Seven little fibs.

Adapted from a selection of Charles Colson’s BreakPoint radio commentaries, Lies That Go Unchallenged in Popular Culture examines seven popular ideals and the worldviews which accompany them.

Stemming mostly from Postmodern philosophy the following views are counter to what is taught in the Bible. Postmodernism is a view that social and cultural reality, truth and morality, are merely human constructions. An openness to meaning and authority from unexpected places, so that the ultimate source of authority is the "play" of the discourse itself. The essential point is that the meaning of all things is colored by subjectivity. Not to be confused with Relativists however, posmodernists believe that just because truth and morality are social constructions, that does not mean all opinions are equally valid.

I have not read this book, but will have a look at the seven little fibs and try to address each one biblically.

Lie 1: We have the freedom of choice to be who we want and to do what we want.
Underlying Worldview: Individuals are responsible to no higher authority, and are free to pursue their own destinies as long as they don’t hurt others. "An' it harm none, Do what ye will," is the fulfillment of the Wiccan Rede.

Truth 1: Every man woman and child are in one of two states regardless of our own free will. Either we are slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness.
Biblical Worldview: Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:34-36)
[Salvation] does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (Romans 9:16)
Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18)

Lie 2: Marriage can be between any two people, and it lasts only as long as both are happy.
Underlying Worldview: Marriage is not a sacred lifetime covenant between a man and a woman but a contract between any two individuals that should be dissolved when mutual benefits seem to cease

Truth 2: Marriage is the design of God for mankind. Marriage was designed to be between one man and one woman, and for their entire life they should be joined as one. The only except in the case of marital unfaithfulness.
Biblical Worldview: "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)

Lie 3: We’ll live in harmony if we tolerate the beliefs of others.
Underlying Worldview: We tolerate all relativistic beliefs and behavior in an amoral world in which we band together to better achieve our own personal fulfillment.

Truth 3: Harmony, or peace, is not the found extension of tolerance, but by showing grace and love, not just to our friends, family and colleagues but to our enemies also.
Biblical Worldview: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:27-36)

Lie 4: Art should break traditional norms and challenge outworn beliefs.
Underlying Worldview: Because there is no ultimate good, art both replaces God
and helps us to create and revere what is beautiful; it allows us to express our individuality and to challenge conventional norms, thus redefining reality.

Truth 4: Artistic creativity is a wonderful tool of expression. Since God does not change, any challenge of His standards and decrees is rebellion.
Biblical Worldview: Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:17)
Art that portrays wickedness can encourage viewers to identify with depravity and draws them into a vicarious sinfulness. Rather than celebrating art that depicts depravity ...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. (Philippians 4:8)

Lie 5: Christian beliefs are a private matter.
Underlying Worldview: The Christian faith should remain private and internal; it should not be applied to culture because of its absolutist, intolerant message and its history of oppressing those who disagree.

Truth 5: The Gospel of Jesus Christ should be shared to all mankind. The Gospel should be personal and evident in the life of the Christian. The work of Jesus Christ is what saves not the work of the Christian.
Biblical Worldview: [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." (Mark 16:15)
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."(Matthew 5:13-16)

Lie 6: Entertainment is a vehicle to help us fulfill personal desires.
Underlying Worldview: We need larger doses of entertainment that break useless taboos, accompanied by advertising of products that stimulate our primary desire for self-fulfillment in the pleasures in life—sex, possessions, and power

Truth 6: Not all indulgences are profitable. In fact indulging in sinfulness is the path to destruction.
Biblical Worldview: "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Lie 7: God accepts us as we are, and there are many ways to him.
Underlying Worldview: God is an impersonal evolving force, and we become emanations of that God as we fulfill our own self-appointed destinies that contain no ultimate judgment.

Truth 7: God does indeed accept and then forgives His children as they are, salvation is unearned. However, there is only one way to God.
Biblical Worldview: [Salvation] does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (Romans 9:16)
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

My prayer:
Jesus,
Thank you for your Grace and Blood which was shed in my place.
Thank you for you patience with me.
Thank you for you Word and your Spirit which guides me.
Thank you for your forgiveness of my sin.
Thank you that you are working in me, molding me, changing me.
Help me to be a light for you.
Help me to understand your Word, and to live according to your pleasure.
Amen.

Boys, boys, boys...It's only a game.

