Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[airIam2worship]

That was quick, sorry that I bumped you on your thread

[Soldier4Christ]

That was quick, sorry that I bumped you on your thread

Not a problem, sister.

[Soldier4Christ]

Concepts Have Consequences

Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which only allows evidences which neatly fit into a naturalistic explanation of life, we will increasingly become a society which looks only to itself for answers to life's questions.

If we have evolved from apes, if we are just another animal...then who sets the rules? Whose standards should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful? Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these antithetical concepts becomes blurred. The ultimate result is a spiraling descent toward meaningless and a degradation of the value of human life. Acknowledgement of creation provides answers to these foundational questions of life which are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If evolution is true, then only a leap of faith provides answers. On what FACTUAL BASIS can anyone say his/her "leap of faith" (even a Christian "leap of faith") is right, While someone else's "leap of faith" is wrong?

An all too common example of the consequences of the blind belief in evolution can be found in most high school biology books containing a section on comparative embryology. This is the concept that humans and animals have a common ancestor because their embryos have a similar physical appearance. This concept was popularized in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel as he traveled throughout Europe lecturing on the subject and showing drawings of how different animal embryos had similar appearances. However, it was shown that he had used fraudulent drawings as early as 1874. Amazingly, although the specific drawings used by Haekel have long since been discarded, his teachings remain in textbooks to this day. The concept does not even acknowledge the vastly different developing functions of the completely different animals. Furthermore, in the 1950's it was proven that a woman's fertilized egg is a complete human being. Only time and nutrition are required for it to grow larger. From the moment of conception, a pregnant woman's body is two bodies, not one. That second body was never anything but a human being!

Examples of embryonic parts which have been said to be ancestral features are the "gill slits" and the "yolk sac" of the developing baby. The "gill slits" and "yolk sac" serve completely different functions in the human embryo to which they are supposedly related. Gill slits from gills in fish. In humans, they are merely folds forming various glands and facial features. The yolk sac contains food for a reptile, while for a human it has a radically different function. In a human embryo the heart and circulatory system develop before the bones (which will ultimately be the baby's blood source). Yet, the developing baby may have a different blood type that its mother, so cannot use her blood type that its mother, so cannot use her blood. With no bone marrow to make its own blood, how can the baby continue to develop? The simplest engineering answer would be to provide a temporary alternative supply. The yolk sac serves exactly that purpose, then disappears! As King David said 3000 years ago, "I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made."

I suspect the primary reason comparative embryology is still used (in a futile attempt to support evolution) is that it can be used to justify abortion. A woman does not have an abortion because she believes in evolution...but how much easier to justify killing a baby if you believe it is just a blob going through some stage of comparative embryology. How easy to justify moral disobedience if we are just animals accountable to no one but ourselves. Fortunately, the Maker of this universe has provided a bridge to span the abyss between sinful mankind and Himself. And this bridge is open to everyone willing to repent and acknowledge the truth.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Squashed Mosquito is Dead Forever

Have you ever squashed a mosquito? Interestingly, the squashing of a mosquito may help us understand what makes life possible and what makes the spontaneous generation of life impossible.

When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously it's shape changes and it dies. But what makes it die? All of the thousands of sophisticated chemicals which make up its body are still there, relatively unaltered. At the moment of impact its cellular components are still intact including the all-important DNA. So why is it now dead?

Prior to being smashed, the mosquito was highly organized information. But when hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of its body to become jumbled. There arose confusion in the finely tuned co-ordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall breakdown, resulting in death. And you thought you just slapped it!

For another example, lets say you were to take 100 million bacteria and concentrate them in the bottom of a test tube. Now if you were to physically lyse (break open) the membrane of each of the cells, insides would spill out, forming a concentrated mixture of incredibly complex "life-giving" chemicals. Yet, even though all of the right 'stuff' for life is there, not even one of the 100 million critters will come back to life, nor would any new creature arise.

If the already complex chemistry of minuscule bacteria cannot reorganize itself back into a living cell, even when concentrated in the test tube environment under carefully controlled conditions, then how could life have evolved in the first place, from basically uncomplicated chemicals in conditions FAR less appropriate than this experimental situation? It simply could never happen!

