Magic School Bus caterpillar

I saw this mimic on the Magic School Bus. It is amazing how creatures mimic things that they can't even see. (Even if they could see snakes, it wouldn't matter because you cannot will your progeny to look more like snakes.)

Ground Hogs are squirrels

On the way to church, my son was asking if Ground Hogs were beavers. I told him, I'd have to look it up, because off the top of my head I wasn't even sure both were rodents. Both are from the order, Rodentia, beavers are from the sub-order, Castorimorpha, and the family, Castoridae, which has only one non-extinct genus and two species. Ground Hogs are from the sub-order, Sciuromorpha, and the family, Sciuridae (Squirrels). Little known fact, Ground Hogs are considered part of the squirrel kind by Answers and Genesis. Like Darwin's finches are still finches, one could also say Ground Hogs are still squirrels.

Scientific Atheism to Christ

Fulwiler blogs at http://www.conversiondiary.com/jen.  She reminds me of another Atheist to Catholic convert, Leah Libresco, (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/).  Libresco won a podcast debate against Hemant Mehta (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/).  Still, Mehta had one good question, how do you get from there is a God to God is a wafer?

I am happy when Atheists find Christ.  Here is the Libresco/Mehta podcast http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7B8851D9D5-7AAA-4F5F-A10B-228E72E9FFD2%7D

Earliest account of Peter's death (AD 80 - 140)

But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith. Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him. Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience: seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith; and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience. ~ 1 Clement 5

Darwin and change of kinds

Ray has claimed in his movie, Evolution vs God, that Darwin talked about a "change of kinds".  In his interview with TBN, he admits that Darwin never talked about a "change of kinds", but he talked about a change of families.  It would be nice if Ray would just quote Darwin on this, but then again if Ray was going to do that, he would have released unedited sources or at least less choppy interviews.

While trying to find the source myself, I stumbled across this gem.

Such expressions as that famous one of Linnaeus, and which we often meet with in a more or less concealed form, that the characters do not make the genus, but that the genus gives the characters, seem to imply that something more is included in our classification, than mere resemblance. I believe that something more is included; and that propinquity of descent,--the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings,--is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our classifications.

Darwin postulates that sea otters and honey badgers do not simply look similar, but look similar, because they descended from a common ancestor.   Most evolutionists and creationists agree on that one.  However why cannot the similarities between bears, dogs, and sea otters be explained by common descent rather than a common designer?  Why stop at sea otters and honey badgers?

We already agree that the similarities in this image are not merely superficial.

Obadiah Holmes: You have struck me as with roses

In 1651, Obadiah Holmes traveled two days to visit with an elderly man who was too infirm to travel to Baptist churches anymore. He and his fellow Baptists held their own home service the following Sunday morning. The state barged in. Holmes and two others were arrested for the failure to attend the state approved church and were forced to attend an afternoon service at the local congregational church. While there, Holmes indignantly refused to remove his hat during the pastor's prayer and had to have it forcibly removed.

In Massachusetts at the time, the government did not consider themselves persecutors of Christians. One was given the choice to be whipped or pay the fine, therefore no one was whipped for their faith that did not choose to be. Were they not merciful? No one chose the whip, no one except Holmes. Holmes was convicted for not attending church, refusing to remove his hat during prayer, baptizing those who had already been baptized before, receiving sacrament, and preaching against infant baptism. He faced thirty lashes or thirty pounds.

His fellow Baptists raised the money for the trio's fines, but Holmes refused to pay his fine. This stubborn minister believed that paying the fine acknowledged that he had committed crimes and he knew that the state had no right to fine or whip him for these activities. He had committed no crime and would pay no fine.

If it was not the fine, then it was the whip and Holmes prayed for the courage to face the ribbons that his back would be sliced into. After the whipping, he said that the whip had felt as painless as being whipped with roses. Still for weeks, he was unable to find relief on his back or stomach, only able to rest while supported by his knees and elbows. [1]

This is one American that we all should be more familiar with.

Baboon

ICR

I saw this promo for an ICR conference at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.  If you don't recognize the primate on the other side, it is a baboon, probably Savannah. I have noted elsewhere that images like this seem a little disingenuous.  Ray's has a better image.

Ray Comfort

Is it easier to see the similarities between Homo erectus than say Australopithecus afarensis.  

Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve

Today I have been in a little bit of a Narnia mood.  It occurred to me that Ray considers both of these to be sons of Adam.

Facebook

Also, I have been wondering why not define "kind" as things that have a common ancestor since those within kinds cannot all interbreed?