Showing posts from 2011

Evidences for a Young Earth

Even though it is statistically for complex things to happen without design (such as a single DNA molecule forming), evolutionists maintain that if there is enough time, evolution can happen. This is absurd unless you are an orthodox fundamentalist evolutionist, desperate to maintain the faith in spite of contrary evidence. Dr. D. Russell Humphries has written an introductory article on the age of the Earth . Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).    Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) a

Ascent of Love

One of my contentions with evolutionists is that to accept the alleged "fact" of evolution, I have to suspend too much disbelief. It makes sense to me that laws and facts tend to work in the same manner on a regular, predictable basis. Yet, when examining the diversity of nature, I see everything "evolving" differently. This sounds like intricate design rather than utilitarian adaptation and mutation. Another example is this scent of love scenario: Love is calling in the temperate forests of Australasia. An exotic perfume (called a pheromone ) floats in the air, sending an irresistible message to the males of just one species of insect—the Fungus Gnat—that a female Fungus Gnat is nearby and desires a mate. A male gnat answering the call finds that the amorous female appears to be located within the flower of a Greenhood Orchid. When a male gnat lands on a protruding part of the flower called the irritable lip or labellum , the lip, which is hinged, s

Still More Doubts about the "Big Bang"

It keeps amazing me that fundamentalist evolutionists and Big Bang adherents cling to their faith in the theories despite scientific evidence against their validity. It takes creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to take news in the physics and astronomy journals to thoroughly discuss these flaws, but scientists should be discussing them instead of giving a "by the way" mention to the latest observation. A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe. Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory. "These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemica

The Rebellion Continues

It infuriates atheists when other atheists become Christians. (Watch for the "no true atheist" fallacy, where the person was not really an atheist because of conversion.) Similarly, evolutionists become angry when someone is going to be intellectually honest and realize that the evidence points to Something Higher. Perhaps they do not come to faith in Jesus Christ right away, or at all, but they do abandon the ranks of "Evolution did it!" Then, they are attacked, ostracized, ignored, bad-mouthed or whatever it takes to neutralize the effect of losing a qualified scientist to the Intelligent Design (or, gasp, creationist) community. Especially since evolutionists have to protect their interests against the fact that the numbers of defectors is increasing. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini are arrving late to the Darwin doubting party, but are welcome attendees none the less. Below are some welcoming remarks from leading scientific voices in the intel

Whale of a Good Story

It is difficult for me to decide what puzzles me most: The gullibility of the people who accept pronouncements of  evolutionary scientists as if they were ex cathedra, or scientists who make up ridiculous excuses to explain away flaws in their theories. Perhaps the worse problem is that people are unable to think things through for themselves, while the rest of us will look at their "explanations" and say, "What?" To sing the praises of evolutionary cosmology astronomers are looking for planets outside the solar system. After all, since life supposedly evolved on Earth, it must have evolved elsewhere, right? Mind you, we have speculations, guesswork, "scientists think", "maybe", "perhaps" and other deep technological terms that you and I cannot hope to understand from the wisdom of evolutionists. If I had known that wishful thinking was a prerequisite for being a scientist, I would have followed through and become one long ago. A

I Found Your Car, Cowboy Bob!

Great! How did you know it was my  car? Click for larger image

The Human Eye - More Evidence for Design

Two molecules in the retina—vitamin A and a protein named "opsin" that together make "rhodopsin"—capture single light photons. When light strikes the vitamin, it changes shape and becomes the molecule "11- cis -retinal." This in turn changes the rhodopsin's shape. When light activates enough of these molecular switches within the light-sensitive cell, they cause downstream biochemical systems to amplify and send the signal from the retina, through the optic nerve, and to the brain. This complex photochemical reaction is at the heart of what allows eyes to detect light and send signals that the brain can form into meaningful images. When light strikes vitamin A, the molecule bends at the 11th carbon bond. In other versions, or "isomers," of this chemical, the bend could occur at the 9th, 10th, or 13th carbon atoms. Curious to find out why vertebrate and squid eyes use 11- cis -retinal instead of another isomer, researchers tested the v

Uniformitarianism and Confusion - Part 2

The following article is the second part of "Untangling Uniformitarianism", by Dr. John K. Reed (Ph.D., geology). He is the principal engineer at the  Westinghouse Savannah River Company . Part 1 is linked here . Uniformitarian geology has opposed biblical history for over two centuries. Most creationist critiques focus on contrary empirical evidence, but this series pursues a logical and axiomatic critique of the “four-definition” formulation of uniformitarianism. Three of these facets—stasis, gradualism, and generic uniformity—fail to support the concept. The remaining “uniformity of process,” also called  actualism,  seems on the surface to work well, but can be addressed by seeking justification of its use as an axiom of natural history. Actualism rests on uniformity, and uniformity in turn on causal continuity. These concepts can be evaluated relative to the worldviews of Christianity and Naturalism by the truth test of coherence. Naturalism fails that test, but Chr