As with the mosquito, in order for life to exist the chemistry must be specifically organized and controlled in time and as well as space. For a cell to live, it must be surrounded by a sophisticated membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out, according to when they are needed, not just at any time. Inside the cell, the proportions of an element or compound must be just right, otherwise the whole system may be thrown off balance and the organism will die. Furthermore, the entire living mechanism must be controlled by the fantastically complex genetic structure of DNA.

All this means that, in order for the chemistry to have come together in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and simultaneously organized by a creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just "coming together".

It is Jesus, the Son of the Living God, who deserves our praise for the awesome things He has accomplished in this creation of His. There is no other plausible explanation for the complex life we find all around us. Yet this only plausible explanation is the only plausible explanation is the only one not allowed to be discussed in out public schools!

[Soldier4Christ]

Discover Magazine Juggles With Bad-science

 These words are found not in an old Scopes Trial transcript, but the June 2004 Discover Magazine publication entitled, “Useless Body Parts”, by Jocelyn Selim. Selim is a brilliant contributor to the scientific community, as she has shown time and time again, however, I feel she has leapt over the deep end with her recent submission in Discover Magazine.

In 1925 the Scopes Trial took flight with a list of over 150 so-called “vestigial” structures found in the human body. Fortunately, science has made many great leaps since 1925, now we are sure of the many functions that we were previously ignorant of. Today, this list has dissipated to practically nothing.

Jocelyn Selim has made it her duty to resurrect the idea that humans are sloppily designed, which isn’t true. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The idea of vestigial structures is actually a promotion of bad science. If a muscle is labeled as ‘vestigial’, this will conclude secular studies on the function of that muscle, thus promoting bad science. Fortunately, Christians know that God created us by his infinitely brilliant ability, and we know that if God creates something, it’s for a purpose. If God created man with a little toe, then there’s a purpose for a little toe, regardless if we understand it or not. It is, in all honesty, impossible to demonstrate the non-functionality of any structure in the human body. This is to say, proving a negative; much like me asking any atheist to “prove to me God doesn’t exist.” It cannot be done.

Another thing we must take into consideration is that we are dealing with the fallen human state. When God created man, we know that he was created “very good.” Unfortunately, compared to the first created man, we stand as the equivalent of a junkyard and a car factory. Imagine if you will a pickup truck, with a damaged bumper. Would it be logical to write Ford Motors and ask why the truck was built with a damaged bumper? Absolutely not! Similarly, we cannot attribute a fallen creation as the initial product of a Flawless Creator. Consider wingless beetles on windy islands. Due to the loss of information, or anatomical extremities, these organisms are better off for the time being.

In opening this article, the author comments on Darwin’s Book, “Descent of Man”. The author moves on to explain that Darwin had “roughly a dozen” traits that he thought were useless. The aforementioned traits include such things as the coccyx, the appendix, and also wisdom teeth in humans. Darwin is quoted in claiming that because something is rendered useless, it is no longer subject to natural selection. This doesn’t comply with common sense. Lets equate this with the supposed evolution of whales. It’s said that Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus evolved into modern day whales via evolution and natural selection. On face value this idea has many serious problems, but for the sake of this topic I will refrain from going on a tangent for now. Whales are said to have lost their posterior extremities due to the lack of use in their new aquatic environment. Many nonfunctional extremities can be a severe hindrance on survival, thus, to be helpful, natural selection would need to select against these structures.

If these legs were indeed useless or nearly useless, they would not be subject to natural selection, according to Darwin. However, their nonexistence is explained away as being due to their lack of usefulness. Certainly this is in opposition of what Darwin stated in Descent of Man.

One must ask the question, “How do you know they were useless?” To which the evolutionist will most likely respond with, “Because they are no longer present.” However, if you change the question to be, “Why are they no longer present?” The evolutionist may reply with, “Because they were not useful.” The tautological nature of this argument is scientifically unacceptable.

The publication, “Useless Body Parts”, has given us a handful of supposed anatomical failures to consider; including many oft-repeated examples that we will address, as well as many that serve well-known functions. Lets go through and touch on some of the points.

Wisdom Teeth
“Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.”