In sunny the West Indies, the International Cricket World Cup is being played. 16 countries are represented in a knockout series to determine the best One Day International Cricketing team. This is a fantastic competition and being an Aussie, Cricket is a game I love.

I enjoy Cricket at all levels, from backyard or beach Cricket right through to the international competition Cricket is great.

However, this year's World Cup has already been tarnished, and we haven't even made it to the semi-finals yet.

Pakistan's coach, Bob Woolmer, has been murdered in his hotel room. After a shock defeat to World Cup debutaunts, Ireland (a nation with only 1 Professional Cricketer) Pakistan fans were outraged. Pakistan has for decades been one of the forces in International Cricket. Woolmer was found strangled, the morning after the defeat.

Boys, boys, boys...It's only a game.

There are very few things in this world worth dying for, and as much as I love it, Cricket is not one of those.

Why I will not be wearing an Orange ribbon.

An Orange Ribbon, worn on March 21 in Australia, demonstrates the wearer as a participant in Harmony Day.

What is Harmony Day?

Harmony Day, which began in 1999, occurs on 21 March each year and celebrates Australia's success as a diverse society united by a common set of values.

Since 1945 more than six million people have settled in Australia and in 60 years of post-war migration Australia 's population has jumped from 6 million to approximately 20 million.

At the time of the 2001 Census there were almost 19 million people in Australia. Twenty-two per cent had been born overseas, and more than 18 per cent of the Australia-born had at least one parent born overseas. More than 200 languages were spoken, including 62 Indigenous languages. Apart from English the most common were Italian, Greek, Cantonese, Arabic, Vietnamese, Mandarin and Spanish. In December 2003 the Australian population reached the 20 million mark.

A major aspect of Harmony Day is the celebration that Australia is a multicultural and multifaith nation.

All over Australia today there will be multi faith readings from the scriptures for many various religions including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Christianity.

Many famous leaders, religious and otherwise, have spoken about the importance of harmony and unity.

Friendship is the only cure for hatred, the only guarantee of peace.
Buddha (566-486 BC)

You can develop the right attitude toward others if you have kindness, love and respect for them, and a clear realization of the oneness of all human beings.
The Dalai Lama, 1989 Nobel Peace Laureate

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal"
Dr Martin Luther King Jnr (1929-1968)

Irrespective of its sources, racism is racism. Ignorance is no excuse. Insecurity is not justification…racism in all its forms should be uncompromisingly condemned.
Michael Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 1996

If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.
Mother Teresa, Humanitarian (1910 – 1997)

As I have said, the first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself... Great peacemakers are all people of integrity, of honesty, but humility. "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
Nelson Mandala (South African Statesman & 1993 Nobel Prize for Peace)

For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work for it.
Eleanor Roosevelt, Humanitarian, Educator, UN Spokesperson & 32nd US First Lady (1884-1962)

If we wish to create a lasting peace we must begin with the children.
Mohandas K. Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi), Indian leader and pacifist (1869-1948)

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:27-36)

Now lets look at the term tolerance for a moment. Tolerance, is the permissible degree of variation from a pre-set standard. That is, how much difference one will allow or accept. Tolerance, like compromise, is an important interpersonal skill. Diverse cultures and opinions are wonderful to observe, study and whiteness in terms of art, food, dress, social makeup, dance, sport, ingenuity, expression etc. Much could be learned, for the betterment of society, if the multitude of cultures could function in harmony with one another. However, the fact that the population of earth is made from so many races, ethnicities and cultures is very important. One must remember that race is a curse, a punishment for sinfulness. (Genesis 11:1-9)

I am an advocate tolerance on the level that:

1. There should be a common law in society.
2. There should be a freedom of expression and thought, provided they do not break said common law.
3. Everyone, regardless of gender, religion, race, ethnicity, age, opinion, physical or mental ability etc. should have equal protection and freedom under said common law.

However, Truth does not fit into the category of free expression or thought. Truth is an absolute, it is not subject to whim. Truth is there to be discovered, not waiting to be imagined. I do not tolerate a watering down of truth, under the guise of 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' until the Gospel of Jesus Christ is little more than a bedtime story.

Harmony Day as a celebration of multiple faiths coexisting and all being an acceptable means to paradise, salvation, God, nirvana and enlightenment stems from relativism and humanism. In effect it is the belief that 'as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, believe and do what you like.' This is much more sinister that it first appears, and ultimately stems from Wicca (witchcraft). The Wiccan Rede is a verse written by Gerald Gardner and Doreen Valiente that was formulated to sum up the ethics of the neo-PaganWicca. The last line of which is, "Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill - An’ it harm none, Do what ye will."

