Visitor

Friday, December 20, 2013

MOUTHWASH AND CIGARETEE





Proverbs 10:26 BBE
Like acid drink (Mouthwash) to the teeth and (Cigarrete) as smoke to the eyes,..."


Mouthwash or mouth rinse is an antiseptic solution used as an effective home care system by the patient to enhance oral hygiene. Some manufacturers of mouthwash claim that antiseptic and anti-plaque mouth rinse kill the bacterial plaque causing cavities, gingivitis, and bad breath. Anti-cavity mouth rinse uses fluoride to protect against tooth decay. It is, however, generally agreed that the use of mouthwash does not eliminate the need for both brushing and flossing.As per the American Dental Association, regular brushing and proper flossing are enough in most cases although the ADA has placed its Seal of Approval on many mouthwashes that do not contain alcohol


A cigarette (from the French word cigarette meaning "small cigar") is a small cylinder of finely cut tobacco leaves rolled in thin paper for smoking. The cigarette is ignited at one end and allowed to smoulder; its smoke is inhaled from the other end, which is held in or to the mouth and in some cases a cigarette holder may be used as well. Most modern manufactured cigarettes are filtered and include reconstituted tobacco and otheradditives.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

MGA DIOS NG MGA BANSA



"Huwag kang susunod sa ibang mga dios, sa mga dios ng mga bansang nasa palibot mo; Sapagka't ang Panginoon mong Dios na nasa gitna mo, ay isang mapanibughuing Dios; baka ang galit ng Panginoon mong Dios ay magalab laban sa iyo, at ikaw ay kaniyang lipulin sa ibabaw ng lupa.(Deut.6:14-15)



                                                         Catcholic Patrons 



Kinuha mo naman ang iyong mga magandang hiyas na ginto at pilak, na aking ibinigay sa iyo, at ginawa mo sa iyo ng mga larawan ng mga tao, at iyong ipinagpatutot sa kanila;(Ezek.16:17)


                                                            Hindu gods


                                                         Shinto gods


                                 Budhiest Buddha

                                  Muslim "Allah" 

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

RUMOURS OF WARS



And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.(Matthew 24:6)"Rumours" in Greek is "akoas"ἀκοὰς

ακοας noun - accusative plural feminine

akoe ak-o-ay': hearing (the act, the sense or the thing heard) -- audience, ear, fame, which ye heard, hearing, preached, report, rumor.

A kind of War that use Media broadcasting is the distribution of audio and video content to a dispersed audience via any audio or visual mass communications medium, but usually one using electromagnetic radiation (radio waves). The receiving parties may include the general public or a relatively large subset thereof. Broadcasting has been used for purposes of private recreation, non-commercial exchange of messages, experimentation, self-training, and emergency communication such as amateur (ham) radio and amateur television (ATV) in addition to commercial purposes like popular radio or TV stations with advertisements.


Aramaic Bible in Plain English:

It is going to happen that you are going to hear battles and reports of wars.Take heed that you will not be troubled, for it is necessary that all these things should happen, but it will not yet be the end.

War Using Explosive material weapons that cause blasting and extreme burning this is also a war using MILDEW (Biological warfare) that cause deseases.

"The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. (Deut.28:22)

And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.(Rev.16:8)

Guns Weapons similar to a Thunders and  Lightnings even Weapons called Atomic Bomb  that create great distruction. 



And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.(Rev.16:19-21)

Sunday, December 8, 2013

NANOTECH



 
Or crookbackt, or a dwarf(Nano), or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;(Leviticus 21:20)

I am here on earth for just a little(Nano) while; (Psalms 119:19)



Nano- (symbol n) is a prefix meaning a billionth. Used primarily in the metric system, this prefix denotes a factor of 10−9 or 0.000000001. It is frequently encountered in science and electronics for prefixing units of time and length, such as 29 nanoseconds (symbol ns), 100 nanometres (nm) or in the case of electrical capacitance, 100 nanofarads (nf). The prefix is derived from the Greek νᾶνος, meaning "dwarf",small or little" and was officially confirmed as standard in 1960.

The principles of Nano-Technology...."A camel become nano to go through the eye of a needle this is possible in the Nano technology.

"...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..."[Matthew 19:24]

Nanotechnology (sometimes shortened to "nanotech") is the manipulation of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. The earliest, widespread description of nanotechnology referred to the particular technological goal of precisely manipulating atoms and molecules for fabrication of macroscale products, also now referred to as molecular nanotechnology. A more generalized description of nanotechnology was subsequently established by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which defines nanotechnology as the manipulation of matter with at least one dimension sized from 1 to 100 nanometers. This definition reflects the fact that quantum mechanical effects are important at this quantum-realm scale, and so the definition shifted from a particular technological goal to a research category inclusive of all types of research and technologies that deal with the special properties of matter that occur below the given size threshold. It is therefore common to see the plural form "nanotechnologies" as well as "nanoscale technologies" to refer to the broad range of research and applications whose common trait is size. Because of the variety of potential applications (including industrial and military), governments have invested billions of dollars in nanotechnology research. Through its National Nanotechnology Initiative, the USA has invested 3.7 billion dollars. The European Union has invested 1.2 billion and Japan 750 million dollars.

Nanotechnology as defined by size is naturally very broad, including fields of science as diverse as surface science, organic chemistry, molecular biology,semiconductor physics, microfabrication, etc.The associated research and applications are equally diverse, ranging from extensions of conventional device physics to completely new approaches based upon molecular self-assembly, from developing new materials with dimensions on the nanoscale to direct control of matter on the atomic scale.

Scientists currently debate the future implications of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology may be able to create many new materials and devices with a vast range of applications, such as in medicine, electronics, biomaterials and energy production. On the other hand, nanotechnology raises many of the same issues as any new technology, including concerns about the toxicity and environmental impact of nanomaterials, and their potential effects on global economics, as well as speculation about various doomsday scenarios. These concerns have led to a debate among advocacy groups and governments on whether specialregulation of nanotechnology is warranted.

The concepts that seeded nanotechnology were first discussed in 1959 by renowned physicist Richard Feynman in his talk There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, in which he described the possibility of synthesis via direct manipulation of atoms. The term "nano-technology" was first used by Norio Taniguchi in 1974, though it was not widely known.

Inspired by Feynman's concepts, K. Eric Drexler independently used the term "nanotechnology" in his 1986 book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, which proposed the idea of a nanoscale "assembler" which would be able to build a copy of itself and of other items of arbitrary complexity with atomic control. Also in 1986, Drexler co-founded The Foresight Institute(with which he is no longer affiliated) to help increase public awareness and understanding of nanotechnology concepts and implications.