There are many factors that need to be considered when discussing the topic of wisdom teeth. Just as the author says, some people actually have no problem whatsoever with their wisdom teeth. This fact would seem to indicate that the problem is due to something other than evolutionary extractions. In the book "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional, Drs. Bergman and Howe cite the following quote,
"It is generally held that diet and the amount of breast-nursing a child has during infancy have a lot to do with the development of the jaw and teeth. Only some people have impacted wisdom teeth. There are many of us who have good functioning wisdom teeth." Allford (1978)

It is commonly known that poor diet and health can cause slower bone growth in children, which could partly be the cause of dentition problems. The substance being consumed is also an important factor. As the author stated, our diets have changed somewhat, which has led to more dentition problems. We have slowly geared away from the nuts, seeds, and fruits etc. that our ancestors (From Adam down) ate, into a slow moving line at papa’s pizza for a slice and a coke! Another thing to take into consideration is that man was considerably larger in pre-flood times. The issue of dentition could also be explained via the fall of man, thus our degenerate physical makeup could not contain certain physical traits.

Many have claimed that the lack of space for wisdom teeth is due to a shrinking jawbone, via evolution. This has been thoroughly discredited by many scientists including Harris in 1965 who studied ancient mans jaw as well as mummified Egyptian jaws said to date back 6,000 years, even up to 80,000 years according to evolutionary thinking.

The idea of a shrinking jaw offers no reasonable explanation, and also finds its roots within discredited Lamarckian evolution - the idea that physical traits are acquired, whereas it is genetics instead. It is also interesting that very few animals have compacted teeth due to evolutionary drop-downs. Many animals are said to have gotten smaller through the years, however today they are virtually untouched regarding problem teeth. This seems to indicate that it’s mainly an issue with Humans, and mainly caused by our new soft diets.

cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

Subclavius Muscle
"This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone would be useful if humans still walked on all fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few have two."

A quick breeze through General Practice records would show that the Subclavius Muscle does indeed serve a purpose, and should not be included in a list of “useless body parts”. Notice what the following – found on General Practice Notebook (GPN) – says regarding this muscle,
"Its action is to stabilise the clavicle during movements of the pectoral girdle. It acts to depress the lateral end of the clavicle and pull it slightly anteriorly. Its presence may provide protection to the subclavian vein - which lies deeply - when the clavicle is fractured. Loss of subclavius function rarely produces clinical features." GPN (2004)

I would also like to comment on another statement found in the preceding explanation put forth by the Discover article author. The statement that this muscle would be useful if humans still walked on all fours, comes with a built-in assumption that humans did indeed walk on all fours at one point or another. This is equivalent to me saying, “My friend’s tall height would still be useful if humans climbed trees for bananas like our ancestors.” By that logic, he could merely reach up and grab a banana, minimizing the need for excessive exercise. Such a statement is pointless and scientifically unsound.

Male Nipples
"Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Men have mammary tissue that can be stimulated to produce milk."

Nipples on males were one of Darwin’s evidences for descent with modification, however it wasn’t too commonly spoken of for a while until recently. Now, it seems that everywhere I go, I hear, “Why do males have nipples?” Along with many other “evidences” put forth by the author, this does not affect creation theory, but instead, is actually predicted. Contrary to common belief, a baby growing in its mother’s womb does not start out as a female; however, it does start out very similar to males and females, in that it is sexually dimorphic.

Nipples on males are one example, amongst many, of design economy and efficient embryological development. Another example would be the development of both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male). This is due to both sexes having the same genetic information for these structures. The differences are only a product of designed chemical signals later on in development.

Nipples may pose a problem for evolutionists. They are easily explained within the creation model, but how so in the evolution model? The evolutionist has a few options to select from, but all are very unsupported. Suppose the male used to suckle the young, and this explains the lactiferous ducts. But, why would this have changed? How could this have changed? Perhaps the male is evolving the ability to suckle young, and the nipples are merely nascent structures that will be beneficial in the future. Well, if they serve no purpose, as the evolutionist says, then they will not be subject to natural selection (as previously stated in Discover magazine) and will not be effected, thus, a discontinuance of evolution.

There’s also the idea that we (males) attained our nipples as a derivation of common ancestor; via the phylogenic tree of life - from reptiles to mammals and so forth. However, if this is the case, then our nipples are still evolving into something that we can use, as stated in the previous possibility. This option as well offers no clue as to the evolutionary origins of male nipples, and no evidence of the future ability to suckle young. Concluding this argument, nipples are not evidence for evolution, nor are they evidence against special creation.