The way to perfect harmony is not, "An' it harm none, Do what ye will," rather it is "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12) Which would be fulfilled if people would simply do two things, two acts of LOVE not our own indulgence according to our own will. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39)

There are not many religions which lead to heaven. There is only one Way.
There are not many truths. There is only one Truth.
There are not many life choices which brings eternal peace and joy. There is only one who can give Life.

This Way, Truth and Life, is not found by a creed, set of rules, religious dogma, personal introspection or relative enlightenment.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

If I were to wear an Orange Ribbon today, I would be calling Jesus a liar. That is something I will not do.

Where did it all begin?

When considering the origins of life and the universe there are two options.

Either it has always existed in one form or another, or it had a beginning. If the Universe has always existed, then considering it's origin is pointless. However, if the Universe and thus life had a beginning then we have two more options. Either the cause was simply a random series of natural events or there was an outside intelligence which contributed to or caused the origin of life. This in turn poses one final question. If there was indeed an external intelligence which contributed design to the origin of the Universe and life, then is there evidence of that design within life itself?

Has the Universe always existed? - Is the Universe infinitely Old?
There are several strong arguments why the Universe cannot be infinitely old, and thus had to have a beginning, here are two.

1. The Universe is expanding. If the Universe is expanding, then there must have been a point in time when the Universe was so small it did not in fact exist. N.A.S.A. states here that "Ever since the days of astronomer Edwin Hubble's ground-based telescope observations, we have known that the Universe is expanding, and that there must have been a "Big Bang" where the expansion all started."

2. The Universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a natural law of Physics, meaning nature cannot defy this law, just like Gravity. Sometimes called the Law of Entropy, in simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out. For Example a cup of hot coffee sitting on a cold coffee table. The heat from the coffee will transfer to the cup and in turn will cause the table to heat a little. Eventually the coffee, cup and table will be a uniform temperature. Since there is variance in the temperatures in the universe (not thermodynamic equilibrium) then the Universe cannot be infinitely old. If it is not infinitely old then the universe had a beginning.

In opposition to the naturalistic neo-Darwinist Theory of Evolution is the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design Theory aims to prove that the Universe and the life in it are simply too complex to have originated without some external Intelligence offering some Design.

Could life have originated on its own?
It was once believed that life could come from non-life. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis is the hypothesis that non-living things are capable of producing life. However, several experiments have been conducted which disprove spontaneous generation. These include experiments by Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, and Louis Pasteur. The process of pasteurization which aims to achieve a "log reduction" in the number of viable organisms, reducing their number so they are unlikely to cause disease is named after Louis Pasteur. This process is close to the method he used to prove that life did not arise from non-life.

What about Chemical Evolution?
Chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed from non-life. Various experiments have been made to show certain aspects of this process, the first ones were done by Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s. For that they are now called Miller experiments. However only very basic organic building blocks were obtained. Only 13 of the 22 amino acids required for life were formed. Even these limited results cannot be used as evidence that non living chemicals can produce life via evolution. Miller's experiment was very intelligently designed and controlled, it was not a random, natural event. The hypothesis of a 'primordial soup' suggests that chemosynthesis occurred in the oceans of prehistoric earth, which in turn led to the evolution of more complex life forms. This hypothesis can be discounted for several reasons.

• Amino acids do not concentrate in the ocean. They disperse.
• Amino acids would be grossly contaminated with other chemicals that would stop them forming proteins.
• And even pure amino acids (made by intelligent organic chemists) will not form proteins under natural conditions. Rather, the reverse happens—proteins break down into amino acids.
• Miller’s amino acids were an equal amount of ‘right-handed’ and ‘left-handed’ amino acids. Living things use exclusively left-handed ones.
• Even if pure left-handed amino acids could link up, it could not be in the right order. In living things, this is coded in the DNA and read by complex machinery—requiring already-existing proteins!
• DNA and its building blocks, called nucleotides, do not form spontaneously either.

Can a designed system be recognized as such?
The ability to recognize design is a common part of life. There are whole fields of study which rely on this fact including; forensics, archeology, cryptography, linguistics etc.

