Monday, 3 December 2012
God is in Control, Why do I Force Things?
-I don't understand how and that is why I think sometimes I feel like I have to force things, or I fear, but I can always look back and see clearly what He did, how He did it, and often why. He really does work all out for good, and according to His purposes. He teaches me time and again that I just need to focus on obeying Him and He will work it all out as He sees fit. Thank you Lord!
Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 3)
Continued from part 2....
Fakes and Mistakes
There have even been proven fake fossils which have at one time been believed to be proof of common ancestry. A popular example was an animal they called an "archaeoraptor". It had the tail of a dinosoaur and the fore limbs of a bird. National Geographic even published the information on this fossil, but a Chinese paleontologist later proved that it was a fake, and that it had been glued together. I understand that this is not an accurate representation of the entire science community; however, the fact that this has happens should be noted. Jonathan Wells states that there are scores of fake fossils out there which "casts a dark cloud" over the field. I am not saying that fossils are not reliable, but this situation certainly does not help its credibility. And it gets worse...
There is the famous "Java Man". This refers to a archeological find by French scientist Eugene Dubois in 1891. Through his find he used the bones to create what seemed to be a half-man, half-ape, or in other words, a missing link. Many people today accept Java Man as proof of evolution. This has since been proven as a completely unrealistic piece of evidence. Upon further research of this find, one will discover that Dubois only found a skull-cap, a femur and three teeth. Therefore, it can be concluded that a great deal of imagination was involved in deciding that these bones belonged to a living organism which looked very much like a half-man, half-ape. Strobel puts it well in saying that in other words, this Java Man, which so many people over the years have bought into as absolute proof of evolution, was created through nothing more than "speculation fueled by evolutionary expectations of what he should have looked like if Darwinism were true". One can only logically conclude that in all likelihood, there are many, many other situations similar to these whereby people believe in "scientific facts" of evolution, which are anything but. Rather, they are misconceptions, which stem from downright misleading information.
Additional information which should be noted regarding Dubois' "Java Man" is as follows:
-Dubois' excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards.
-The femur apparently didn't really belong to the skull cap.
-Examination by famous Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith reveals that the skull cap "was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today".
-A 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists discredits Dubois' claims and determines that Java Man plays no part in evolutionary history. (Keep in mind that this is the collaborative decision of nineteen scientists who believe in evolution).
In general, it must be noted that when fossils are found and pieced together, it is not a simple puzzle process. There is a lot of interpretation involved. Dubois' Java Man reveals this, but so have other events in acheological history. For instance, National Geographic once hired four artists to construct a female figure from seven fossil bones found in Kenya. Each artist came up with very different interpretations of what the original organism looked like. One appeared like a modern-day African American woman, one had a heavy gorilla-like brow, one had a missing forehead and jaws that looked like a dinosaur with a beak, while another looked like a werewolf.
All of this helps to display the sad fact that many people believe in evolutionary theory based off of information they have been told, or even seen in text books; which upon further examination is simply not reliable. The reason why texts still publish this information as fact - when it has clearly been proven otherwise - baffles me. The scientific community has long deemed such information as false, yet it is still printed as fact. I simply don't get it.
Jonathan Wells sums up the above arguments against Darwinism as follows:
"My conclusion is that the case for Darwinian evolution is bankrupt. The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future - I don't know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now - people will look back in amazement and say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is. I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, 'Design!' The Cambrian explosion - the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of anscestors - is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. None of these things make as much sense from a Darwiniain perspective as they do from a design perspective."
In other words, what we know to be true clearly points toward design, not Darwinian theory.
Fakes and Mistakes
There have even been proven fake fossils which have at one time been believed to be proof of common ancestry. A popular example was an animal they called an "archaeoraptor". It had the tail of a dinosoaur and the fore limbs of a bird. National Geographic even published the information on this fossil, but a Chinese paleontologist later proved that it was a fake, and that it had been glued together. I understand that this is not an accurate representation of the entire science community; however, the fact that this has happens should be noted. Jonathan Wells states that there are scores of fake fossils out there which "casts a dark cloud" over the field. I am not saying that fossils are not reliable, but this situation certainly does not help its credibility. And it gets worse...