Thus, emergence of nanotechnology as a field in the 1980s occurred through convergence of Drexler's theoretical and public work, which developed and popularized a conceptual framework for nanotechnology, and high-visibility experimental advances that drew additional wide-scale attention to the prospects of atomic control of matter.

For example, the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope in 1981 provided unprecedented visualization of individual atoms and bonds, and was successfully used to manipulate individual atoms in 1989. The microscope's developers Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer at IBM Zurich Research Laboratory received a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986.[6][7] Binnig, Quate and Gerber also invented the analogous atomic force microscope that year.
Buckminsterfullerene C60, also known as the buckyball, is a representative member of thecarbon structures known asfullerenes. Members of the fullerene family are a major subject of research falling under the nanotechnology umbrella.

Fullerenes were discovered in 1985 by Harry Kroto, Richard Smalley, and Robert Curl, who together won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.C60 was not initially described as nanotechnology; the term was used regarding subsequent work with related graphene tubes (called carbon nanotubes and sometimes called Bucky tubes) which suggested potential applications for nanoscale electronics and devices.

In the early 2000s, the field garnered increased scientific, political, and commercial attention that led to both controversy and progress. Controversies emerged regarding the definitions and potential implications of nanotechnologies, exemplified by the Royal Society's report on nanotechnology. Challenges were raised regarding the feasibility of applications envisioned by advocates of molecular nanotechnology, which culminated in a public debate between Drexler and Smalley in 2001 and 2003.Meanwhile, commercialization of products based on advancements in nanoscale technologies began emerging. These products are limited to bulk applications of nanomaterials and do not involve atomic control of matter. Some examples include the Silver Nano platform for using silver nanoparticles as an antibacterial agent, nanoparticle-based transparent sunscreens, and carbon nanotubes for stain-resistant textiles.

Governments moved to promote and fund research into nanotechnology, beginning in the U.S. with the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which formalized a size-based definition of nanotechnology and established funding for research on the nanoscale.

By the mid-2000s new and serious scientific attention began to flourish. Projects emerged to produce nanotechnology roadmaps which center on atomically precise manipulation of matter and discuss existing and projected capabilities, goals, and applications.
Fundamental concepts

Nanotechnology is the engineering of functional systems at the molecular scale. This covers both current work and concepts that are more advanced. In its original sense, nanotechnology refers to the projected ability to construct items from the bottom up, using techniques and tools being developed today to make complete, high performance products.

One nanometer (nm) is one billionth, or 10−9, of a meter. By comparison, typical carbon-carbon bond lengths, or the spacing between these atoms in a molecule, are in the range 0.12–0.15 nm, and a DNA double-helix has a diameter around 2 nm. On the other hand, the smallest cellular life-forms, the bacteria of the genus Mycoplasma, are around 200 nm in length. By convention, nanotechnology is taken as the scale range 1 to 100 nm following the definition used by the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the US. The lower limit is set by the size of atoms (hydrogen has the smallest atoms, which are approximately a quarter of a nm diameter) since nanotechnology must build its devices from atoms and molecules. The upper limit is more or less arbitrary but is around the size that phenomena not observed in larger structures start to become apparent and can be made use of in the nano device.These new phenomena make nanotechnology distinct from devices which are merely miniaturised versions of an equivalent macroscopic device; such devices are on a larger scale and come under the description of microtechnology.

To put that scale in another context, the comparative size of a nanometer to a meter is the same as that of a marble to the size of the earth.Or another way of putting it: a nanometer is the amount an average man's beard grows in the time it takes him to raise the razor to his face.

Two main approaches are used in nanotechnology. In the "bottom-up" approach, materials and devices are built from molecular components which assemble themselves chemically by principles of molecular recognition. In the "top-down" approach, nano-objects are constructed from larger entities without atomic-level control.

Areas of physics such as nanoelectronics, nanomechanics, nanophotonics and nanoionics have evolved during the last few decades to provide a basic scientific foundation of nanotechnology.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

PEOPLE OF GOD BUILD THE PYRAMID



Why Pyramid Built
And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.(Exodus 1:6-14)



Job lived long before the time of Daniel. Even in the time of Daniel and the apostles, the dates for the prophetic future were not opened to understanding. If they were not permitted to know the times and seasons, certainly Job would not have known them, much less built the pyramid to fit chronology! Yet adherents to pyrarnidology contend that Cheops did know these things.


I have beside me now the works of David Davidson, Adam Rutherford, and others. Each tries to build a chronology for the future by measuring the dimensions of the Great Pyramid with the "pyramid inch." Dr. Meredith and I saw the little stone protrusion in the pyramid which these people contend is the key to the revelation of the pyramid. But they have no way to know whether this little protrusion should measure the pyramid and determine chronology, or whether it was for some other purpose.


Even if one has accurately: measured the pyramid, how are they going to know which point means which year? Davidson starts with a certain point in the Pyramid and calls it the day of the crucifixion—Friday, April 7, 30 A.D. Since that date is proved wrong by the Bible, all his chronology is in error.Another takes the same point and calls it the date of the crucifixion, Friday, April 3, 33 A.D. Since that date may be proved wrong, too, his chronology errs.


The obvious fact is that no STANDARD EXISTS WHICH MIGHT REVEAL WHICH STONE OR WHICH SCRATCH ON A PASSAGEWAY MEANS A particular year. The pyramid was built for another purpose than to reveal chronology. We do not yet know all the factors surrounding the building of the Pyramid. But it is a monument, undoubtedly designed by Job, to commemorate what Joseph did for Egypt and to mark the border of the territory given to Joseph's family in the land of Egypt by Pharaoh.


Pharaoh gave Israel the land of Goshen (Gen. 47:11). The land of Goshen extends from Palestine westward to the t Nile River (Gen. 15:18), It included what is now the Suez Canal. Pharaoh long ago gave it to the family of Joseph, bur today Egypt has seized control of it. How far south along the Nile River does the land of Goshen run? To the border between Lower and Middle Egypt—in the very region where the Great Pyramid is located! Because the Great Pyramid stands at the border between these two divisions of Egypt, many have taken Isaiah 19:19-20 to refer to the pyramid. Certainly the "altar" mentioned in this verse is not the pyramid. God forbids any altar of carved stone (Exodus 20:25-26).


But the Great Pyramid may be the pillar which Isaiah referred to, and it might be again dedicated in the future as a pillar or monument of witness to what the Eternal—the Amen—will do in delivering Egypt from the revived Roman Empire. A pillar is sometimes used in the Bible as a borderline (see Genesis 31:52).


