“God’s Work is So Amazing”

koala2I got the following comment recently on my nature video:

Wow! This is an awesome video. God’s work is amazing! I feel it is important to enjoy God’s creations.(It’s really not that hard.) I mean, you love your cat or dog right? Well that dog or cat is God’s handy work. I love nature.:)

This little note really encouraged me, and made me think about other beings God has made that do get the proper respect or acknowledgement. Like, hmm, babies, maybe?

You can see my nature video below and a very important movie on abortion below that.

Prey or Predator? Check the Vision!

03-koshki-rescued-asiatic-cheetah-670-590x428Cheetahs are about the only cool cat out there. OK, so I’m not a cat lover, but I’m not a cat hater either. Anyways, if you look at the cheetah you will notice the streamline body. The camouflaged fur. The small face, sensitive ears and huge eyes. Let’s stop there; on the eyes.

Notice how the eyes point forward? This gives the cheetah depth perception like humans. This depth perception makes him a good hunter. His eyes tell him how far away the prey is and his mind tells him when to run and pounce. Without this depth perception the poor cheetah would be eating dust . . .  literally.400px-Dorcasgazellemarwell

Now, look at its prey (to the right). Notice how his eyes are on either side of his face. For humans, that would kind of be like having our eyes by our ears.

Now, this eye position eliminates depth perception (if you want to see what it looks like, close one eye for a couple of minutes and walk around, you will eventually notice a difference in the perception of objects). That basically means that it is a good thing they are eating grass instead of chasing prey.

But, where it loses its advantage in depth perception, it gains in range. With the eyes positioned here, this prey item can see in almost all directions at all times.

Whereas a predator needs eyes to capture the prey, the prey needs eyes to detect the predator and run for it! So, wondering if it is prey or predator? Check its eyes! Amazing how God created it all so balanced like this!

The Bone That Broke the Camel’s Back

camelFrankly, camels kind of creep me out. They are like a sloth on steroids; strange face, giant legs, long neck and a back issue that would put Quasimodo to shame! That and they spit, boy can they spit!

Anyways, I was recently directed to some new research that “suggest error in the Bible”. It had to do with the domestication of camels.

The Biblical account says that camels have been used by patriarchs as early as Abraham, around 2056 BC, at least. However, this new research says that camels weren’t domesticated until around 900 BC.

What I found most interesting about this new research was that it wasn’t based off scientific data, or undeniable evidence . . . it was based on some copper pits.

Apparently, pits from 900 BC on up had camel bones in them, whereas earlier pits did not. Thus, the conclusion was made that camels were not domesticated until around 900 BC, making the Bible wrong.

The following is one important issue in the research and conclusion that is called “selective science”:

They only inspected pits in one area (Arava Valley)

They may have found camel bones in different areas that would suggest camels were domesticated earlier, but instead they stuck with this area.

Also, they only used the information about camels as work animals (pack animals for the copper pits). They didn’t take into account that perhaps camels, even if all the above is right, were used more for traveling than labor.

Another major problem is that they found and documented older camel bones but, said they were wild ones. So, basically, the research showed that the scientists controlled what evidence they included and they even found bones for earlier camels. The conclusion however, said that camels in all of Israel were not domesticated until after 900 BC . . . does this seem off to anyone else?

The Controversial Bird

ArchaeopteryxEver since the discovery of Archaeopteryx in Germany, the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds has been blown up to accept all kinds of ideas that are based on evolutionary thinking.

Supposedly, right from the finding of Archaeopteryx, this creature is a “missing link” in the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.  However, even this has lost its flavor.

Archaeopteryx is quite an amazing creature, but, unfortunately for the evolutionist, it is a complete bird. Granted, it may have some features that we don’t see on every bird, but, nonetheless, it is completely bird.

First of all, Archaeopteryx had fully-developed feathers. These feathers were not halfway between scales and feathers (a scaleather as I like to call it) but feathers that were completely capable of flying.

Evolutionists often try to trip creationists by saying that Archaeopteryx has a bony tail, claws on the wings and teeth in his mouth. They then state that birds don’t have these features.

This can dumbfound some people because they don’t know how to answer it. Truthfully, the answer dumbfounded me because it is so simple. The answer, “so?”

Now, you may be thinking that that is a stupid answer and that the evolutionist would jump all over you, but, that simple word really does make an impact.

When you say “so” about a bird having teeth, claws on wings, etc. you are making a stand that either you don’t care what it is or that you don’t care that it has some unique features. When you say “so” you must be very careful that you let your opponent know you are for the latter.

Why, “so”?

“So”, gives the evolutionists the impression that you don’t care if it has features that may only be found on that one specimen. After saying “so” you should clarify by telling the evolutionist that there are a lot of variations within kinds and that God made them that way so that they could thrive. Who knows, maybe Archaeopteryx’s bony tail saved it from vicious predators that would want him for an entrée?

Actually, some birds have the features that Archaeopteryx had, such as a bony tail, teeth, etc. But, many evolutionists forget to mention that. In fact, only those who have not done their research say Archaeopteryx is a dinobird. Instead, evolutionists are now saying Archaeopteryx is a complete bird!

Today we observe that one creature of the, for example, cow family has long horns, while others only have small ones. Does that mean the longhorn cow evolved to an elk (not of the cow family, mind you) then into a Red Angus cow? No!

Even if Archaeopteryx were to have 25 toes on its left foot, doesn’t mean much except that there are variations within kinds and that it does not point toward the conclusion that one creature completely evolved into a different one.