Appendix
"This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy."

I feel I need to address one issue that we have seen and will continue to see in these explanations. Notice how the author speaks with such certainty; as if evolution is a well-known fact and that we know absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are littered with useless body parts. This is the nature of modern arguments, but shouldn’t be. Many evolutionists define “vestigial structures” as remnants left over from common descent. Then, they attempt to use these “vestigial structures” as evidence for common descent. This argument is as fallacious as the argument from homology; it’s merely circular reasoning masquerading as science.

The knowledge of a functioning appendix has been present even since 1976,
"The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism."
Henry L. Bockus, M.D., Gastroenterology, 2:1134–1148 (chapter ‘The Appendix’ by Gordon McHardy), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania, 1976.

Ken Ham and Dr. Carl Wieland had this to say,
"The appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:

IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.

IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream.

The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period."

Creation Magazine Volume 20, Issue 1
Published December 1997

It has been well known for decades now that the appendix is indeed a functional structure, which also has a rich blood supply; something we wouldn’t expect to see in a useless vestige. As the previous “evidences”, this should not be labeled “useless”, nor should it be used as evidence for evolution. Hopefully Discover Magazine will understand this, as other secular science journals (such as Scientific American) are already admitting its function.

cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Three

Plantaris Muscle
"Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population."

As with the Subclavius, a cursory browsing of modern medical material would give the clear function of the Plantaris muscle. It is true that this muscle serves a minor function, but there is a function nonetheless. It is known to flex the knee joint as well as plantarflex the ankle joint. The function is so minor that the long tendon is often harvested and used elsewhere. This doesn’t negate the fact that it was created in the first place. Simply because you can live without something doesn’t mean you do not need it. As with the appendix, you can live without both of your eyes, ears, lips, arms, legs and so forth; but that doesn’t mean you don’t need them.

With the plantaris muscle we see a structure that’s function is minimal. But this still doesn’t negate the fact that it was intelligently designed. Today, we have many luxury cars, motorcycles, and even roller-skates that have many things added in to make them even more enjoyable, or effortlessly controlled. Many small and minimal things add nothing to the main usability of the structure itself. One could say, we’re luxuriously made!

Darwin's Point
"A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is occasionally found in modern humans. It may be a remnant of a larger shape that helped focus distant sounds."

Many of you are thinking, “what’s Darwin’s point?” Just as the author says, there’s a small fold of skin at the top of certain people’s ears that creates a point, or a bud. This is thought to be a relic of our ancestral lineage through lower life forms up to our current state. Other such examples of this underdeveloped structure are dog-ears, rabbit ears, and many others, due to their ability to freely move their ears in many directions. Contrary to what evidence should demonstrate, even “lower evolved” creatures often times do not have this trait. The bud is merely an example of the immense variation that rests within the potential of human characteristics.

Many evolutionists consider the possibility that we had much larger ears in the past, however this would not be necessary due to our free mobility of the head. It is also known that the shape of the outer ear is designed precisely to gather sound greatly. If humans had larger ears like dogs, ear damage would be much more common and even more serious than it currently is. Dewar, in 1957 also noted that many breeds of domestic dogs do not even show a remnant of this trait.

It’s almost humorous to see what evolutionists will scrounge up to place on a pedestal as evidence for their religious paradigm.

Palmaris Muscle
"This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery."

Like the Subclavius and the Plantaris, the function of this muscle is minimal, yet certainly present when the muscle is present. Also, as with previous examples of minimally functioning muscles, a quick cursory browse through probably any anatomy book, or medical dictionary will inform you of its purpose. The following explanation was found on the GPN,
"The action of palmaris longus is to flex the wrist and tense the palmar aponeurosis." GPN (2004)

Of course the palmaris longus muscle enables us to flex our wrist, thus giving us a stronger grip. And thanks to its connection with the palmar aponeurosis, which accentuates the ridges on your palm, we have more friction in our grip on objects.

Erector Pili
"Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur for insulation or to intimidate others. Humans retain this ability (goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously lost most of the fur."