We might also consider whether the pyramid was designed by Job to be the tomb or resting place of Joseph's mummy, before it was carried up out of Egypt by Moses (Exodus 13:19). Cheops or Job, according to the ancient historians, was not buried in it. The sarcophagus in the "King's chamber" was empty in ancient times. No treasures were hidden in the Pyramid's inner recesses. And it was anciently open to visitors from Greece and Rome.

The Great Pyramid was built, according to Herodotus, over a period of about 20 years in the 3 months of each year during which the Nile overflowed and the people were idle. Its construction therefore did not. occupy slave labor, but idle labor. And through it, perhaps, the Egyptians gained their freedom from Pharaoh, Josephus, the Jewish historian, states that Joseph did return the land to the Egyptians (Attttqaftiej, bk, II, ch. 7, $7). 

And what better thank offering could the Egyptians have given than donating of their idle time to build a monument designed and directed by Job as a perpetual witness to the all-ruling, Eternal God who sent Joseph to save the Egyptians!

God's Government is also in the form of a pyramid, Christ is the rejected "cap­stone" (Psalm 118:22). What more fitting monument could Job have built than this to the God whose Government rules invisibly over the world and who sends His prophets to warn it before every calamity.

HUMAN FOOTPRINTS


NET Bible
He did what the LORD approved and followed in his ancestor David's footsteps;(2 King's 22:2)




Laetoli in Eastern Africa’s Tanzania, is home to one of the most famous archaeological sites. There is no gold, no treasure, no skeletal remains, not even one stone tool or a single potsherd. The site has become famous for the footprints left behind by people way back in antiquity.

The distinctly human footprints have been fossilised in the clay, buried by sands and soils, and only discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey.


Looking for the Link:
Well-known anthropologist and archaeologist, Mary Leakey, began excavating the Laetoli site in 1974. It was her belief that early humans inhabited this region and it was a likely location that might yield valuable human remains. The fossil record is woefully incomplete for the theoretical period when archaic Homo sapiens transitioned to an upright posture. Leakey was searching for evidence of such evolution and strongly believed it would be found in Tanzania, as this was generally thought to be the primary source of African man.


Fossilised Human Footprints:
After almost five years of excavations Mary discovered three sets of well-fossilised footprint trails, preserved in the baked Tanzanian ground, which she thought were made by two adults and one child. In total there were as many as 70 individual footprints in two clean parallel lines about 30 metres long. They are alleged to be the oldest footprints ever discovered.


How They Were Made:
Some time in antiquity a volcanic ash layer was deposited over the Laetoli region. The human inhabitants of the area walked across this thick soft ash leaving a trail of deep footprints as evidence of their occupation. The ash hardened then filled with wind blown sand. The intense heat of the African sun oven-baked the prints as if in a kiln and fossilised the impressions.


Preserving the Prints:
The excavation site was reburied in 1979 to preserve the footprints. However, it was not long before vegetation began to grow and many archival researchers were concerned that the roots of the plants might encroach into the buried footprints and damage them.


The Getty Conservation Institute of Tanzania reopened the site in 1996 and was pleased to find that the shallow rooted trees had not harmed the prints. The prints were photographed and survey teams made accurate contour maps. After all recording was completed on the site the footprints were buried once again, this time by careful successive layering of sand and soil.


Dinosaur PrintsThe finest example of detailed dinosaur tracks is found in the Paluxy River bed in Texas, USA. Dr Don Patton, a consulting geoarchaeologist, began excavating this region in September 2000 although he was not the first to have discovered them.



As early as the late 1970’s, field investigator, Mike Turnage, detected the long trail of print holes, with his feet, as he walked in the rapidly flowing, deep water of the Paluxy River. Only a hot Texas drought caused the river to dry and the prints to be revealed.

The longest dinosaur trail contains 136 consecutive tracks, extending for over 130 metres. The continuous, uninterrupted length and the meticulously preserved detail of each print makes this one of the greatest displays of dinosaur tracks to be found anywhere in the world.

The uncovering and cleaning of the prints took a team about five weeks. The Metroplex Institute of Origin Science conducted site supervision.


Humans and Dinosaurs:
The Turnage-Patton Trail of dinosaur tracks in Dinosaur Valley State Park are now notoriously famous. Less well known is the formation of fossilised tracks of humans and dinosaurs on the same strata material formed at the same time in history.



The footprint trail known as the Taylor Trail, after its discoverer, Stan Taylor, is also in the Paluxy River bed. Taylor began his excavations in 1969 and continued every season for three years. He discovered a very long dinosaur trail that travelled at 30 degrees across the riverbed. However, what was of startling importance was that running alongside the three-toed dinosaur prints was a trail of modern human footprints, in some cases even overlapping the dinosaur tracks.


Co-existing:
The remarkable nature of this find was that both sets of prints were formed on the same bedding plane, which suggests that they must have been made relatively soon to one another and certainly before the mud bed dried.


In the 1930’s, Jim Ryals removed an entire fossil slab from the riverbed containing a clear, detailed left human footprint. He left the right print and other tracks untouched.

The evidence of co-habitation of dinosaurs and humans is alarming to closed-theory evolutionists but it is not a new assumption. Could St George’s slain dragon be a dinosaur? Many cultures, in particular the Chinese, strongly subscribe to ‘dragon’ dinosaurs in their recent past. The bible speaks of the two great dinosaurs, Leviathan and Behemoth.


Destroying the Evidence:
The evidence that humans actually lived with dinosaurs was too disturbing for two evolutionary scientists who, after hearing Dr Patton at the 1989 science conference, immediately flew to Dallas, Texas, and the next day, using a crowbar, destroyed the remaining human footprints in the riverbed. However, their quest was undone when the Texas drought of 1999 revealed another, even more dramatic trail of human and dinosaur tracks together, the best archaeological artefacts yet to show that humans lived with the dinosaurs.

Monday, November 18, 2013

CHILD PSYCHOLOGY IN THE BIBLE


Child psychology is one of the many branches of psychology and one of the most frequently studied specialty areas. This particular branch focuses on the mind and behavior of children from prenatal development through adolescence. Child psychology deals not only with how children grow physically, but with their mental, emotional and social development as well.


Biblical reference in study Child Psychology 

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.(1Cor.13:10-12)

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.(Prov.22:15)


That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.(Ephesians 4:14)


Be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.(1Cor.14:20)

Proverbs 27:19 CEB
As water reflects the face, so the heart reflects one person to another.

