What is wrong with this headline?

Reuters report on an article in the American Journal of Public Health about a new study of New York City high school students. The Reuters headline is…

Pregnancies more common among lesbian, gay, bisexual youths.

Apparently, “Pregnancies are more common among lesbian, gay, bisexual youths than among their heterosexual counterparts.” In fact, the study suggests that pregnancies are around twice as likely.

The study’s lead author from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Lisa Lindley is reported to have said, “The message for me is that these populations are often ignored or assumed to not need information or reproductive care or services and they absolutely do,”

Humm, apart from the facts that probably all of these, LGBT students have been sitting in exactly the same sex educations classes that all of their heterosexual friends have been in, Lisa’s statement makes perfect sense. Ho, and of course that most of the people teaching sex education, may have thought that it was biologically impossible for lesbians or homosexual men to conceive.

This report found out that, “What really accounted for most of the risk for the girls was sexual behaviour,” and that “Basically the earlier they initiated intercourse and the more partners they had the more likely they were to become pregnant.” Hmmm. that must have been a surprise. (Can you actually get funding for this?)

Brittany Charlton of Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital said that this study, “can’t untangle nuances in pregnancy rates between subgroups, such as lesbians compared to bisexual women.” Humm… is it only experts that do not know that Lesbians, (under normal circumstances), can not EVER get pregnant, but bisexuals can?

Could one of these be Behemoth?

No dinosaurs in the Bible?

Today someone tried to persuade me that the bible was not true.

He posted this on my facebook page.

“The Bible is lies you can tell from page 1, it says God made earth and then God made people, saying absolutely zero about dinosaurs”

I thought I might share my answer here.

“It is strange, Genesis one does not specifically mention flamingos either, but I have never considered it a clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

However, I find the fact that the very first verse of the very first chapter of the Bible does mention Time, Space and Matter, not to mention force and energy, and that by verse three we have the electromagnetic spectrum pretty amazing. Especially considering that many people try to convince me that it was written by, ignorant, bronze age superstitious people.

“IN the beginning [time] God [force] created [energy] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light, [electromagnetic spectrum], and there was light.’ (Genesis 1:1–3).

Not bad for the first three verses.. ok it takes until v20, 24 to get to dinosaurs, but hay… God had put a whole chapter down to record the creation. As for dinosaurs in the Bible… the are all over the place but for now try the Behemoth Job 40:15-19. Tail like a cedar, bones like brass or iron… not an elephant. Hmmm sounds a bit like a dinosaur. The name dinosaur is not used, partly because it is written in Hebrew not English, but also because the word dinosaur was not used before 1842 when it was used by Richard Owen.

Nice try… but I will stick with the bible for now.

[amazon_textlink asin=’B00ZAL7O94′ template=’ProductAd’ store=’successmatter-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’fd735ef3-f0a7-11e6-8f15-c3527fd55b92′]

Unborn Child

Alabama Supreme Court Rules ‘Unborn Children … Are Human Beings’

It is reported by christiannews.net, that the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a woman’s wrongful death lawsuit against an OB/GYN accused of contributing to the death of her unborn child may proceed. The court declared that unborn children are human beings whether or not at the point of viability and therefore are entitled to legal protection.

In Kimberly A. Stinnett v Karla G. Kennedy, M.D. the SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA records that “In light of the legislative recognition that a ‘person’ includes an ‘unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability,’ we do not believe that probable progression to viability is the appropriate relevant proximate-cause inquiry in this case,” they continue,  “Rather, we hold that, in order to establish proximate cause, Stinnett was required to show that Dr. Kennedy’s actions probably caused the death of the fetus, ‘regardless of viability.’”

Birds aren't dinosaurs

Dinosaurs into birds won’t go!

Yesterday I met up with an old friend on Facebook. It was not long after we started chatting that he asked me about a statement that I had made about people being deceived into believing that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. At least, evolution outside of each kind or family of animal or plant. That is Cat beget cats, Yes from the lion to the house cat, there are probably evolutionary relationships, but to from the cat to the dog, nor from a dinosaurs to birds.

The zebra and the Shire horse and the pony probably all come frim the same created kind. But the dog, the cat and the horse are not related.

Mammals do not all come from a proto-mammal, and early ancestors to all mammals. There is not a tree of descent starting at a root of all animals and branching off here or there to produce a new species. Instead, of a tree of life, there is a forest of life. God created every ‘kind” of animal, the dog kind, the cat kind, the horse kind. From each of these trees, there is diversity. The zebra and the Shire horse and the pony probably all come frim the same created kind. But the dog, the cat and the horse are not related.