There is the famous "Java Man". This refers to a archeological find by French scientist Eugene Dubois in 1891. Through his find he used the bones to create what seemed to be a half-man, half-ape, or in other words, a missing link. Many people today accept Java Man as proof of evolution. This has since been proven as a completely unrealistic piece of evidence. Upon further research of this find, one will discover that Dubois only found a skull-cap, a femur and three teeth. Therefore, it can be concluded that a great deal of imagination was involved in deciding that these bones belonged to a living organism which looked very much like a half-man, half-ape. Strobel puts it well in saying that in other words, this Java Man, which so many people over the years have bought into as absolute proof of evolution, was created through nothing more than "speculation fueled by evolutionary expectations of what he should have looked like if Darwinism were true". One can only logically conclude that in all likelihood, there are many, many other situations similar to these whereby people believe in "scientific facts" of evolution, which are anything but. Rather, they are misconceptions, which stem from downright misleading information.
Additional information which should be noted regarding Dubois' "Java Man" is as follows:
-Dubois' excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards.
-The femur apparently didn't really belong to the skull cap.
-Examination by famous Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith reveals that the skull cap "was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today".
-A 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists discredits Dubois' claims and determines that Java Man plays no part in evolutionary history. (Keep in mind that this is the collaborative decision of nineteen scientists who believe in evolution).
In general, it must be noted that when fossils are found and pieced together, it is not a simple puzzle process. There is a lot of interpretation involved. Dubois' Java Man reveals this, but so have other events in acheological history. For instance, National Geographic once hired four artists to construct a female figure from seven fossil bones found in Kenya. Each artist came up with very different interpretations of what the original organism looked like. One appeared like a modern-day African American woman, one had a heavy gorilla-like brow, one had a missing forehead and jaws that looked like a dinosaur with a beak, while another looked like a werewolf.
All of this helps to display the sad fact that many people believe in evolutionary theory based off of information they have been told, or even seen in text books; which upon further examination is simply not reliable. The reason why texts still publish this information as fact - when it has clearly been proven otherwise - baffles me. The scientific community has long deemed such information as false, yet it is still printed as fact. I simply don't get it.
Jonathan Wells sums up the above arguments against Darwinism as follows:
"My conclusion is that the case for Darwinian evolution is bankrupt. The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future - I don't know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now - people will look back in amazement and say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is. I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, 'Design!' The Cambrian explosion - the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of anscestors - is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. None of these things make as much sense from a Darwiniain perspective as they do from a design perspective."
In other words, what we know to be true clearly points toward design, not Darwinian theory.
Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 2)
Continued from part 1....
Human Genes and Ape Genes
Many people often cite the fact that 98% of human and ape genes are similar. Jonathan Wells states that this therefore means that the 2% of our genes which are not similar, would have to account for the differences in our physical features. The reason why this 98% similarity is not proof of common ancestry is because the 2% difference does not include the physical feature genes. Those genes are found in the 98% similarity genes. Therefore, similarity in genes does not prove common ancestry, because in order for it to do so, the differences in our physical features would have to be accounted for in the 2% difference, but it does not. This situation can be compared to a builder who builds various structures. They will design their structures using many of the same ingredients, or parts, such as woods, concrete, steel beams, etc., but just because they use the same ingredients does not mean that the structure will come out looking exactly the same. It appears that God has done the same thing here. He has used the same genes in many different organisms, but despite this, they all look different. So again, gene similarity does not prove common ancestry because organisms can have very different physical features from each other despite the fact that the genes which account for those physcial features are similar.
No missing link, and the archaeopteryx
A large problem with Darwin's theory is the fact that we have never found any missing links. And besides, even if we did find one or two, it would not be enough to effectively argue that Darwin's theory is reality. You would need overwhelming scientific evidence and discovery to deem the theory as fact.