GOD SPAKE THE ORIGIN OF ORAL LANGUAGES



The Origin Of Language
And Communication


Abstract

God at sundry times and in divers manners SPAKE in time past unto the fathers?Where humans develop an ability to communicate through oral language because GOD'S SPAKE? Human learn a oral language direct  to God himself because God teach them how to spake. 

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,(Hebrews 1:1)


By age four, most humans have developed an ability to communicate through oral language. By age six or seven, most humans can comprehend, as well as express, written thoughts. These unique abilities of communicating through a native language clearly separate humans from all animals. The obvious question then arises, where did we obtain this distinctive trait? Organic evolution has proven unable to elucidate the origin of language and communication. Knowing how beneficial this ability is to humans, one would wonder why this skill has not evolved in other species. Materialistic science is insufficient at explaining not only how speech came about, but also why we have so many different languages. Linguistic research, combined with neurological studies, has determined that human speech is highly dependent on a neuronal network located in specific sites within the brain. This intricate arrangement of neurons, and the anatomical components necessary for speech, cannot be reduced in such a way that one could produce a “transitional” form of communication. The following paper examines the true origin of speech and language, and the anatomical and physiological requirements. The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Introduction

n 1994, an article appeared in Time magazine titled ‘How man began’. Within that article was the following bold assertion: ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.Yet, in what is obviously a contradiction to such a statement, all evolutionists admit that communication via speech is uniquely human—so much so that it often is used as the singular, and most important, dividing line between humans and animals. In his book, Eve Spoke, evolutionist Philip Lieberman admitted:

‘Speech is so essential to our concept of intelligence that its possession is virtually equated with being human. Animals who talk are human, because what sets us apart from other animals is the “gift” of speech’ [emphasis in original].

In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ‘there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ‘language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added].In his book, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, Terrance Deacon noted:

‘In this context, then, consider the case of human language. It is one of the most distinctive behavioral adaptations on the planet. Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense. And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast.’

What events transpired that have allowed humans to speak, while animals remain silent? If we are to believe the evolutionary teaching currently taking place in colleges and universities around the world, speech evolved as a natural process over time. Yet no one is quite sure how, and there are no known animals that are in a transition phase from non-speaking to speaking. In fact, in the Atlas of Languages,this remarkable admission can be found: ‘No languastic community has ever been found’.This represents no small problem for evolution.

In fact, the origin of speech and language (along with the development of sex and reproduction) remains one of the most significant hurdles in evolutionary theory, even in the twenty-first century. In an effort “make the problem go away,” some evolutionists have chosen not to even address the problem. Jean Aitchison noted:
‘In 1866, a ban on the topic was incorporated into the founding statutes of the Linguistic Society of Paris, perhaps the foremost academic linguistic institution of the time: ‘The Society does not accept papers on either the origin of language or the invention of a universal language.’

That is an amazing (albeit inadvertent) admission of defeat, especially coming from a group of such eminent scientists, researchers, and scholars. While remaining quiet worked well for a while, evolutionists now realize that they need a materialistic answer for this problem.

The truth of the matter is, however, that the origin of human languages can be discerned—but not via the theory of evolution. We invite your attention to the discussion that follows, which demonstrates conclusively that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.

Evolutionary Theories on the Origin of Speech

Many animals are capable of using sounds to communicate. However, there is a colossal difference between the hoot of an owl or the grunt of a pig, and a human standing before an audience reciting Robert Frost’s ‘The Road Not Taken.’ This enormous chasm between humans and animals has led to a multiplicity of theories on exactly how man came upon this unequaled capability. Many researchers have focused on the capabilities of animals—sounds and gestures—in an effort to understand the physiological mechanism underlying communication. But there is a single, common theme that stands out amidst all the theories: ‘The world’s languages evolved spontaneously. They were not designed’.

Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language. For instance, in the foreword of her book, The Seeds of Speech, Jean Aitchison hypothesized:

‘Physically, a deprived physical environment led to more meat-eating and, as a result, a bigger brain. The enlarged brain led to the premature birth of humans, and in consequence a protracted childhood, during which mothers cooed and crooned to their offspring. An upright stance altered the shape of the mouth and vocal tract, allowing a range of coherent sounds to be uttered.’

Thus, according to Aitchison, we can thank ‘a deprived physical environment’ for our ability to talk and communicate. Another evolutionist, John McCrone, put it this way:

‘It all started with an ape that learned to speak. Man’s hominid ancestors were doing well enough, even though the world had slipped into the cold grip of the ice ages. They had solved a few key problems that had held back the other branches of the ape family, such as how to find enough food to feed their rather oversized brains. Then man’s ancestors happened on the trick of language. Suddenly, a whole new mental landscape opened up. Man became self-aware and self-possessed.’

Question: How (and why) did that first ape learn to speak? It is easy to assert that ‘it all started with an ape that learned to speak’. But it is much more difficult to describe how this took place, especially in light of our failure to teach apes to speak today. In his book, From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language, Michael Corballis stated:
‘My own view is that language developed much more gradually, starting with the gestures of apes, then gathering momentum as the bipedal hominids evolved. The appearance of the larger-brained genus Homo some 2 million years ago may have signaled the emergence and later development of syntax, with vocalizations providing a mounting refrain. What may have distinguished Homo sapiens was the final switch from a mixture of gestural and vocal communication to an autonomous vocal language, embellished by gesture but not dependent on it.’

The truth however, is that evolutionists can only speculate as to the origin of language. Evolutionist Carl Zimmer summed it up well when he wrote:

‘No one knows the exact chronology of this evolution, because language leaves precious few traces on the human skeleton. The voice box is a flimsy piece of cartilage that rots away. It is suspended from a slender C-shaped bone called a hyoid, but the ravages of time usually destroy the hyoid too.’

Thus, theories are plentiful—while the evidence to support those theories remains mysteriously unavailable. Add to this the fact that humans acquire the ability to communicate (and even learn some of the basic rules of syntax) by the age of two, and you begin to see why Aitchison admitted:
‘Of course, holes still remain in our knowledge: in particular, at what stage did language leap from being something new which humans discovered to being something which every newborn human is scheduled to acquire? This is still a puzzle.

A ‘puzzle’ indeed!
Adam—the First Human to Talk and Communicate

In a chapter he titled ‘What, When, and Where did Eve Speak to Adam and He to Her?,’ Philip Lieberman commented:

‘In the five-million-year-long lineage that connects us to the common ancestors of apes and human beings, there have been many Adams and many Eves. In the beginning was the word, but the vocal communications of our most distant hominid ancestors five million years or so ago probably didn’t really differ from those of the ape-hominid ancestor.’