"Intelligent design is a theory for making sense of intelligent causes. As such, intelligent design formalizes and makes precise something we do all the time. All of us are all the time engaged in a form of rational activity that, without being tendentious, can be described as inferring design. Inferring design is a common and well-accepted human activity...There is no magic, no vitalism, no appeal to occult forces. Inferring design is common, rational and objectifiable."
- William Dembski

All good scientific theories must be testable, 'theories' that cannot be tested are merely speculation. When testing for design, three things need to be observed as true.
Contingency: Which measures “dependence.” If an object, event or structure is considered contingent, that means they are compatible with underlying natural laws, but not required by them.
afdfiuhwer;ouiy
The above random text is an example of contingency. The text is viewed with a computer screen, but a computer screen does not require the text to function.
Complexity: Which measures the "amount" of information included in an object, event or structure.
afdfiuhwer;ouiy
The same random text is also an example of complexity. The text is complex in the sense that the letters each form a recognizable pattern.
Specification: Which measures the "purpose" or "meaning" of the information.
afdfiuhwer;ouiy
A closer look at the same random text will also reveal an example of specification. The highlighted letters have produced a specified piece of information, the word “we”, but without the context of other words, it is meaningless non complex information. The individual letters still have a complex pattern, but no complex meaning.
This text here is an example.
The above text satisfies all three criteria for design. It is contingent, it is complex, and it has a specific meaning. It constitutes specified complexity.

What is Irreducible Complexity?
Irreducible Complexity is the theory that some systems and objects cannot be any more simple and still function. A mouse-trap in an example of an Irreducibly Complex system. Having a base, spring, hammer, catch, and trigger a mouse trap missing 1 of these 5 pieces does not catch 1/5 less mice but rather does not function at all. A system which is Irreducibly Complex could not have evolved piece by piece, as redundant parts of the system would not have been kept under neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Rather, Irreducible Complexity constitutes specified complexity and as such is evidence for design.

Is there Irreducible Complexity in nature?
There are many examples of irreducibly complex systems in natural or biological systems. The eye, the blood clotting mechanism and the bacterial flagellum are all irreducibly complex. The flagellum has parts referred to as the propeller (or filament), rotor, drive shaft (or rod), bushing, universal joint (or hook), etc. These are obviously names from mechanical devices, but they are not used simply because they are convenient analogies. These components are precise biological versions of their human-designed mechanical versions. In fact they are more efficient and precise than anything we could design. Nor could these cells be simply formed from existing “parts” from other cells. Each cell has a unique structure, precisely intended for particular functions, even those that have a few parts common to other cell types. Some neo-Darwinists challenge the Irreducible Complexity of the flagellum saying that "The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes." However, nly about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, suggesting the flagellum could have evolved into the right sequence is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, given enough time, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.

The Universe is NOT infinitely old.
Thus the Universe had a beginning.
Random Events could NOT have produced life from non life.
Thus there must have been external intelligence involved.
Within nature there IS evidence of contingent systems of specified complexity. Thus life was designed.

Where did it all begin?
With an Intelligent Design, in the mind of an intelligent Creator.

The Missing Links.

A Missing Link is the common reference to a transitional fossil or transitional form. It refers to the fossilized remains of a life form that illustrates an evolutionary transition. It can be identified by having certain primitive traits in comparison with its more highly evolved relatives. Popularly, Missing Link refers to the transitional forms between apes and Humans.

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted, and thus wrote in The Origin of Species: "Why 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 is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

In the 148 years since the publication of Darwin's work, still no satisfactory transitional forms have been discovered. The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Stephen Jay Gould, another neo-Darwinian paleontologist also wrote: "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." and "I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."

In the words of Darwin himself (and prominent neo-Darwinist experts) the greatest hurdle for neo-Darwinian Evolution is that the Transitional Fossils are in fact Missing, they are not real Links at all. They cannot be found, nor even properly imagined.

Rather than finding these Missing Links, all 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The neo-Darwinian paleontologist George G. Simpson wrote in 1944: "The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."

A popular explanation as to "the extreme imperfection of the fossil record" (as Darwin called it) is pointed out by the National Academy of Sciences in Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. "Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized." This in effect is suggesting either evolution occurs not gradually but by jumps or that among the accepted millions of years in which evolution supposedly took place no fossils were formed. Rapid-Evolution does not fit within neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and to have such an abundance of fossils of the different animal orders, both extinct and living, but NONE of the transitional forms speaks for itself.

