"The mighty duck"billed platypus

 



Is the duckbilled platypus unbiblical?
Genesis 1:
²⁴ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
²⁵ And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
  Here we should notice that classes are not very intense.  There is cattle, creeping thing and beast of the earth.  Creeping things are usually what we think of as insects and crustaceans and molusk.  The beast of the earth appears the most likely match for the platypus.

1corinthians 15:³⁹ All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
  Here we see that God made a distinction of flesh between birds, fish and beast. The platypus may have a beak.  But it is not bird in any respect.  It does not have feathers,  nor wings.  There are non-birds with beaks(duck billed dinosaur, squid etc.) and mamals carry solid materials on their persons commonly such as antlers.
  Links between reptiles and mammals based on this text are not necessarily a break within the created order, based upon revelation.  So if God created a species with features that were mammalian as well as reptilian that would not contradict His Word.

  This leads us to the question.  How do we know that the modern era has an objective point of reference when considering the classifications of species and especially of evolution?  Knowing that the fossil record is found lacking in terms of finding transitional fossils.  How do we know that we can trace any lineage from one species to the next?  We could say the transition takes place over millions of years.  But we don't have the observation.  We could just as easily go back to lamarkism and say that these species can alter their own kind within a generation.  Afterall, what is the observational proof?
   You may retort, that animals changing their species is unlikely.  But random chance added to time doesn't make evolution much more likely.  Because the second law of thermo-dynamics translates into the chemical process of pasteurization, so the long age gaps allow for more biological decomposition making the probability extremely low.
"The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 10^2,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 10^2,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 10³⁰ picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory." http://chiefcornerstone.info/2011/11/evolution-chances/
Author: disciple Posted on November 5, 2011
     So evolution is already unlikely.  At which point if you have to believe in evolution as a fact.(public schools are now demanding it right?)  Then why not have evolutionary leaps like out of Marvel comics X-men?
  At which point if the evolutionary leaps take place we can never trace just which species mutated into what other species.  And thus evolution proves itself to be untraceable.


Is the duckbilled platypus a missing link?
  A. link to what?
 "It was originally thought that the first platypus specimens that were sent to England, were nothing more than an elaborate hoax. This was a fairly logical reaction to an animal that would seem impossible because it had a muzzle like a duck's bill, a tail like a beaver and which laid eggs but suckled its young. All of these attributes seemed contradictory to the knowledge scientists had in those days. But since then a lot of investigation has been done in order to find out more about this 'hoax' of a creature." The complete platypus  www.platypus.org.uk  


 Evolutionist have made this creature their champion of intermediate species, yet if the platypus is indeed the missing link... what is he linked to?
   It would seem impossible to claim that the platypus is a duck, after all their is a big difference between fur and feathers, not to mention wings.
If it is a link to reptiles then how did it become warm blooded? How did the scales become fur?
  Where is the platypus which is half feathered or scaled?
  B. Where are it's vestigial organs?
All the parts of platypus are useful and intelligently designed.  It's tail is used for storage of food.  it is adapted for digging and swimming simultaneously.  It has an electronic radar type of sense.  It can even scuttle decently.  The platypus is an amazing creature which brings glory to God.

C. If so old, how did it survive?
"The platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood, and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them—for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasireptilian—still endure.^[60] In 1947, William King Gregory theorised that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier, and a subsequent branching divided the monotremes and marsupials, but later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect.^[60][61"
Wikipedia "platypus"
   The platypus makes a great fossil, yet it is a puzzling living fossil.  How has it been fit to survive so many millions of years?  How could it breed any other species if it had no reason to evolve?


 D.  If so old why hasn't it multiplied across the world?
  Darwin was always concerned about overpopulation.  It has bled through with various political movements.  Such as the ecology movement.  But if the duckbill platypus is so ancient.  how come it has not populated all over the earth?  It has had millions of years to do so.


Are we approaching biology with the wrong perspective?
The tendency in biology is much like all academic efforts of the modern era.  We have a tendency to search for uniformity.  We want all things to be the same. However the platypus is quite original.  This originality was in direct contradiction to evolutionary science.
   God could create any animal he wants to.
But evolution has to have a natural explanation for everything. otherwise naturalism is false making evolution false.
The undoing of the evolutionary theory upon the platypus is much like the evolutionary theory upon society.  many secularist assumed that individual liberty as the key proof of an evolutionary worldview have only come to realize that all freedom is lost in the process, and anti-thetical to the truth.

 So how did the platypus come to be secluded in Australia?
( Now at this point we will make speculations, our only goal is to provide a rational alternative to the evolutionary interpretation.)

^{Genesis 3:17} And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
¹⁸ Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
¹⁹ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 6: ¹² And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Genesis 9: ³ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Romans 8:¹⁹ For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
²⁰ For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
²¹ Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
²² For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Isaiah 11^:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
⁶ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
⁷ And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
⁸ And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
 

  Creationists admit to the idea of natural selection in biology.  While evolutionist will play word games with the phrase micro-evolution.  it is obvious that animals will alter to their environment. though they will not advance or change in their complete kind.
  That being said, the platypus has a carnivorous diet as well as having poisonous talons for the purpose of self defense.  This was a curse which the animal kingdom underwent as a result from the fall.  Prior to which all animals and man were vegetarian.  So the platypus would originally have not been made as carnivorous or poisonous.
  As natural selection set in, the mammalian animals which were marsupials and egg laying were not as fit for survival in the new cursed earth.
They were hunted more easily.  There instincts were more based upon the idea of escape than to fight.  As other carnivorous mammals dominated the main territories  God in His merciful providence allowed them a way to escape into the continent of Australia through what is now underwater, a land bridge.
 After an ice age melted, and the land bridge was covered and these species were protected.Thus God had mercy on His creation.  His eye was on the sparrow, and his grace was upon the mighty duck-billed platypus!