Using biblical terminology, Lieberman had written a year earlier: ‘For with speech came a capacity for thought that had never existed before, and that has transformed the world. In the beginning was the word’.

When God created the first human beings—Adam and Eve—He created them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). This likeness unquestionably included the ability to engage in intelligible speech via human language. In fact, God spoke to them from the very beginning of their existence as humans (Genesis 1:28-30). Hence, they possessed the ability to understand verbal communication—and to speak themselves!

For I will give you a mouth and wisdom,.."(Luke 21:15)

God gave very specific instructions to the man before the woman was even created (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam gave names to the animals before the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:19-20). Since both the man and the woman were created on the sixth day, the creation of the man preceded the creation of the woman by only hours. So, Adam had the ability to speak on the very day that he was brought into existence!

That same day, God put Adam to sleep and performed history’s first human surgery. He fashioned the female of the species from a portion of the male’s body. God then presented the woman to the man (no doubt in what we would refer to as the first marriage ceremony). Observe Adam’s response: ‘And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man”’ (Genesis 2:23). Here is Adam—less than twenty-four hours old—articulating intelligible speech with a well-developed vocabulary and advanced powers of expression. Note also that Eve engaged in intelligent conversation with Satan (Genesis 3:1-5). An unbiased observer is forced to conclude that Adam and Eve were created with oral communication capability. Little wonder, then, that God said to Moses: ‘Who had made man’s mouth? ... Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say’ (Exodus 4:11-12).


The Tower of Babel—and Universal Language

Nobody knows exactly how many languages there are in the world, partly because of the difficulty of distinguishing between a language and a sub-language (or dialects within it). One authoritative source that has collected data from all over the world, The Ethnologue, listed the total number of languages as 6809.

The Bible’s explanation of the origin of multiple human languages is provided in the Tower of Babel incident recorded in Genesis 11:1-9 (see Figure 1). Scripture simply and confidently asserts: ‘Now the whole earth had one language and one speech’ (11:1). When Noah and his family stepped off the ark, they spoke a single language that was passed on to their offspring. As the population increased, it apparently remained localized in a single geographical region. Consequently, little or no linguistic variation ensued. But when a generation defiantly rejected God’s instructions to scatter over the planet, God miraculously intervened and initiated the major language groupings of the human race. This action forced the population to proceed with God’s original intention to inhabit the Earth (cf. Isaiah 45:18) by clustering according to shared languages. Duursma correctly noted: ‘The Babel account suggests that several languages came into existence on that day. It is presented as a miraculous intervention by God’.
Figure 1. Peter Breugel (1525-1569); oil painting (1563) of the Tower of Babel—the historical event during which God confused the human language.


This depiction of the origin of languages coincides with the present status of these languages. The available linguistic evidence does not support the model postulated by evolutionary sources for the origin of languages. Many evolutionary linguists believe that all human languages have descended from a single, primitive language, which itself evolved from the grunts and noises of the lower animals. The single most influential ‘hopeful monster’ theory of the evolution of human language was proposed by the famous linguist from MIT, Noam Chomsky, and has since been echoed by numerous linguists, philosophers, anthropologists, and psychologists. Chomsky argued that the innate ability of children to acquire the grammar necessary for a language can be explained only if one assumes that all grammars are variations of a single, generic ‘universal grammar’, and that all human brains come ‘with a built-in language organ that contains this language blueprint’.

Explaining this ‘innate ability’, a ‘universal grammar’, and the ‘built-in language organ’ of humans has proven to be, well, impossible! Steven Pinker, the eminent psychologist also of MIT, candidly lamented this very fact in his best-selling book, How the Mind Works. In addressing the failure of ‘our species’ ’ scientists to solve these types of plaguing, perennial problems, he wrote:
‘The species’ best minds have flung themselves at the puzzles for millennia but have made no progress in solving them. Another is that they have a different character from even the most challenging problems of science. Problems such as how a child learns language or how a fertilized egg becomes an organism are horrendous in practice and may never be solved completely.’ [emphasis added].

However, the existing state of human language nevertheless suggests that the variety of dialects and sub-languages has developed from a relatively few (perhaps even less than twenty) languages. These original ‘proto-languages’—from which all others allegedly have developed—were distinct within themselves, with no previous ancestral language. Creationist Carl Wieland rightly remarked: ‘The evidence is wonderfully consistent with the notion that a small number of languages, separately created at Babel, has diversified into the huge variety of languages we have today’.


The Brain’s Language Centers—Created by God

In contemplating how language arose, evolutionists frequently link the development of the brain to the appearance of languages. But when one considers that more than 6,000 languages exist, it is incomprehensible to suggest that the invention of language could be viewed as some sort of simple, clear-cut addition to human physiology made possible by an enlarged brain unique to Homo sapiens. Terrance Deacon commented on the intricacy of evolving a language when he wrote:

‘For a language feature to have such an impact on brain evolution that all members of the species come to share it, it must remain invariable across even the most drastic language change possible’ [emphasis in original).
Figure 2. Left hemisphere of human brain with language centers—Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area—highlighted. 


The complexity underlying speech first revealed itself in patients who were suffering various communication problems. Researchers began noticing analogous responses among patients with similar injuries. The ancient Greeks noticed that brain damage could cause the loss of the ability to speak (a condition known as aphasia). Centuries later, in 1836, Marc Dax described a group of patients that could not speak normally. Dax reported that all of these patients experienced damage to the left hemisphere of their brain. In 1861, Paul Broca described a patient who could utter only a single word—‘tan’. When this patient died, Broca examined his brain and observed significant damage to the left frontal cortex, which has since become known anatomically as ‘Broca’s area’ (see Figure 2). While patients with damage to Broca’s area can understand language, they generally are unable to produce speech because words are not formed properly, thus slurring their speech.

In 1876, Carl Wernicke discovered that language problems also could result from damage to another section of the brain. This area, later termed ‘Wernicke’s area’, is located in the posterior part of the temporal lobe (see Figure 2). Damage to Wernicke’s area results in a loss of the ability to understand language. Thus, patients can continue to speak, but the words are put together in such a way that they make no sense. Interestingly, in most people (approximately 97%) both Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are found only in the left hemisphere, which explains the language deficits observed in patients with brain damage to the left side of the brain. Evolutionists freely acknowledge that:

‘The relationship between brain size and language is unclear. Possibly, increased social interaction combined with tactical deception gave the brain an initial impetus. Better nourishment due to meat-eating may also have played a part. Then brain size and language possibly increased together.

