The hinge of our faith

Can SCIENCE be used to demonstrate that it is NOT a transitional fossil?

We know from Genesis 1:21 God created every winged fowl after its kind. I don’t see any reason to think Archaeopteryx would not be an ancestor of a particular kind.

Here would be some challenges to the idea that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil:

1. Living reptiles are cold-blooded and birds are warm-blooded (there are a few exceptions).

2. Hip bones are very different.

3. Avian vs. reptilian lung.

I’m sure there are others, but this is what I found from a cursory read on Archaeopteryx. Clearly though we know from God’s word that birds did not come from reptiles as evolutionists often claim.

I think good arguments can be made (using science) that demonstrate Archaeopteryx did not evolve from reptiles; however, the more authoritative source of information on this subject would be God’s word.

A scientist who stands on God’s word as his ultimate authority has nothing to fear in regard apparent threats to God’s word. He may not always have an answer, but that’s absolutely no reason to give up the authority of the Bible.

La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist
ADvindicate has also published an article about LSU and Raul Diaz that expands on a few details.

http://advindicate.com/?p=2625

A little-known history about Belief 6
@Eddie: The Bible does not specify an age of accountability (to my knowledge), but the Israelites considered the age of 12 to be the turning point. I wouldn’t base a theology off of tradition though. Also, it’s not our place to judge what happens to those who have not been able to make a decision.

Perspectives from alleged LSU students
@Blodgett: Was there a comment you’d like to add?

At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
@David Read: And perhaps not something Christ would do. I can understand your frustration though. I’ve been on the verge of quitting this whole thing many times. I’ve been guilty of letting that frustration control and influence things I shouldn’t have said.

I have to remind myself to look at the big picture. In the end all those who are not supposed to be in the church will be sifted out. I pray I am not one of them.

Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
I know from talking to a couple of reporters from Press Enterprise and Inside Higher Ed that Randal Wisbey was effective in shutting down communication between any outsiders and the biology faculty. It appears he made himself the only channel of communication between the board and biology faculty.

I emailed Larry Becker about what bylaw the board members broke that was worthy of dismissal, and I have yet to hear a response from him.

I would also note that board members at other universities appear to be free to talk to the faculty.

Another interesting point. He removes three board members for trying to work on the problem and come up with a solution, and then turns around sort of embraces what they’re doing. He can’t publicly condemn it because everyone can see, whether you agree with what they wrote or not, that it’s a significant step for the faculty to be speaking to the church.

Did he forbid the document from being published? No. If you’re really excited about seeing the biology department making advancements in solving the issue, why are you removing the people who are making that happen. He never did anything like that.

What has Wisbey done to address and fix this issue? Nothing. He’s dragged it out, lied about what’s been happening, and told everyone involved to shut up or get in trouble. What on earth is he trying to do?

Who knows, he might even be a part of the underground movement to sever LSU from the church by using WASC as the big hammer. It’s obvious from one former board member, there was interest in using WASC to manipulate the situation.