Re-Post: More Than a Link Is Missing. . . by Jack Kinsella

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. . ." (1st Timothy 6:21)
The media is all excited about the discovery of what is being called 'the missing link' that it says proves evolution is not just a theory. The 'missing link' has been, (if I may use the term) the Holy Grail of evolutionary science. Although evolutionary science claims all life evolved from simple organisms, no actual evidence has ever been found of a life form in transition.
Most newspapers are proclaiming that the discovery of the fossilized skeletons of a creature dubbed "Tiktaalik roseae" IS, as the Toronto Star proclaimed, the "missing evolutionary link between fish and the first land animals."
To shore up its editorial conclusions, it quoted a Canadian paleontologist (that the Star admitted had no connection to the discovery) named Steve Cumbaa, probably because it was such a catchy sound byte. "These are the first little baby steps on getting animals out of ooze and born to cruise."
The Boston Globe's headline announced that the 'Fossil Discovery Fills in a Piece of the Evolutionary Puzzle." The UK Independent proclaimed, "Scientists Find Missing Link to Land Vertebrates." The London Times called it the "Fish that took the first step for mankind."
It is worth noting that the scientist who actually discovered Tiktaalik roseae is about the only one NOT calling it 'the missing link'. That didn't stop the mainstream media, however.
Noted the New York Times, "While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind."
According to the majority of the news reports, the alleged missing link was a sharp-toothed predator that resembled a crocodile and grew to at least 9 feet in length and it lived 375 million years ago. Dr. Shubin described it as "like a fish that can do a push-up."
In large part, the conclusion that Tiktaalik is the 'missing link' arises from the initial conclusion that it was a fish in the process of turning INTO a crocodile. There appears to be no speculation that the find was a fossil of a previously-undiscovered crocodile-like species of fish, or fish-like species of crocodile, something I find interesting.
The AUTOMATIC assumption is that Tiktaalik is a 'transitional life form' that the New York Times couldn't resist noting 'undercut the creationists.' The Times' noted gleefully that;
"One creationist Web site (to which the Times' helpfully provided the URL http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
Then the Times' goes on to describe Tiktaalik, heavily relying on words like 'if' and 'probably, coupled with phrases like, 'in all likelihood' to make its case that at last, the creationists have been proved wrong.
This is what I find interesting, more than anything else. The desperate lengths to which the secular world is willing to go, and the stretches of logic it is willing to entertain, provided it disproves the Bible or 'undercuts the creationists'
Before returning to the Fish That Took its First Steps for Mankind, let's take a look at another recent scientific 'discovery' for further illustration.
A Florida State University professor made international news with his explanation of how it was that Jesus Christ was able to walk on the surface of the Sea of Galilee.
Noted the Associated Press, "Doron Nof, a professor of oceanography, said a rare combination of water and atmospheric conditions in the Sea of Galilee 2000 years ago may offer a scientific explanation for one of the miracles recounted in the Bible. Nof said a patch of ice floating in the Sea of Galilee - which is actually a freshwater lake - would have been difficult to distinguish from unfrozen water surrounding it."
A 'hard to see' patch of ice! Of course! No wonder the Apostle Peter went under! He missed the iceberg floating in the Sea of Galilee that Jesus was standing on. And, since it was 'hard to see’; none of the Apostles mentioned it in the Gospels.
Or, how about this? Jesus was wearing invisible wires and was being held up by a spacecraft hovering just above the clouds. What about this? Jesus was standing on a rock waiting to see if Peter was dumb enough to jump out of the boat. Or, Jesus was wearing inflatable shoes? Or. . .
The 'discovery' that Jesus walked on a submerged ice floe in the middle of the Sea of Galilee returned 200 headlines in a Google search and made the newspapers on every continent on earth. It has been the subject of discussion on talk shows, call- in radio, and all over the internet.
Sir William of Ockham is credited with developing the logic principle that bears his name, "Occam's Razor." Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
The principle is often expressed in Latin as: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", which translates to: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
People apply Occam's Razor to virtually every question, whether they are aware of it or not. A child is found with his hand in a bag of Oreos. His face is covered with Oreo crumbs. What is the most logical conclusion, based on the observable evidence? Using the logic applied to the 'missing link' or the Galilean ice floe theory, one could just as easily conclude the Oreos were eating the child.
A fossil is discovered of a fish that looks like a crocodile. Science concludes that THIS is the 'missing link'. How would Sir William evaluate that claim? Evolution says ALL life on earth evolved.
With ALL the fossils of ALL the species that EVER lived on this planet, science has discovered, ummm, ONE fossil of ONE previously-undiscovered species and it concludes THAT proves it was in evolutionary transition from fish to land-crawling vertebrate AND that THAT 'undercuts the creationists'? Puhleeze!
After 2,000 years, a scientist concludes there were underwater ice floes on the Sea of Galilee 2,000 years ago that don't exist now and THAT is how Jesus walked on water -- and the theory gets GLOBAL coverage.
Sir William must be spinning in his grave.
As we get closer to the end of this present age, it is important to keep in mind the PURPOSE of the Tribulation Period is two-fold. The primary purpose is to fulfill God's promise of Israel's national redemption in the last days.
The secondary purpose of the Tribulation Period is to exact judgment against the world for its rejection of Christ. The Apostle Paul says that the whole world will come under 'strong delusion' and that the world will embrace the lie because they didn't 'love the truth' of the Gospel.
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2nd Thessalonians 2:10)
The conclusion that a single fossil constitutes concrete evidence of evolution violates every empirical standard of evidence demanded by science. It turns Occam's Razor into a butter knife. But it made headlines, because it 'confirms' the 'truth' preferred by the secular world. That there is no God, and therefore, there is no eternal accountability for the things done in this life.
The conclusion that Jesus walked on ice instead of water is no more scientifically reasonable than the inflatable shoes or the invisible strings. But it was reported by more than 200 newspapers, because it 'confirms' the preferred 'truth' that man is his own supreme being.
But the benefits of that alleged 'truth' also provide concrete evidence of its source;
Another teacher was arrested this week for having sex with a 13-year old student. This makes, umm, what? A gazillion so far this year? Last week, one guy went berserk and shot up a rave party, killing total strangers at random. A couple of days later, another guy opened fire with a shotgun on a California street, shooting several people before being killed by police.
The newspapers are filled with stories of parents killing their children, pornography has the Supreme Court's blessing; 'In God We Trust' is under judicial review. Abortion is as innocuous as an appendectomy and restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is a form of bigotry.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:" (Romans 1:28-31)
Science has its 'theories' -- each more far-fetched than the next -- upon which to base its conclusion that there is no God. These theories defy science's own ethic of using evidence to form theory, forming theory first and then seeking supporting evidence afterward.
The Bible doesn't offer theory. It provides eyewitness testimony. "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYWITNESSES of His majesty." (2nd Peter 1:16)
Science has its theories. On the other hand;
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2nd Peter 1:19-21)
"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy." (Jude 24)