But, the human brain is not simply larger. The connections are vastly different as well. As Deacon admitted: ‘Looking more closely, we will discover that a radical re-engineering of the whole brain has taken place, and on a scale that is unprecedented’.In order to speak a word that has been read, information is obtained from the eyes and travels to the visual cortex. From the primary visual cortex, information is transmitted to the posterior speech area (which includes Wernicke’s area). From there, information travels to Broca’s area, and then to the primary motor cortex to provide the necessary muscle contractions to produce the sound. To speak a word that has been heard, we must invoke the primary auditory cortex, not the visual cortex. Deacon commented on this complex neuronal network—which does not occur in animals—when he wrote:
‘Many a treatise on grammatical theory has failed to provide an adequate accounting of the implicit knowledge that even a four-year-old appears to possess about her newly acquired language.
Anatomy of Speech
Figure 3. Posterior view of the larynx opening into the pharynx (‘tube within a tube’).


The specific mechanics involved in speaking have anatomical requirements that are found primarily in humans (the exception being angels—1 Cor. 13:1; Rev. 5:2; and also birds—although they produce sound differently). There is no animal living presently, nor has one been observed in the fossil record, that possesses anything close to the ‘voice box’ (as we commonly call it) present in humans. As information scientist Werner Gitt observed in his fascinating book, The Wonder of Man:

‘Only man has the gift of speech, a characteristic otherwise only possessed by God. This separates us clearly from the animal kingdom ... In addition to the necessary “software” for speech, we have also been provided with the required “hardware”.

Furthermore, the complete lack of any ‘transitional’ animal form (with the requisite speech hardware) in the fossil record poses a significant continuity problem for evolutionists. As Deacon noted:

‘This lack of precedent makes language a problem for biologists. Evolutionary explanations are about biological continuity, so a lack of continuity limits the use of the comparative method in several important ways. We can’t ask, “What ecological variable correlates with increasing language use in a sample species?” Nor can we investigate the ‘neurological correlates of increased language complexity.’ There is no range of species to include in our analysis.’
Figure 4. The complex design and multiple components necessary for speech argue strongly against an evolutionary origin. 


To simplify the anatomy required for human speech by using an analogy, think of a small tube resting inside a larger tube (see Figure 3). The inner tube consists of the trachea going down to the lungs, and the larynx (which houses the voice box). At the larynx, the inner tube opens out to the larger tube, which is known as the pharynx. It not only carries sound up to the mouth, but it also carries food and water from the mouth downto the stomach. A rather simplistic description of how humans utter sounds in speech can be characterized by the control of air generated by the lungs, flowing through the vocal tract, vibrating over the vocal cord, filtered by facial muscle activity, and released out of the mouth and nose. Just as sound is generated from blowing air across the narrow mouth of a bottle, air is passed over the vocal cords, which can be tightened or relaxed to produce various resonances.

The physiological components necessary can be divided into: (1) supralaryngeal vocal tract; (2) larynx; and (3) subglottal system (see Figure 4). In 1848, Johannes Muller demonstrated that human speech involved the modulation of acoustic energy by the airway above the larynx (referred to as the supralaryngeal tract). Sound energy for speech is generated in the larynx at the vocal folds. The subglottal system—which consists of the lungs, trachea, and their associated muscles—provides the necessary power for speech production. The lungs produce the initial air pressure that is essential for the speech signal; the pharyngeal cavity, oral cavity, and nasal cavity shape the final output sound that is perceived as speech. This is the primary anatomy used in common speech, aside from those sounds produced by varying the air pressure in the pharynx or constricting parts of the oral cavity.

Birds of a Feather—or Naked Ape?

Imagine the conundrum in which evolutionists find themselves when it comes to speech and language. The animal that comes closest to producing anything that even vaguely resembles human speech is not another primate, but rather a bird. Deacon observed:

‘In fact, most birds easily outshine any mammal in vocal skills, and though dogs, cats, horses, and monkeys are remarkably capable learners in many domains, vocalization is not one of them. Our remarkable vocal abilities are not part of a trend, but an exception.

For instance, a famous African gray parrot in England named Toto can pronounce words so clearly that he sounds rather human. Like humans, birds can produce fluent, complex sounds. We both share a double-barreled, double-layered system involving tunes and dialects—a system controlled by the left side of our brains. And just like young children, juvenile birds experience a period termed ‘sub-song’ where they twitter in what resembles the babbling of a young child learning to speak. Yet Toto does not have a ‘language’ as humans understand it. Humans use language for many more purposes than birds use song. Consider, too, that it is mostly male birds that sing. Females remain songless unless they are injected with the male hormone testosterone. Also consider that humans frequently communicate intimately between two or three people, while bird communication is a fairly long-distance affair.

One of the big ‘success’ stories in looking at the human-like qualities of non-human primates is a male bonobo chimpanzee known as Kanzi.Kanzi was born 28 October 1990, and began his long journey to learn to ‘speak’ as a result of the training provided for his mother, Matata, via a ‘talking’ keyboard. Matata never did master the keyboard, but Kanzi did. Through many years of intense training and close social contact with humans, this remarkable animal attained the language abilities of an average two-year-old human. By age ten, he had a vocabulary (via the keyboard) of some two hundred words. In fact, Kanzi was able to go beyond the mere parroting or ‘aping’ of humans; he actually could communicate his wants and needs, express feelings, and use tools. Inasmuch as Kanzi could accomplish such things, does this prove that chimps are merely hairy, child-like versions of humans?

Hardly. To use the words of the famous American news commentator, Paul Harvey, someone needs to tell ‘the rest of the story’. For example, in their 2002 volume, Up from Dragons, John Skoyles and Dorion Sagan discussed Kanzi at great length. Among other things, they wrote:

‘Kanzi shows that while chimps may have the potential to learn language, they require a “gifted” environment to do so. Kanzi was surrounded by intelligent apes with Ph.D.s [i.e., humans-BH/BT/DM] who spoke to him and gave him a stream of rich interactions. They gave Kanzi’s brain a world in which it could play at developing its ability to communicate ... Therefore, as much as in his brain, Kanzi’s skill lies in the environment that helped shape it’ [emphasis added].

Kanzi does not possess the anatomical equipment required for speech. In fact, aside from parrots mimicking ability, no other animals are anatomically equipped for speech. As Skoyles and Sagan went on to note: ‘Chimps lack the vocal abilities needed for making speech sounds—speech requires a skilled coordination between breathing and making movements with the larynx that chimps lack’.Humans, however, do possess the anatomical equipment required for speech.

As Skoyles and Sagan candidly admitted, Kanzi’s skill was ‘in the environment that helped shape it’. That is precisely what Herb Terrace discovered with his own chimp, Nim Chimsky (sarcastically named after MIT scientist Noam Chomsky). Such an assessment always will be true of ‘talking animals’. But it is not always true of humans! Consider the following case in point.