Some people argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link. It is an animal that existed many years ago which has characteristics from both a reptile and a bird. It cannot be considered as a missing link however for a couple of reasons. For one, in order for it to be considered a missing link, you would need to find other transitional forms which would show the gradual progression for how you went from reptile, to then archaeopteryx, to then bird. Evolution is based off of many small variations over time, and a 3 step process of reptile to archaeopteryx to bird is by no means a gradual process of small variations. The other problem with this is the fact that reptilian fossils which would serve as the best "examples" of being ancestors to birds actually appear many years after the archaeopteryx existed, thus making it impossible for them to be ancestors. If the archaeopteryx was truly a missing link, then the reptilian ancestors would have to come before it, but the opposite is true, the reptiles which would best be argued as being reptilian ancestors of the archaeopteryx come many years after, thus disproving the argument. These fossils would need to have come prior to the existence of the archaeopteryx. In order to even attempt to argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link, the fossil record would have to be the opposite of what it actually is. The archaeopteryx has not provided the missing link that scientists continue to search for.
Human Genes and Ape Genes
Many people often cite the fact that 98% of human and ape genes are similar. Jonathan Wells states that this therefore means that the 2% of our genes which are not similar, would have to account for the differences in our physical features. The reason why this 98% similarity is not proof of common ancestry is because the 2% difference does not include the physical feature genes. Those genes are found in the 98% similarity genes. Therefore, similarity in genes does not prove common ancestry, because in order for it to do so, the differences in our physical features would have to be accounted for in the 2% difference, but it does not. This situation can be compared to a builder who builds various structures. They will design their structures using many of the same ingredients, or parts, such as woods, concrete, steel beams, etc., but just because they use the same ingredients does not mean that the structure will come out looking exactly the same. It appears that God has done the same thing here. He has used the same genes in many different organisms, but despite this, they all look different. So again, gene similarity does not prove common ancestry because organisms can have very different physical features from each other despite the fact that the genes which account for those physcial features are similar.
No missing link, and the archaeopteryx
A large problem with Darwin's theory is the fact that we have never found any missing links. And besides, even if we did find one or two, it would not be enough to effectively argue that Darwin's theory is reality. You would need overwhelming scientific evidence and discovery to deem the theory as fact.
Some people argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link. It is an animal that existed many years ago which has characteristics from both a reptile and a bird. It cannot be considered as a missing link however for a couple of reasons. For one, in order for it to be considered a missing link, you would need to find other transitional forms which would show the gradual progression for how you went from reptile, to then archaeopteryx, to then bird. Evolution is based off of many small variations over time, and a 3 step process of reptile to archaeopteryx to bird is by no means a gradual process of small variations. The other problem with this is the fact that reptilian fossils which would serve as the best "examples" of being ancestors to birds actually appear many years after the archaeopteryx existed, thus making it impossible for them to be ancestors. If the archaeopteryx was truly a missing link, then the reptilian ancestors would have to come before it, but the opposite is true, the reptiles which would best be argued as being reptilian ancestors of the archaeopteryx come many years after, thus disproving the argument. These fossils would need to have come prior to the existence of the archaeopteryx. In order to even attempt to argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link, the fossil record would have to be the opposite of what it actually is. The archaeopteryx has not provided the missing link that scientists continue to search for.
Fine Tuning of the Universe
From Chapter 4: "Where Science Meets Faith" (Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel)
The fine tuning of the universe is incredible. One example is the fine expansion rate of the universe. If it were to slow down, or speed up, by even the most minuscule amount, we would not have a universe that could support life.
Scientist Stephen C. Meyer put it this way when discussing the argument for a Creator: "It is not an argument from ignorance. We are not inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information. We infer design because all of those theories fail and we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information - namely, intelligence. Personally I find this to be a very strong argument indeed".