This is my letter to the editor of the courier Journal

School science hotly debated in KY

 

This articles quotations of me are misleading.

My speech may be found in it's full text on www.biblesmack.blogspot.com under Thursday, July 25, 2013

"July 23rd speech requesting that the Kentucky department of Education Reject Common CORE curriculum science standards"

  My argument was not about the psychological effects of evolutionary teaching. that was a side note, not specific to the science standards. I said "evolution as fact" is a lie; not evolution is a lie. (evolution is a theory) Primarily because it commits the logical fallacy of induction, since human history never observed even 1 million yearsIn the title the word "facist" is misleading.  I was refering to corporate entities controlling curriculum inserting religious ideas without accountability from the states and schoolboards.  I am about to debate these issues with anyone in a formal setting.

here is the article

FRANKFORT, KY. — Supporters and critics of Kentucky’s new science education standards clashed over evolution and climate change Tuesday amid a high-stakes debate on overhauling academic content in public schools.
Opponents ridiculed the new standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”
Supporters said the education changes are vital if Kentucky is to keep pace with other states and allow students to prepare for college and careers.
Nearly two dozen parents, teachers, scientists and advocacy groups commented at a state Department of Education hearing on the Next Generation Science Standards — a broad set of guidelines that will revamp content in grades K-12 and help meet requirements from a 2009 law that called for improving education.
“Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked,” said Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, a science advocacy group that endorses the standards.
Dave Robinson, a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said neighboring states have been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies, and Kentucky could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.
But the majority of comments during the two-hour hearing came from critics who questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.
One parent, Valerie O’Rear, said the standards promote an “atheistic world view” and a political agenda that pushes government control.
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”

notes for the august 8 KDE school board meeting

"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books

"Everson vrs. Board of Education, 330 U.S 1, 67 S.Ct. 504.  There we said: 'Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.  Neither can pass laws which aid one religion over another.  Neither can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or dis-beliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.  No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
Supreme court justice Hugo Black
   This was a secular leaning supreme court quote.  The federal government can pass no laws to force belief in a religion. No person can be punished for entertaining religious beliefs or dis-beliefs.  tax money can not be raised to support.
  So If secular humanism is admitted by humanists (such as founding co-signer And public school innovator john Dewey) as a religious system.  Then it can not be imposed or favored over or against any pther belief system. (creationism)

Definition of fact in English

fact

Pronunciation: /fakt/

Translate fact | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish

noun

• a thing that is known or proved to be true:the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas[mass noun]:a body of fact
•  (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article:even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts
•  (the fact that) used to refer to a particular situation under discussion:despite the fact that I’m so tired, sleep is elusive
•  [mass noun] chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation:there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letterhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact

They say that evolution is a fact, but facts don't change while evolution does.

Darwinism taught that man descended from the orangutan. Other evolutionists said chimpanzees and yet still others say that we all came from a species that does not yet exist.
Now let's say that we had an incident on the sidewalk and you are a police officer investigating the scene. You asked the witness "what happened?"
He says "Yeah this old lady got ran over by a car!"
you ask "what color was the car?"
"The motorcycle was blue! It hit that little girl across the foot!"
What race was this woman?
"she was hawaiian! and she was mad at that van for bumping her elbow!"
"Wait are you describing the same story?"
"I don't see any other wrecks out here!"

Would you consider this witness testimony factual?
Evolution is not a fact that is a ridiculous statement. Unless you think that Darwin was not an evolutionist.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

But looking at physical traits rather than genetic ones, orangutans are a better match, Grehan and Schwartz say.

Tell-tale features shared by both orangutans and humans include thickly enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.

"A hole in the roof of the mouth that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs," Schwartz said.
"Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands, and they grow the longest hair," he added. "Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes."
The team also highlighted orangutan-type traits in the teeth and jaw remains of ancient fossil apes from Africa and Europe.
Based on their analysis, the authors suggest "that humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes [living] African apes."
But orangutans are native to Southeast Asia, which creates a problem: How did humans evolve in Africa if we are so closely related to the geographically distant orangutan? (Explore a human migration time line.)
The mainstream view is that humans evolved from the same group as African great apes: chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.
Instead, the authors speculate that a widely distributed orangutan-like ancestor of humans lived in Africa, Europe, and Asia some 13 million years ago.
Subsequent changes in climate and environment likely caused many populations to become extinct, leaving Asian and African species to evolve in isolation.
"Wacky Idea"
"There are actually very few [physical] features linking chimps and humans," noted the Natural History Museum's Andrews. "The case for that is based almost entirely on molecular evidence."
And those molecular studies are flawed, Schwartz and Grehan say, because of the high likelihood that the data includes broadly shared DNA traits.
"When you're doing a really rigorous analysis of relationships, you don't just stop at the potential demonstration of similarity," Schwartz said. "You have to distinguish between features that are widely shared [among many species] and those that are more uniquely shared."
In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.
Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said.
But other studies that focus on non-coding regions also consistently support a human-chimp link, counters Carel van Schaik of the Anthropological Institute and Museum at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.
"A study that reaches a very different conclusion [from the genetic evidence] must explain why these molecular studies are wrong," van Schaik, who also serves as a consultant to the conservation group Borneo Orangutan Survival UK, said in an email.
"Of course, orangutans are very human-like in many respects, but so are chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas … ."
Anthropologist Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."
"Given the weight of evidence from the genetics," he said, he would be reluctant to accept the new findings."

So while the evolutionist may evolve their ideas.  They may not impose them on school children. At least not according to constitutional law.