Here is a brief examination of supposed Evolutionary transitions:

Fish to Amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth (pictured). It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to neo-Darwinist interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals. The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega, is dated (according to the neo-Darwinist timeline) as living 367-362.5 million years ago. Ichthyostega is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians, their alleged evolutionary predecessors.

Amphibian to Reptile: Seymouria (fossil pictured) is a commonly referenced by neo-Darwinists as an intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. However, the neo-Darwinist time line puts Seymouria at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry.

Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But T. S. Kemp, a specialist on these creatures, has been published in an article for New Scientist titled, The Reptiles that Became Mammals saying: "Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species." Thus the supposed transitional forms from reptile s to mammals are not transitional at all but merely extinct creatures in their own right.

Reptile to bird: Neo-Darwinists tout Archaeopteryx (pictured) as a transitional form between reptiles and birds. They claim it was a bird that lived 150 million years ago and had many reptilian characteristics, was discovered in 1861 and helped support the hypothesis of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species two years earlier. However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees. "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."

Another famous alleged reptile-to-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’ The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. Later evidence in On the Origin of Birds and of Avian Flight, by J.H. Ostrom indicated that "Mononykus was clearly not a bird … it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial [digging] theropod."

Two fossils found in Northern China are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs). The fossils, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, are claimed to be the immediate ancestors of the first birds. These two latest discoveries are considered by neo-Darwinists as 120 to 136 million years old while Archaeopteryx, a true bird, is considered only 140 to 150 million years, making these ‘bird ancestors’ far younger than their descendants! Feduccia is not convinced, and neither is his colleague, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin who said: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur." Feduccia and Martin believe that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. They have bird-like teeth and lack the long tail seen in theropods. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods.

There are many problems with the dinosaur-to-bird dogma. Feduccia points out that "It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails, exactly the wrong anatomy for flight."

Apes to Humans: The apemen fossils are often based on fragmentary remains, and this is true of the latest of a long series of ‘missing link claims,’ Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. But when more bones are excavated, the specimens are found to be either man or non-man. Australopithecus (‘southern ape’) is the name given to a number of fossils found in Africa. The most well known australopithecine is ‘Lucy’, a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974 and called Australopithecus afarensis. Casts of Lucy’s bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas. The late Glynn Isaac of Harvard University said "The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes."

Homo habilis or ‘handy man’, so named because he supposedly was handy with tools. The most well known is called KNM-ER 1470, comprising a fossil skull and leg bones found by Richard Leakey in Kenya in 1972. CAT scans of the inner ear of a Homo habilis skull known as Stw 53 show that it walked more like a baboon than a human. Today most researchers, regard Homo habilis as ‘a waste-bin of various species’, including bits and pieces from Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and not as a valid category, or rather that Homo habilis never existed at all.

There is strong evidence that Homo erectus or ‘upright man’ had the use of tools, the controlled use of fire, that they buried their dead, and that some used red ochre for decoration. Their brain size, though smaller on average than modern humans, was within the human range. Recent research has even shown evidence of seafaring skills. CAT scans of their inner ear architecture show that their posture was just like ours. Even some evolutionists concede that they should be put in the same species as modern man, i.e. Homo sapiens. Homo erectus was not a transitional form but actually human.

There are only minor skeletal variations from the modern human average to that of Neandertal man. These include a larger brain case volume on average, but are still within the minor physical differences between people groups today, which have been shown to be consistent with the genetic unity of humanity. Despite attempts made on the basis of mitochondrial DNA fragments in one set of Neandertal bones to try to assign them to a separate species, even some evolutionist authorities claim that they should be also regarded as Homo sapiens.

So, of the alleged transitional forms from primates to humans:
Australopithecus was a true ape; Homo habilis never existed at all; and both Homo erectus and Neandertal man should be regarded as true Humans.

So with the lack of any convincing transitional forms alive today or transitional fossils there is a lot of pressure on the neo-Darwinian Theory to produce some evidence. As Darwin himself said, "the extreme imperfection of the fossil record" is the "most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Transitional forms are not called Missing Links because they have been proven to have existed. The hypothetical links are still missing, and will remain missing. They never existed, the theory is flawed.

________________________________________________________

For more information please refer to:
Refuting Evolution and
Refuting Evolution 2
by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
Are there monkeys in your ancestry?
by Russell Grig

Answers in Genesis
Creation on the web