We see design all throughout our world through the things that we as humans have created. The concept of design being necessary for the establishment of anything complex is very real. So I believe what Meyer is saying in the quote above to be an extremely strong point. As well, it should also be noted that in this chapter of "Case for a Creator", atheist Richard Dawkins is quoted as admitting that DNA follows patterns much like that of a computer program. In other words it follows a pattern of something which was designed. One may argue back saying that computers were created by following a pattern that we found in nature, but this does not change the fact that design follows certain patterns and those patterns are ones which we see all throughout our universe. This is a fact which cannot be ignored and serves to enhance Meyer's point in the quote above.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Humility
Through my study of what it means to be humble, God's Word has taught me the following...
I need to have the attitude that He had while here on earth. I need to think less of myself, put others before myself, consider others better than myself, take a genuine interest in others, seek for all the ways that I can serve others. I am ashamed to admit that too often I think about myself. I think about my own wants, desires and preferences. I want to stop wasting my life in this way. I want to serve the Lord, and I want to do this through serving others as He calls me to. I need to stop thinking about myself and think about others. And besides, the Bible is clear that, "Pride comes before destruction", but on the other hand, those who are humble will be honored and blessed. This is what I want.
I need to have the attitude that He had while here on earth. I need to think less of myself, put others before myself, consider others better than myself, take a genuine interest in others, seek for all the ways that I can serve others. I am ashamed to admit that too often I think about myself. I think about my own wants, desires and preferences. I want to stop wasting my life in this way. I want to serve the Lord, and I want to do this through serving others as He calls me to. I need to stop thinking about myself and think about others. And besides, the Bible is clear that, "Pride comes before destruction", but on the other hand, those who are humble will be honored and blessed. This is what I want.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
The balance between results being up to our efforts or to God's will
I have always struggled to understand exactly what the balance is between me accomplish things through my own personal efforts compared to God's will being done to accomplish things in my life. Through studying 1 Corinthians 15:9,10 tonight I felt God was using this passage to give me some more insight into this matter. There is no doubt that God is a realistic God. He expects us to do our part and work hard at everything we do. "We must work hard as if it all depends on us, and then live realizing it all depends on Him". With that said, God is still in complete control of all results. I believe this passage is explaining that only when God chooses to bless our efforts will we achieve success through them. We can work hard at things all we want, but if God does not choose to bless those efforts, then I don't believe as Christians we will see the success we may want, or expect.
Work as if it all depends on me, then live realizing that it all depends on God. The success I achieve will directly relate to the degree that God decides to bless my efforts, for I can accomplish nothing apart from Him.
Work as if it all depends on me, then live realizing that it all depends on God. The success I achieve will directly relate to the degree that God decides to bless my efforts, for I can accomplish nothing apart from Him.
Friday, 14 September 2012
Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 1)
From "The Case for a Creator" (Chapter 3)
Many people are atheists because they feel that science proves there is no God. I would argue the exact opposite to be true. The more research that is conducted, the more proof there is that God created this universe.
Stanley Miller's experiments which claim to have created life
Some people argue that Stanley Miller in 1953 proved that life can be created from the conditions that would have been found within the atmosphere of a young earth. This is a study which is still printed in textbooks today, but foolishly so, because there are some serious issues with it. For one, experts state that it is impossible to know exactly what those conditions were like; therefore right off the bat, when Miller created an environment to test in, there is no way of knowing that he had it absolutely correct. Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD states that the consensus within the scientific community is that the environment that Miller used was not at all like the atmosphere of early earth. On top of this, he created conditions and controlled those conditions in order to get the results that he wanted (created life). This is intelligent design! The reason why he had to do this is because the likelihood of all of the materials not only being combined, but being combined in the correct way (ratios, sequence, etc.) is insurmountable. Therefore, it is unlikely that he created accurate conditions of the atmosphere of early earth, but he also demonstrated the likelihood that a Designer was responsible for life.
Francis Crick, a biochemist and spiritual skeptic who won the nobel peace prize for his work in discovering the molecular structure of DNA admitted the following: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life apears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".