As we mentioned earlier, the eminent linguist Noam Chomsky has championed the idea that humans are born with a built-in ‘universal grammar’—a series of biological switches for complex language that is set in place in the early years of childhood. This, he believes, is why children can grasp elaborate language rules, even at an early age—without adults to teach them. Chomsky noted:

‘The rate of vocabulary acquisition is so high at certain stages in life, and the precision and delicacy of the concepts acquired so remarkable, that it seems necessary to conclude that in some manner the conceptual system with which lexical items are connected is already in place.

John W. Oller and John L. Omdahl went on to comment:
‘In other words, the conceptual system is not really constructed in the child’s mind as if out of nothing, but must be, in an important sense, known before the fact. The whole system must be in place before it can be employed to interpret experience.

Powerful support for Chomsky’s theory emerged from a decade-long study of 500 deaf children in Managua, Nicaragua, which was reported in the December 1995 issue of Scientific American.These children started attending special schools in 1979, but none used or was taught a formal sign language. Within a few years the children began to develop their own basic ‘pidgin’ sign language. This quickly was modified by younger children entering school, with the current version taking on a complex and consistent grammar. If Chomsky is correct, where, then, did humans get their innate ability for language? Chomsky himself will not even hazard a guess. In his opinion, ‘very few people are concerned with the origin of language because most consider it a hopeless question’.The development of language, he admits, is a ‘mystery’. The fundamental failing of naturalistic theories is that they are inadequate to explain the origins of something so complex and information-rich as human language, which itself is a gift of God and part of man’s having been created ‘in His image’.

The fact is, no animal is capable of speaking in the manner in which people can speak. Speech is a peculiarly human trait. Steven Pinker, director of MIT’s Center of Cognitive Neuroscience, stated inThe Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind:

‘As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of the natural world. For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events in each other’s brains with remarkable precision. I am not referring to telepathy or mind control or the other obsessions of fringe science; even in the depictions of believers, these are blunt instruments compared to an ability that is uncontroversially present in every one of us. That ability is language. Simply by making noises with our mouths, we can reliably cause precise new combinations of ideas to arise in each other’s minds. The ability comes so naturally that we are apt to forget what a miracle it is ... [H]uman language is based on a very different design ... Even the seat of human language in the brain is special .

Without detracting anything from primates like Kanzi and Washoe, fundamental differences between animals and humans nevertheless remain. Unlike human children, animals: (1) do not have a special region in the brain devoted to language; (2) possess a much smaller brain overall; and (3) lack the anatomy to speak the words they may think. In summary, humans have an innate, built-in, hard-wired ability to acquire and communicate complex language from the moment of their birth. Animals do not. Admittedly, animals do possess a measure of understanding. They can learn to respond to commands and signs, and in some instances even can be trained to use minimal portions of human sign language. As Oller and Omdahl pointed out: ‘One of the most remarkable missing elements in the pseudolinguistic behavior of the trained apes is that they don’t ask questions. They simply don’t seem to be able to understand what a question is.Thus, even though apes, dogs, and birds can be trained to do certain things and can convey ideas of danger, food, etc., they still cannot reason with others so as to have true mental communion. Why? The intelligence of animals is, quite bluntly, unlike that of humankind.

The issue is not ‘can animals think?’ but rather ‘can they think the way humans do?’ The answer, obviously, is a resounding ‘No!’ Although animal trainers and investigators since the seventeenth century have tried to teach chimpanzees to talk, no chimpanzee has ever managed it. A chimpanzee’s sound-producing anatomy is simply too different from that of humans. Chimpanzees might be able to produce a muffled approximation of human speech—if their brains could plan and execute the necessary articulate maneuvers. But to do this, they would have to have our brains, which they obviously do not.
Complexity of Language—Uniquely Human

No known language in the whole of human history can be considered ‘primitive’ in any sense of the word. In her book, What is Linguistics? Suzette Elgin wrote:

‘the most ancient languages for which we have written texts—Sanskrit for example—are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many other contemporary languages.
Figure 5. The most ancient languages for which we have written texts are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages.


The late Lewis Thomas, a distinguished physician, scientist, and longtime director and chancellor of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, acknowledged: ‘ ...Language is so incomprehensible a problem that the language we use for discussing the matter is itself becoming incomprehensible’. It appears that, from the beginning, human communication was designed with a tremendous amount of complexity and forethought, and has allowed us to communicate not only with one another, but also with the Designer of language.

In a paper titled ‘Evolution of Universal Grammar’ that appeared in the January 2001 issue of Science,M.A. Nowak and his colleagues attempted to discount the gulf that separates human and animals.This paper, which was a continuation of a 1999 paper titled ‘The Evolution of Language’,used mathematical calculations in an effort to predict the evolution of grammar and the rules surrounding it. While Nowak and his team inferred that the evolution of universal grammar can occur via natural selection, they freely admitted that ‘the question concerning why only humans evolved language is hard to answer’ [emphasis added].Hard to answer indeed! The mathematical models presented in these papers do not tell us anything about the origination of the multitude of languages used in the world today. If man truly did evolve from an ape-like ancestor, how did the phonologic [the branch of linguistics that deals with the sounds of speech and their production] component of our languages become so diverse and variegated? Nowak’s paper also did not clarify the origination of written languages, or describe how the language process was initiated in the first humans, considering we know today that parents teach languages to their offspring.

Also, consider that when language first appears on the scene, it already is fully developed and very complex. The late Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson described it this way:
‘Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. The oldest language that can be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.

Chomsky summed it up well when he stated:

‘Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.
Conclusion

The fact of the matter is that language is quintessentially a human trait. All attempts to shed light on the evolution of human language have failed—due to the lack of knowledge regarding the origin of anylanguage, and due to the lack of an animal that possesses any ‘transitional’ form of communication. This leaves evolutionists with a huge gulf to bridge between humans with their innate communication abilities, and the grunts, barks, or chatterings of animals. As noted:

‘By the age of six, the average child has learned to use and understand about 13,000 words; by eighteen it will have a working vocabulary of 60,000 words. That means it has been learning an average of ten new words a day since its first birthday, the equivalent of a new word every 90 minutes of its waking life.

Deacon lamented:

‘So this is the real mystery. Even under these loosened criteria, there are no simple languages used among other species, though there are many other equally or more complicated modes of communication. Why not? And the problem is even more counterintuitive when we consider the almost insurmountable difficulties of teaching language to other species. This is surprising, because there are many clever species. Though researchers report that language-like communication has been taught to nonhuman species, even the best results are not above legitimate challenges, and the fact that it is difficult to prove whether or not some of these efforts have succeeded attests to the rather limited scope of the resulting behaviors, as well as to deep disagreements about what exactly constitutes language-like behavior.