There are many claims made that this fossil or that fossil is the ancestor or this or that modern day animal, but the truth is that they have no proof of this relationship. The fossil only proves that an animal died, it does not show that it had offspring or that its offspring are now very dramatically different to its parents.

Birds from Dinosaurs

evolution-of-birds

You would almost believe they have seen evolution happening!

Let us take just one example from the animal world. Most if not all school and college and even university textbooks will tell you that birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs. Many will even go so far as to say that dinosaurs are not extinct, but feeding on your bird table. You will also hear and see this fable being pushed on your children at every conceivable opportunity by very plausible TV presenters like David Attenborough, Steve Backshall, and Brian Cox.

Virtually every living and extinct class of reptiles have, at one time or another, been proposed as the ancestor of birds. Thomas Huxley, the famous Darwinian apologist, was the first to put forward this idea way back in the mid-1800s. And it is still the popular view among evolutionists today.

Today the current favorite ancestor is a member of the theropod dinosaur family, the bipedal meat-eating dinosaurs, such as the Tyrannosaurus rex.

However, there are significant problems with the idea that a dinosaur evolved into a bird.

Dinosaurs are reptiles, (on the whole) are cold-blooded while birds are warm-blooded.

While there are attempts to claim that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded, Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic, (warm-blooded).” [1. A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe in ‘Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence”, Journal of Morphology 266:125–166, 2005]

You would need a thick skin to believe a story like this

seagull in flightFortunately, dinosaurs have a thick skin, or at least a single layer continuous sheet of scaly skin on the surface of their bodies which grows and sheds as an entire sheet, but birds have feathers that, unlike scales grow individually and are shed individually. Fathers are not like scales but are immensely complicated feats of engineering.

Dinosaurs will need to get hip!

There are two major groups of dinosaurs, the bird-hipped and the lizard-hipped dinosaurs, but do not be fooled by these terms. In many respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, such as the theropods are less bird than the lizard-hipped dinosaurs are. A point is rarely promoted by those who want you to believe the dinos to birds story.

Dinos need a breath of fresh air.

Dinosaurs literally need a breath of fresh air. They need to breathe in and out whereas birds have a continuous flow of air through their lungs.

Birds lungs are dramatically different in structure and function from that of a dinosaur. Birds have flow-through lungs, but mammals and dinosaurs have bidirectional, in and out lungs. This difference in lung design affects more than just the oxygenation of the blood, but also things like level flight. There is no realistic model for how you would evolve from one form of breathing to another, especially while maintaining a viable organism, for the thousands or millions of years the transition might have been expected to take.

Problems with ageing.

We all have problems as we get older; likewise, the dinosaurs to birds story is having problems with its ages. To date, the so-called feathered dinosaurs are just too young to be the progenitor of birds. So far the so-called feathered dinosaurs that have paleontologist have found are an alleged 20 million years too young to be the fathers of the Archaeopteryx, now generally recognized to be a true bird. [2. P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004]

We could go one, but it is probably time to stop for now.

polystrate fossils

Polystrate Fossils

We could look at many other problems with the naturalistic view of evolution. We could consider the fact that most method of ageing the earth come up with an age of less than 10,000 years. We could look at the way we often see alleged millions of years of rock layers bent as though they had all be soft mud at the same time. We could even investigate polystrate fossils, (generally a plant grown through what evolutionists claim is millions of years of sedimentary deposits.) but that will all have to wait for another time.

Pope Francis

The Pope supports the Big Bang theory!

Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope confirmed his belief that God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the world.

God is not “a magician with a magic wand.”

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

He Continued, “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Apparently “Experts” say that this puts an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design.

Far from disproving the biblical account of the creation that we find in Genesis, this shows how far the Pope and much of the Roman Catholic church, has moved away from the Bible.

The Bible, and the findings of science, rightly understood, are still consistent. Showing the recent creation of the Earth and all life on it. And that from the very earliest records that we have, the animals and plants that we see today, have existed with very little change over time.

Lucy

More Evidence that Lucy Climbed Trees

The BBC reports that detailed analysis of the fossilised bones of the Lucy, thehominin claimed to be 3.18 million years old, show she may have spent a lot of time climbing trees. Measuring the strength, and dimensions, of Australopithecus afarensis’ arm and leg bones, using high-powered CT scans, and comparing these to chimpanzees and modern humans, the team at University of Texas in Austin, show Lucy was more Chimpanzee-like in anatomical structure than modern humans.
This is not much of a supprise to creationist who have always believed that Lucy was probbly like a chimpanzee, and was not an early human.