Darwin's Tree of Life and the Cambrian Explosion
Darwin argued in his theories that a tree of life can explain the evolutionary progression of life forms. This is the famous idea that organisms start out simple and evolve over time into more complex organisms. When he made these hypotheses, he knew that the evidence did not support this, but believed that science would catch up. Science has not caught up. In fact, the opposite has occurred as a result of the "Cambrian Explosion". This refers to the fossil records which show that there were simple organisms which existed long ago, but then "bam!" all of a sudden in the fossil record there are fully developed complex organisms. They appear suddenly in the fossil record and there is no evolutionary progression in the fossil records which can account for their being evolved. They simply appear fully developed in the record, and this is the exact opposite of what Darwin's theories predicted. It is the opposite of evolutionary processes because the fully developed life forms appear first, without any predecessors. A logical explanation is that they did not evolve, but that they were created fully developed.
The crazy thing is that this theory still appears in textbooks and appears as fact. Jonathan Wells makes a good point in saying that it is not a terrible thing if it appears in textbooks and taught as an interesting theory, but it is wrong for it to be taught as fact, for science has proven that it is anything but. He goes even further to say that based off of all that we know from the science community, "...it is not even a good hypothesis at this point".
Haeckel's Embryos
Another fallacy that has for years been taught in textbooks as fact is “Haeckel’s Embryos”. The story of this is that Darwin hypothesized that embryos in their early stages would show common ancestries with other organisms. The thought was that similarities in the early stages would serve as proof of such common ancestries. Haeckel, in his own studies, had similar theories, and was so confident in his theory, that he created drawings of embryos which were tailored to make embryos appear more alike than they really are. For lack of a better term, he faked the drawings. The truth of the matter with these embryos was that they were quite different between various classes of organisms in the early stages, would become somewhat more similar (but still different) in the middle stages, and then they would become very different again. The inaccuracy of Haeckel’s embryos is a well-known fact in the science community, yet for some reason it is still found in textbooks and taught as fact. These facts are frustrating. Jonathan Wells states that what has happened is that the primary evidence for Darwin’s theories – the fossil record and early embryos – served as the primary evidence for Darwin’s theories being true, but when the evidence proved to be false, scientists said, “Well we know the theory is true, so we will use the theory to explain why the evidence doesn’t fit”, but this is crazy, because then there is no evidence for the theory. None of this makes any sense at all.
Some people state that early human embryos have slits which resemble slits in early embroys of fish that eventually become gills, and therefore argue that this is proof of the fact that we have an ancestry with aquatic organisms. The fact of the matter is that they are simply not gills. If you look down toward your belly and then feel the front of your neck, you will feel flaps of skin, or ridges in the skin of your neck. This is not to say that the ridges in a human embryo are simply skin flaps, for they are more complicated than that; however, what can be said is that these ridges are not gills, and the argument of common ancestry with aquatic life due to this resemblance has been long dismissed as simply not being accurate. In fact, these ridges in fish embryos, while they do eventually become gills, are not gills at that stage. In fish they become gills, in humans they become something else. Many people will argue that because fish and human embroys share this feature at early stages, with fish eventually developing gills, that this could still be considered proof of early ancestry between humans and fish. While it could seem to be a convincing argument superficially, science has determined that it is simply not fact. Human embryos at no point have gills.
Many people are atheists because they feel that science proves there is no God. I would argue the exact opposite to be true. The more research that is conducted, the more proof there is that God created this universe.