I couldn’t imagine using my goose bumps as a mechanism to intimidate anybody, but so be it! It is actually well known that the event of goose bumps actually stimulates movement of the body, thus creating friction, which in return creates heat. When a person is cold the body warns them by delivering a slight shaking. If the person doesn’t fix the heat loss problem quickly, a heavier degree of shaking will take place to create more heat. So you see, goose bumps actually serve two important functions already, sort of like an automatic thermostat.

Body Hair
"Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play a role in sexual selection, but apparently most of the hair left on the human body serves no function."

Human body hair, which covers almost the entire body, has a functional advantage over other mammal hair in that it has a high degree of touch perception, which occurs when a hair is moved or bent. Due to the nerves at the base of the hair, we know when a hair is being moved via our nervous system. R. Harris, in 1982 supplied examples of why this would be beneficial. Examples included the ability to tell if a small insect is crawling across your skin, which would be a great benefit especially if the insect is potentially dangerous.

Other human hair plays important roles as well. Such as the hair on top of your head that covers the spot where about 40% of heat dissipates. This is a great retainer to keep needed heat within the body. If you don’t fully understand, shave your head sometime and run around in the snow. Fine body hair also plays an important role by extending the boundary layer. The boundary layer is a small and still layer just above any surface. This is demonstrated when cumulative dust on top of a car doesn’t blow off completely when the car is traveling.

Not only is body hair useful for containing heat, it’s also useful for cooling the body. When you perspire, or sweat, the hairs grasp the sweat and keep it near you. This will keep your body cooled. Notice also that man has more body hair then women, usually. This is because man, being larger, sweats more and thus requires more cooling -- even more evidence of our wonderfully designed vessels.

Conclusion

The nature of this article clearly demonstrates the nature of “evidence” the ardent naturalist is willing to invoke in support of their religious paradigm. Anything from body hair to goose bumps, small muscles to small jaws, it’s all too frivolous. It’s also amazing how flexible this theory is in its evidential relationships. Just about anything on the human body can be misconstrued to demonstrate a relationship to any creature in the world.

Evolutionary theory is a dying religion, supported only by tax dollars. As we have seen this in the article published by Discover magazine, the evidences used to support this idea are silly and unconvincing.

[Soldier4Christ]

More Clues That the Earth is Young
Author: Bruce Malone

Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!

It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire plane, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.

Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planet’s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.

Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":

   1. All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.
   2. All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
   3. The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
   4. The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed.

Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.

What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old ? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood. This problem with carbon-14 dating assumptions will be described in detail in another article.

[Soldier4Christ]

No Chance of Life by Chance
Author: Bruce Malone

In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life. . . in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported belief has returned is that science has been defined as to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative-the creation of life by an intelligent designer.

 Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself.

One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.

In addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.

These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility.

No experiment has ever shown that the matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is GOD.

[Soldier4Christ]

Opossums, Redwood Trees, and Kidney Beans
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind

The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. From the chart, it is "obvious" that we all started off as penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After many "millions of years" we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our ancestors must have been one of the identical triplets—opossums, redwood trees, and kidney beans—with 22 chromosomes each.

If we are allowed to "continue evolving" we may someday be tobacco plants and maybe we may even become carp with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with 480 chromosomes! Don’t you believe it! God made this world and all life forms, as recorded in the Bible.

[Soldier4Christ]

Our Design Is No Accident
Author: Bruce Malone

Vestigial features are those parts of an organism, which are thought to be useless or no longer needed. The human tailbone is commonly to be such a feature. Vestigial features are taught to be leftover from an organism’s ancestors as it has evolved to a new way of life. The idea of vestigial features has been used as evidence for evolution since 1859 when Darwin first proposed that such features were evidence of descent of one organism from a completely different one. The logical consequence of this alleged transformation is that the "new" creatures will be left with some features, which are no longer needed in its new environmental niche.

Belief in evolution demands that we believe that each type of animal on earth is a result of descent from some previous life form. If this were the case, almost every creature should have many leftover features, which are no longer needed. Yet the more we learn about biology, the more we discover that every part of an organism serves some useful function. For example, the appendix is often said to be a useless leftover part of the human body. We know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more a useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

The acceptance of the idea that some parts of the human body are useless leftovers has had very tragic consequences. Based on the misguided concept that the human colon was a vestige of the past, Sir William Land and dozens of other surgeons stripped the colons from thousands of patients in order to "cure" a variety of symptoms. Many died. As late as the 1960's many people had their tonsils removed. This practice was again fueled by the mistaken belief that the tonsils were a useless leftover feature from our past. It is now known that they serve as an important disease fighting function and should not be removed.

