*wink*) between the inorganic rocks of the primordial earth and life. As an example, consider this video describing the ATP synthase (A what? A microscopic atomic-powered generator?!?) that is essential for mitochondria to produce the energy for cells to function (HT: James White for the vid):

The idea that a single cell could evolve without a Creator seems preposterous. Furthermore, the idea that a anything living could evolve with fewer parts than they currently have is dubious, as life seems to require all its parts to be fully operational at the time of its creation.

Of course, a spontaneous creation is what the Bible describes.

In short, I'm not worried about sensational stories about "missing links." The concept of evolution seems untenable, and the God of the Bible is the only One who provides satisfaction to the big questions of origins, purpose, sin, and redemption. Thus, I think it's more than reasonable to stick with Scripture and its Gospel: it's a moral obligation.

AiG has posted a response to a blog comparing Ken Ham's scientific method to Charles Manson's family values.

That's not what's most interesting about the response. What's most interesting is its highlighting of the fact that the original scientific paper does not consider the the fossil to be a missing link, and some non-creationists are not happy with the current media blitz. Thus, AiG issues this concise statement for general dissemination to anyone wondering about the issue:
Nothing about this fossil indicates that it was a human ancestor. Rather, it is a remarkably well-preserved lemur-like creature, looking nothing like an “apeman.” Besides, why would a fossil found 25 years ago suddenly become a media sensation? Only because of a major PR push by the financial backers of a new book and television documentary about the fossil. Yet even the peer reviewers of the scientific paper on the fossil asked that the human origins hype be removed. For a full exposé, visit www.answersingenesis.org/go/ida

Chris Beard posted his response.

So did Robert Crowther of the Discovery Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Jesus Culture, Bethel Church, and Bethel's School of Supernatural Ministry are Spiritually Dangerous (Part 3 of 3)

Was Rebekah a child when she married Isaac?

RE: "Pastor Dayna Muldoon EXPOSED"