You Move Me... 14 y
Since science and religion so frequently overlap (regardless of whose religion it is) I'm going to post only in the Bible Study blog from now on.
I’ll leave all these articles here, but from now on I’ll post everything in the Bible Study blog. visit the page
videos to download 14 y
Three hours of video on creation vs. evolution.
visit the page
Big Bang, Big Problem 15 y
The venerable Big Bang theory's worst enemy is objective scientific observation.
The Big Bang theory (BB) is more than just the theory that the universe exploded from a single point of matter (”singularity”). It involves more than three dimensions and assumes that the universe has no center or edge. But we need to ask some questions before swallowing this theory, no matter how many people say it’s scientific fact, or how long they’ve repeated it.
First of all, the famous astronomer Hubble didn’t like what his telescopes were telling him: that the red shift phenomenon was uniform in every direction. It meant that we here on earth might be in the center of the univers ... read more
Evolution: Theory, Fact, or Law? 16 y
Defining frequently misunderstood terms.
By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation
[No. 4 in a series]
I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn’t concern them because, after all, it’s ”only a theory.” Presumably they think that the word ”theory” means about the same thing as a ”pipe dream.” But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of natu ... read more
Why Evolutionism Is Running Scared 16 y
Point/counterpoint excerpt from Apologetics Press
In an article that begins with a statistical analysis of the views of most Americans on the creation/evolution issue, we learn the reason the evolutionary community has been working so hard at getting creationism outlawed: they consider it a threat. Quote from the article: ”In a center-column, front-page article in the June 15, 1979 issue of the Wall Street Journal, there appeared an article by one of the Journal’s staff writers commenting on how creationists, when engaging in debates with evolutionists, ’tend to win’ the debates, and that creationism was ’making progress.’” Here is a poin ... read more
Science Wars 16 y
There are "denominational" splits and excommunications in the "scientific" community!
Detractors of creationism/intelligent design (but really of Christianity) love to compare the splits and bickering of theists with the alleged unity and peaceful agreement among rational, unbiased, truth-seeking scientists. Trouble is, there ain’t no such people, and they certainly do argue and fight and blacklist each other. I mentioned one instance in the blog entry ”The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy”, but here is another, which I briefly touched on in a response to a comment on the ”Speed of light” article.
This is from http://cosmologystatement.org/ , and it is an open letter s ... read more
Dealing with Detractors 16 y
Two PhDs disagree on the young earth model and its impact on people
Here is a link (too long to copy and paste, and it would lose formatting which would have made it hard to follow) to a point-by-point rebuttal of a letter to Answers In Genesis. The letter is a good collection of typical objections to creationism. Both the detractor and the defender are PhDs.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0902.asp visit the page
Brain Blast 16 y
Another myth exploded!
Our brain - Do we use only a small portion of it?
by Carl Wieland
There is a very wide-spread belief that we humans only ever use 10 to 20% of our brain. Attributed to Albert Einstein, it is one of the ‘grab’ statements used to recruit people for the cult of ‘Scientology.’ It is also a favourite of new-agey ‘positive thinking’ gurus.
The reason for its wide acceptance may be because Dale Carnegie’s popular 1936 book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, stated that mos ... read more
Commonly Used "Proofs" of Evolution Refuted 16 y
Bacteria, survival of the fittest, and uniformitarianism
When discussing alleged proofs of evolution, the most commonly offered example is that of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. It is said to be evidence of ”smarter bugs” that have evolved to ”learn” ways to survive in only a few or even one generation.
Again, I must emphasize that for evolution to be true, there must be an increase in the complexity of genetic code, such that a new or more complex creature could result. But the resistant bacteria argument offers no such evidence. What happens is this:
Scientists know that no matter what drug they develop, there are already ba ... read more
Racism and Evolution 16 y
How it ignores science and foments prejudice
I really can’t cut and paste this article because it includes charts and graphics that do a great job of illustrating how the science of genetics disproves Darwinian notions of superior and inferior races:
Here is a page of links on race-related articles:
Basically, Mendel’s experiments showed that the full range of skin colors we see today can be made from just two parents of medium-brown skin. All skin is identical but has a variety of amounts of melanin. In ot ... read more
The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy 16 y
Cast doubt on Darwin, get cast out
by Pam Sheppard, staff writer, AiG–USA
August 22, 2005
What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?
In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institutio ... read more
A Deeper Look at Information Theory 16 y
Because that other article just wasn't deep enough!