Origin of the Universe - Scientists Do Not Know

Hubble deep field/NASA Evolutionists are in disagreement about when, where, how and especially why evolution allegedly happened. (God forbid that they discuss "who".) Taking the problems further back in time, cosmologists are pretty well clueless about the origin and evolution of the universe as well. The deeper we see into space, the more galaxies that we find. And that throws off the presumed age of the universe . Let's face it, we have piles of "theories" based on other theories, wishful thinking and guesswork. Perhaps no realm of inquiry is as fraught with fantastic speculation as the origin of the universe. Theories of how it could have come about naturally have regularly been proposed and discarded as new evidence surfaces. Ongoing studies seem to have merely widened the gap in understanding how it began—or even how it currently works.  For example, astronomers have observed that the earth has hundreds of parameters fine-tuned for life. Thi

Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication

Many anti-creatonists embarrass themselves by making statements that show not only their ignorance, but their extreme biases and lack of honesty . One claim is that "creationists are not scientists", which is easily eliminated [ 1 , 2 ]. Another false claim is that creationists are not "peer reviewed" [3] . It makes absolutely no sense to submit evidence disproving evolution to a group of biased evolutionists! Would an evolutionist submit a paper attempting to disprove creation to creationist scientists? What an amusing concept. The fact is, however, that creationists do  have peer review [ 4 ]. The main item that I wish to present to you today discusses the insulting, libelous  claim of some owlhoots that "creationists do not contribute to science, nor do they publish". Although it is not a recent publication, the following article still manages to put down the lie. In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no a

Book Review: What Is Truth?

"Despite the fact that our modern mass media makes it appear that atheism and secularism are on the rise in the world, in fact the opposite is true. Despite the fact that our media constantly insists that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be true, in fact the scientific evidence against it is growing by the day. Despite the fact that our media continually highlights the idea that the Bible is an outmoded book full of myths and fairy tales, in fact historical and archaeological research is revealing that the Biblical manuscripts are exactingly accurate in every detail." Title: What Is Truth? Subtitle: "A Handbook for Separating Fact from Fiction in a Propaganda-Filled World" Author: Kirk Hastings This is not a typical book review situation. In fact, I am unaccustomed to writing book reviews at all. In an e-mail discussion with Kirk Hastings, he informed me that he had a book that was pertinent to our discussions. (It turns out that Josh M

Evolution, Chromosomes and Telling Stories

Image from Wikipedia Evolutionists can be excellent storytellers. For example, Dr. Ken Miller, a biology professor from Brown University who testified against Intelligent Design (ID) at the Dover trial, tells an engaging story that he claims is compelling evidence for evolution. The problem is that because of his naturalistic assumptions, he himself is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, science from conjecture. Background Humans normally have 46 chromosomes. However, sometimes two chromosomes will fuse together to form one big chromosome. Centric fusions are where two acrocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with the centromere very close to one end) fuse to make a large metacentric chromosome (one with the centromere near the middle). It is estimated that around 1/1000 people carry this type of chromosomal rearrangement. While they are sometimes associated with problems such as infertility or serious chromosomal aberrations in the offspring, often they a

Evolution and the Creation of Tyrants

Over and over, atheists and evolutionists claim that most of the greatest mass murderers in history, who happened to be atheists, were not motivated by their atheistic worldviews . This is clearly false. Evolution has been embraced by tyrants; Hitler used eugenics to accelerate the natural process of evolution. Communist leaders were anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-religion. Darwinism is a dangerous philosophy. Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution. The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got mon

Misrepresentation of Creation by Evolutionists

Answers in Genesis It happens all the time: Evolutionists hit creationists with complete nonsense about what we believe. I think it is for two reasons: They do not bother to check their facts and actually get information about creationists from the creationists themselves, and also because they are being misled by bad propaganda. Here is a hint to evolutionists: If you want to discuss creationism, do not tell us what we believe. You can ask, and you can learn our side of the story from us, not from evolutionary disinformation tanks that are more interested in appealing to emotion than in the true scientific attitude of learning the truth. Appealing to public emotions is a tool employed by politicians, media, and anyone trying to win supporters for a specific agenda. Naturally, such efforts can skew or omit facts, as is often the case in mainstream presentations of the ongoing battle between evolution and creation science. A recent Discovery News feature provides a tellin