Stanley Miller's experiments which claim to have created life
Some people argue that Stanley Miller in 1953 proved that life can be created from the conditions that would have been found within the atmosphere of a young earth. This is a study which is still printed in textbooks today, but foolishly so, because there are some serious issues with it. For one, experts state that it is impossible to know exactly what those conditions were like; therefore right off the bat, when Miller created an environment to test in, there is no way of knowing that he had it absolutely correct. Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD states that the consensus within the scientific community is that the environment that Miller used was not at all like the atmosphere of early earth. On top of this, he created conditions and controlled those conditions in order to get the results that he wanted (created life). This is intelligent design! The reason why he had to do this is because the likelihood of all of the materials not only being combined, but being combined in the correct way (ratios, sequence, etc.) is insurmountable. Therefore, it is unlikely that he created accurate conditions of the atmosphere of early earth, but he also demonstrated the likelihood that a Designer was responsible for life.
Francis Crick, a biochemist and spiritual skeptic who won the nobel peace prize for his work in discovering the molecular structure of DNA admitted the following: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life apears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".
Darwin's Tree of Life and the Cambrian Explosion
Darwin argued in his theories that a tree of life can explain the evolutionary progression of life forms. This is the famous idea that organisms start out simple and evolve over time into more complex organisms. When he made these hypotheses, he knew that the evidence did not support this, but believed that science would catch up. Science has not caught up. In fact, the opposite has occurred as a result of the "Cambrian Explosion". This refers to the fossil records which show that there were simple organisms which existed long ago, but then "bam!" all of a sudden in the fossil record there are fully developed complex organisms. They appear suddenly in the fossil record and there is no evolutionary progression in the fossil records which can account for their being evolved. They simply appear fully developed in the record, and this is the exact opposite of what Darwin's theories predicted. It is the opposite of evolutionary processes because the fully developed life forms appear first, without any predecessors. A logical explanation is that they did not evolve, but that they were created fully developed.
The crazy thing is that this theory still appears in textbooks and appears as fact. Jonathan Wells makes a good point in saying that it is not a terrible thing if it appears in textbooks and taught as an interesting theory, but it is wrong for it to be taught as fact, for science has proven that it is anything but. He goes even further to say that based off of all that we know from the science community, "...it is not even a good hypothesis at this point".
Haeckel's Embryos
Another fallacy that has for years been taught in textbooks as fact is “Haeckel’s Embryos”. The story of this is that Darwin hypothesized that embryos in their early stages would show common ancestries with other organisms. The thought was that similarities in the early stages would serve as proof of such common ancestries. Haeckel, in his own studies, had similar theories, and was so confident in his theory, that he created drawings of embryos which were tailored to make embryos appear more alike than they really are. For lack of a better term, he faked the drawings. The truth of the matter with these embryos was that they were quite different between various classes of organisms in the early stages, would become somewhat more similar (but still different) in the middle stages, and then they would become very different again. The inaccuracy of Haeckel’s embryos is a well-known fact in the science community, yet for some reason it is still found in textbooks and taught as fact. These facts are frustrating. Jonathan Wells states that what has happened is that the primary evidence for Darwin’s theories – the fossil record and early embryos – served as the primary evidence for Darwin’s theories being true, but when the evidence proved to be false, scientists said, “Well we know the theory is true, so we will use the theory to explain why the evidence doesn’t fit”, but this is crazy, because then there is no evidence for the theory. None of this makes any sense at all.
Some people state that early human embryos have slits which resemble slits in early embroys of fish that eventually become gills, and therefore argue that this is proof of the fact that we have an ancestry with aquatic organisms. The fact of the matter is that they are simply not gills. If you look down toward your belly and then feel the front of your neck, you will feel flaps of skin, or ridges in the skin of your neck. This is not to say that the ridges in a human embryo are simply skin flaps, for they are more complicated than that; however, what can be said is that these ridges are not gills, and the argument of common ancestry with aquatic life due to this resemblance has been long dismissed as simply not being accurate. In fact, these ridges in fish embryos, while they do eventually become gills, are not gills at that stage. In fish they become gills, in humans they become something else. Many people will argue that because fish and human embroys share this feature at early stages, with fish eventually developing gills, that this could still be considered proof of early ancestry between humans and fish. While it could seem to be a convincing argument superficially, science has determined that it is simply not fact. Human embryos at no point have gills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)