Another scholar who recognized this chasm between humans and animals commented:

‘The very fact ... that human animals are ready to engage in a great ‘garrulity’ over the merits and demerits of essentially unprovable hypotheses, is an exciting testimony to the gap between humans and other animals.’

Gap indeed! Humans are capable of communicating in human language because God created them with the ability to do so! The Bible still offers the only plausible explanation for the origin of human language when it records: ‘Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” ... So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them’ (Genesis 1:26-27).

WATER IN OCEANS




New Living Translation
He assigned the sea its boundaries and locked the oceans in vast reservoirs.(Psalms 37:7)

He gathereth the waters of the sea together - He separated the water from the earth and, while the latter was collected into continents, islands, mountains, hills, and valleys, the former was collected into one place, and called seas; and by his all-controlling power and providence the waters have been retained in their place, so that they have not returned to drown the earth: and he has so adapted the solar and sonar influence exerted on the waters, that the tides are only raised to certain heights, so that they cannot overflow the shores, nor become dissipated in the atmospheric regions. In this one economy there is a whole circle of science. The quantity of matter in the sun, moon, and in the earth, are all adjusted to each other in this astonishing provision: the course of the moon, and the diurnal and annual revolutions of the earth, are all concerned here; and so concerned, that it requires some of the nicest of the Newtonian calculations to ascertain the laws by which the whole is affected.

GOD'S FINGERPRINTS




For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:(Romans 1:20)

Another likely place to look for evidence of Divine handiwork is in the phenomenon called "life". The existence of life is dependent on approximately 2000 enzymes, which are made up of strings of amino acids.

In fact, the odds are 1 in 10 to the 40-THOUSANDTH power! That would be the number 10 followed by 40-THOUSAND ZEROES! To get some idea just HOW LARGE a number this is, it is a number, which exceeds, BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, the estimated TOTAL NUMBER OF ATOMS in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE!

Along the same lines, the science author Isaac Asimov noted in a 1984 article that...

..."There has not been enough matter or time since the beginning of the Universe for the critical hemoglobin molecule to have been formed by random chance."

There are further peculiarities to be noted in the structure of the world around us. For one thing, the structure of the Universe seems to be FRACTALISTIC in nature. That means that each particular part (or microcosm) contains within itself all the substantive elements of the whole (or macrocosm). Are not atoms and solar systems in essence the same thing but on vastly different scales of existence?

Our Human Body is the best example of God existence?

And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.(1 Chronicles 28:9 NIV)


Second, we find in nature an unexplainable (by the random chance theory) overabundance of the number 7 and centenary sequences. In man, for instance, we find 7 major body parts: the head, chest, abdomen, two legs and two arms. We find 7 orifices in the head: two eyes, two ears, two nostrils and mouth. There are 7 layers of skin or epidermis. It takes a 7-year cycle to replace every cell in the human body. A human being has 7 sense perceptions: sight, hearing. Taste, smell, touch, and two presently unrecognized by science; reason and intuition. The human body excretes 7 types of liquid or semi-liquid substances: tears, nasal mucous, saliva, perspiration, urine, feces, and either sperm or menstrual fluid, depending on gender. There are 7 glands at the base the human brain and 7 bodily systems: nervous system, respiratory system, circulatory system, endocrine system, lymphatic system, digestive system and excretory system. Also, the human body is made up of 7/10ths water. Finally, a human being is capable of pronouncing with precision exactly 7 distinct vowel sounds. They are: "Ah", "Ee", "Ay", "Ih", "Eye", "Oh", and "Ooh". Looking around our planet, we find that 7 basic types of animal life inhabit it: Mammals, Amphibians, Birds, Reptiles, Fish, Insects and Microbes. Seven-tenths of the Earth's surface is covered by water. A rainbow (or spectrum of visible light) has 7 colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. There are 7 notes of the musical scale; Do, Re, Mi, Fa, So, La and Ti. On the surface of the Earth we find 7 continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North and South America and Antarctica, and 7 major oceans or seas: North Pacific, South Pacific, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian, Arctic and Mediterranean. Turning our gaze toward the sky above, we see 7 permanent, regular moving objects visible to the naked eye; the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Also, each quarter (or phase) of the Moon lasts 7 days.

The proof of any theory rests in its ability to do two things; first, to account for otherwise unexplainable phenomena; and, second, to anticipate future discoveries. The "theory" of a Universe structured by Divine Intelligence does both. Since human body is composed of 7/10ths water, and the surface of the planet Earth is 7/10ths covered by water, we can assume that, according to our "theory", the ENTIRE UNIVERSE will probably also be found to consist of 7/10ths water (largely in the form of ice). This neatly accounts for the vast amount of unknown universal "dark matter" recently discovered by astronomers. It also seems likely that physicists working on a Unified Field Theory will eventually discover that our Universe is made up of 7 forces rather than four: Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, Electricity and Magnetism, Gravity and AntiGravity, and a Life Force, and that it can be measured in terms of 7 dimensions: Breadth and Width--dimensions of SPACE; Past, Present and Future-- dimensions of TIME, and the 7th dimension, the dimension of IMAGINATION .

At any rate, the "science" of today seems to have overlooked or misunderstood the abundance of evidence plainly pointing to the existence of a Supreme Being. How could scientists have blinded themselves to such a massive body of evidence?

Science today is the picture of pompous arrogance. Armed with multi-megabyte computers, and endless reams of data, this arcane priesthood claims to have conquered every mystery, yet it cannot "see the forest for the trees". The results are ludicrous. The so-called science of psychology, for instance, believes that it has probed the furthest depths of the human mind, yet psychologists have the highest SUICIDE RATE of any profession! Ardent radio-astronomers in Puerto Rico spent billions in search of "intelligent life" elsewhere in the Universe, yet how would they recognize it if they found it, since science is as yet unable to even DEFINE "intelligence"? Biology textbooks dutifully list the CHARACTERISTICS of life, but nowhere do they DEFINE "life". So it goes in almost every field of science today: tons of data exist on every conceivable subject, but NOWHERE is there the slightest understanding of the most important and basic laws and phenomena.

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretchedout the heavens by his discretion.(Jeremiah 10:12)

When the time comes, (and it WILL come) that science recognizes the reflection of Divine Power in all things and beings, and admits the discovery of God's "Fingerprints" on all of Creation.