Noah's Ark Discovery Controversy

Many evolutionists do not do their homework when it comes to creationism and Intelligent Design. I have had several people presuming to tell me what I believe, as well as proclaiming what creation science and Intelligent Design advocates teach. However, they embarrass themselves with their uninformed presuppositions. One of the presuppositions is that "believers" are extremely credulous and unscientific in our views. Here is an example to demonstrate that the opposite is true. It seems that every few years, someone claims to have discovered Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The location is obscure and very difficult to find, and verification has been pretty well nonexistent. Another expedition excitedly claimed that they had found Noah's Ark, and wanted creationist support. On April 25, 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong to announce to the world the potential discovery of the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey by a joint Chinese–Turkish team

Cut Down the Fake "Tree of Life"

CreationWiki (modified) You know that "tree of life" thing that is in all the school textbooks? You know, it shows everything branching out, tracing back to the alleged "common ancestor"? Darwin's tree of life was wrong . Well, some of us knew it all along, but evolutionists are finally admitting it. Oh, but getting the word to the textbook publishers? We'll see. It will probably be misleading information in textbooks for decades yet . Charles Darwin drew his first "evolutionary tree" in his "B" notebook in 1837, with the words "I think" scrawled above it, to illustrate his idea that all of today's species arose from a single common ancestor. This concept lies at the heart of evolutionary thinking, and the tree-like images that often accompany its instruction have been effective indoctrination tools.  However, if today's creatures evolved from some other creature millions or billions of years ago, then the

Putting that Miller-Urey Experiment to Rest

The more we learn about the complexities of genetics, amino acids, the cell itself, mutations and so many other things, the more we can see that evolution is an empty, unscientific philosophy that should have been discarded years ago. For example, people still insist that the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment regarding the "primordial Earth" is proof of chemical evolution. What did they really  get from this experiment? Image modi fied from Yassine Mrabet   /Wiki media C ommons First, cheating pays off in "science", because they started with amino acids, broke them down, and then got amino acids again. Second, it shows that intelligence, not chance, made things happen (such as the "cold trap" trick). Third, that a bad experiment (a spark does not equal a lightning bolt, get real) can yield "results" if they fit preconceptions. Even worse for evolutionists, this faulty experiment manages to argue against abiogenesis. Abiogene

Evolutionary Biology: Exercise in Futility

The old "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" mantra is not only worn out, but absurd from the beginning. Using evolution as a prerequisite for understanding biology (and all of science, for that matter) is actually detrimental. Here, I'll let Dr. Sarfati explain in his reply to a letter. I read with some interest the text and annotation of your debate with Dr Mark Farmer. While I could raise many points, I will confine myself to the passage quoted below: ‘Has the evolutionary paradigm been the great benefit to mankind that is claimed? MF quoted Dobzhansky as saying how important it is to biology. However, Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School states: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (quot

Redshifts, Big Bang, Quasar and Evolution

On 8 April 2010, Marcus Chown writes in an article entitled “ Time waits for no quasar—even though it should ” for  New Scientist  online “Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth?  No one can yet answer this new question  [emphasis added] … .” Background photo by NASA Halton Arp cites many examples of quasars found aligned within ± 20 degrees of the minor axis of the active nucleus of a galaxy. The minor axis is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the galaxy. They are often seen within a few arcminutes of a parent galaxy, in pairs, on opposite sides as though they were ejected from the active nucleus. Their redshifts are large compared to the parent but they have a higher probability than the background average of being near the putative parent. This suggests physical association and that their redshifts are intrinsic, of an unknown orgin, but not

Mutations are Bad News for Evolution

In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutation

In Defense of Science

Science is one of my favorite subjects. I really looked forward to it in school. Technology is something I like as well. It's really great finding out about the intricacies of how things are made, how they function and so on. I am baffled by some things. One is that evolution is considered "science", as if it is foundational for an astrophysicist, physician, molecular biologist or whatever to be thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary "facts" to be able to perform their various disciplines. I thought those were all sciences in and of themselves. Another item I find baffling is that the "science" of evolution must be protected. I thought that an essential component in science is the quest for knowledge. To attain knowledge, facts and observations must be compared and analyzed. This cannot be done if facts and evidence contrary to evolutionism are ignored, rejected out of hand and even suppressed. Brits are guarding evolutionary indoctrinati

That Flighty Archaeopteryx

When I was giving creation science presentations, I mentioned that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form, but rather, a true bird. I was surprised that  some die-hard types refused to relinquish their claim that Archie is a "transitional form". Now he keep flying back into the news. The latest news: He's still just a bird. A strange one with odd features, but still just a bird. The fossilized bird known as Archaeopteryx has had quite a history of identity crises. Researchers once classified it as a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It was considered to be an ancient bird, then changed to a dinosaur, and now it's supposed to be a bird again. So, what is it?  Nature News reported in July that an analysis of fossil traits "suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all," but instead more closely resembled dinosaurs.  ICR News responded at the time that because "it had core features that define birds, such as flight