For those of you with way too much time on your hands, here’s a little more to chew on regarding the problem of codes and information as it relates to the probability of evolution:
Basically, it’s like the old question about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if nobody hears it. It makes vibrations, but sound is the intelligent interpretation of the vibrations. In the same way, information is more than a collection of data bits and probability. It requires meaning, or intent, and deliberate transmission and rece ... read more
Information Theory 16 y
Why DNA proves that there must be an intelligent Designer.
(borrowed from another message board)
This is evolutionists explanation as to why the genetic code is not a true code and therefore not a product of any intelligence. ( Points 1-3 below from talkorigins here . ) 1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a ”stop” marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbi ... read more
Irreducible Complexity 16 y
The interdependence of all life is no accident and could never have evolved.
First, a definition from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/menu/irreducible/irreduce.htm
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex s ... read more
Frauds in Science 16 y
Scientists are fallible humans after all
Here is an article exploding one of the common myths surrounding popular views of science and scientists. I was just going to post the link, but I think the article is short enough to post, so here it is, from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1994 as of today (8-18-05).
Apologetics Press :: Defense Documents
Frauds in Science
by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
Printer version | Email this article
With a cultic-like aura surrounding them, these men and women are seen as the paragons of virtue in the intellectual community. They are a priesthood, arrayed in white apparel, tinkeri ... read more
Where are all the human fossils? 16 y
More facts that answer the evolutionists' "unanswerable" charges against the Bible
There are some claims and reports of human artefacts and remains in rock layers that are clearly part of the Flood sediments. However, many of these claims are not adequately documented in any scientific sense, while those few reports that have appeared in the scientific and related literature remain open to question or other interpretations. For example, the book Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts1 looks like an impressive and voluminous collection of such evidence, but on closer examination many of the artefacts, though puzzling archaeologically, still belong to the post-Flood ... read more
Genetics and Human Population 16 y
Is there scientific evidence for near-human extinction in the past?
First an article from http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthropology/HumanGeneticEvolution/OriginsofthePresent/OriginsofthePresent.htm
A. Homo sapiens sapiens is thought to have evolved in Africa some 200,000 years ago. By 100,000 years ago, the populations were already diversified in Africa. A small group crossed into the Middle East at Suez and spread throughout Asia and Europe, reaching Australia some 40,000 years ago and America some 20,000 years ago (highly disputed date).
B. Mitochondrial DNA is particularly interesting, since it is mat ... read more
The Speed of Light 16 y
What does science know about it?
So far we’ve seen that we can’t prove the age of the rocks or the fossils, but what about distant starlight? Doesn’t it prove an old universe, since science has ”proven” that the speed of light is, and always has been, constant? Are there any factors that can alter the speed of light? Here I will quote two articles from Answers In Genesis, which I highly recommend you read for yourself.
Let’s start with excerpts from an AiG response to a scientific paper on the Big Bang:
The secular publication Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has published a paper(1) that questio ... read more
Taphonomy, the study of the formation of fossils 16 y
What are the scientific facts?
Having sampled many pro-evolution sites for information on how fossils form (don’t worry, I took some Dramamine first), I sought to sift the fact from the fiction and just report the actual hard evidence about how they form:
Fossils of all kinds are relatively rare because of the conditions required
Most fossils are of shells and bones, and sometimes wood
Soft parts do not fossilize well because they decay rapidly or are consumed by scavengers
Sometimes we have only the imprint of a fossil
Fossils frequently are altered over time by leaching of minerals, earthquakes, etc.
Fossiliza ... read more
The Earth: How old does it look?
Appearances can be deceiving-- but only if you've got presumptions in your eyes.
How do you know how old something is? For people, we look at hair, skin, and sometimes height. But what about rocks and other geological components? What exactly is it that makes a rock look ”old” or not, and how old is old? For example, how would someone who has never been to the US or been aware of the recent Mt. St. Helens eruptions know that there was any significant difference in age between the canyon it formed and the Grand Canyon?
Here are some points from the source article that takes a look at thes ... read more
Greetings, truth seekers! 16 y
Introduction to the blog.
As most debates between creationism and evolutionism are just poorly-disguised excuses to bash non-conformists, I felt the need to start a blog where you can read, without distraction, the facts.
Most of what I’ve seen from disciples of evolutionism is the intellectual equivalent of ”lol”, with the usual mockery and name-calling. If you dare to question evolution, even if you’re an atheist, you are assumed to believe in a flat earth, the tooth fairy, and Santa Clause. This is apparently the best they’ve got.
I will take a lot of material from AnswersInGenesis.org, one of the best onl ... read more