Sediments, Bioturbation and Uniformitarianism

Here is another example of uniformitarian presuppositions being proven wrong, this time in the deep blue sea. The bioturbation of sediments by trace makers is often perceived by naturalists as a process requiring extensive periods of time. Little experimental work has been conducted to either support or refute such a concept. However, recent laboratory analysis indicates that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur within short periods of time. Bioturbation experiments Marine worms, bivalves (clams), arthropods (shrimp and crabs), and echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars) are just some of the many animals that live on or in marine sediments (figures 1 and 2). The study of traces created in sediment is identified as ichnology (Gk ichnos = trace).  Recently, an investigation was conducted to determine the rate that select bivalves, arthropods, and echinoderms could bioturbate marine sediments. The animals were collected from

Evolutionists Persist in Presenting Bad Information

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected , and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked . That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination . According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education. "Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are

Legal Hypocrisy from the Darwinists

Do you ever watch "The People's Court" or similar television programs? (They are popular on American television, airing during business hours on weekdays. People have the small claims court cases settled before television judges who tend to be quirky or even abusive.) Afterward, the parties of the case talk to the interviewer. The winner says, "Yes, I am happy with the decision. The judge is intelligent and justice was served". Well, of course! "Justice was served" because things went your way. Naturally, the loser of the case tends to disagree with the decision. There is a problem when court cases are settled and then misquoted. One fellow kept badgering me, insisting, "How many more times must the courts rule that ID isn't science before it sinks in?" (His claim was based on a ruling about a school district in Dover .) And yet, when I point out how the high courts have ruled that atheism and secular humanism are religions, I&#

Decay of Mercury's Magnetic Field Supports Creation

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys used the creation model and embarrassed evolutionists by accurately predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune . His prediction for the magnetic field of Mercury was also correct. Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year.  If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist?  In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 10 22 gauss cm 3 , which "is about 1% that of the Earth." A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys publis

Unexpected Activity on the Planet Mercury

Mercury is supposed to be a dead rock orbiting the sun. There should not be any activity there, no surface features forming, no outgassing of volatile materials, right? Well... NASA's Messenger spacecraft mission to Mercury has given scientists the opportunity to learn more about the properties of the solar system's innermost planet. After supposedly billions of years since its formation, the planet should be dead, or geologically inactive. New data from Messenger, however, show that Mercury remains active and is still generating surface features.  Before the Messenger data acquisition, astronomers observed that the sunny side of Mercury is hot enough to melt lead, and like other rocky objects in the solar system, many craters pockmark the planet's surface. In early 2011, Messenger carefully maneuvered into orbit and took photographs with unprecedented detail.  Images of the planet's surface revealed unusual, irregularly shaped hollows or depressi

Darwinism and the Law

Your worldview (philosophy of life) influences your perceptions, beliefs and actions. That should be a "given". Darwinism has influenced many areas of society and culture, including our perceptions of the law. How one defines law depends greatly on what one believes. The definition of law varies from culture to culture, religion to religion, and from philosophy to philosophy. It is important therefore to consider how different worldviews affect the way people think about law. Darwin’s theory of evolution is said to have generated a materialistic worldview that has had a significant impact on Western conceptions of law. Under the direct influence of Darwinism a profound transformation of legal studies took place in the nineteenth century. It is the main purpose of this article to reveal some of the philosophical implications of Darwinism and to explore how this particular worldview affected the general perception of law in Western societies. In so doing, this

Astronomy and Conjuring

It is commonplace, and even expected, for evolutionists to hide behind their lack of knowledge with " Science of the Gaps " (where maybe someday, "science" will find the answer, but we'll just keep on believing anyway), or the explanations that contain words like "maybe", "perhaps", "scientists think", "scientists speculate", "it could be" &c. However, it is more difficult to accept the use of a more complex explanation known by scientists as "making stuff up". When it comes to astronomy, the sky's the limit (heh!). It has always been impossibly difficult for astronomers to realistically explain how galaxies, stars, and planets might have formed through natural processes. To prop up their naturalistic theories, they will sometimes invent unobserved structures, such as the Oort cloud for comets. More recently, astronomers conjured an unknown massive planet t

Evolution, a Pseudoscience

That's right, you heard it! Evolution is a pseudoscience. "How can you say that, Cowboy Bob?" Take a look-see: " Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it." [ 1 ]   Made at Another definition says, " Science is a way of understanding the world, not a mountain of facts. Before anyone can truly understand scientific information, they must know how science works. Science does not prove anything absolutely — all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence. The process of science, therefore, involves making educated guesses (hypotheses) that are then rigorously and repeatedly tested." [ 2 ]   Nice e