There are true vestigial features as the blind eyes of cave salamanders. Blind salamanders have non-functional eyes because they live their entire lives in total darkness. At sometime in the past, normal salamanders found a niche in dark caves and apparently only those who mutated to blindness had a need to stay in the total darkness where they could compete for existence without blindness being a disadvantage. However, these salamanders are still salamanders, a mutation to blindness is hardly an upward improvement in complexity, and no new information has been added to the DNA of the salamander.

As to the question of the human tailbone, anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in the human physiology. The coccyx(tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility-it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice-skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics. This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone.

In summary, evolution predicts that there should be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose. As we learn more about the biology of living organisms, including ourselves, it is readily apparent which theory fits the data.

[Soldier4Christ]

Stasis - Yesterday Once More

Author: Bruce Malone

Illustrated throughout this article are a few of the thousands of types life which have remained literally unchanged while millions of years supposedly passed. Meanwhile other forms of life were supposedly changing all the way from fish to people without leaving any transitional record. This is one of many problems with the belief in evolutionism. The pictures in this article show the fossilized or amber encapsulated organism (often assumed to be over 100 million years old) compared with the identical modern living specimen.

It is a fact of biology that organisms have an incredible ability to reproduce copies of themselves without mistakes. So where do new types of animals come from? Evolutionists theorize that new animals arise when a reproductive mistake happens. They believe this creature slowly turns into a completely different creature (without leaving any fossil remains of the transitional forms). Meanwhile other animals of the same type remained identical for millions of years! There is an acknowledged lack of evidence for the transitional forms between vastly different types of animals. The current textbook explanation concerning the lack of fossils evidence for evolution is called "punctuated equilibrium". According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil records of their transformation because it happens fast in relatively small or isolated locations.

Logic Check Time:

What does the Biological Record Show?-Stasis (Lack of Change).

Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution is happening SO SLOW that we do not see it today.

What does the fossil record show?-No intermediate forms between different animal groups.

Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution happened SO FAST that the fossil record did not record it.

Apparently I am not the only person unconvinced by evolutionist's religious adherence to such inconsistent reasoning because a November 1991 Gallop poll showed that 47% of the people in the United States still believe that God created human beings in the last 10,000 years.

   1. Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, and author of the book,Evolution,made the following written comment when questioned why he did not include any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, . . . "if I knew of any, I certainly would have include them . . .". The full text of his statement is documented in Darwin's Enigma by Luther Sunderland, pp. 88-90. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record simply because creatures never turns into a completely different types of creatures.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Eyes Have It - Creation Is Reality
Author: Bruce Malone

Charles Darwin expressed confidence that natural selection could explain the development of the eye; but how does this confidence stand up in the light of reason? Today, we are in curious intellectual situation of allowing only naturalistic explanations into public schools. This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (creation or intelligent design) more adequately explains the observation. It would take a miraculous number of design changes to transform a light sensitive patch into an eyeball. Furthermore, each change would have to be coded onto the DNA of the "new" creature in order for the change to pass to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened. Each new feature would need to be independently useful or natural selection would not have allowed the new creature to live.

    * An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.
    * An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.
    * An eyeball without a functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.
    * An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.
    * An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless.

It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could produce any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. In Darwin's time the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Our more advanced knowledge of the intricate design of the eyes provide even stronger evidence for creation.

For instance, as we travel down the "evolutionary ladder" to examine those creatures which were supposedly among the earliest life forms on the planet, would it not be logical to expect their eyes to be less complex? Contrary to this expectation, among the lowest rock layers are found multi-cellular creatures called trilobites which have an extremely sophisticated optical system. Some trilobites had a compound eye placed in such a way as to allow 360o vision.

Compound eyes are ideally suited for detecting minute motions and some trilobites eyes were specially designed to correct for spherical aberration allowing a clear image from each facet. Even more impressive, each lens allowed for undistorted underwater imaging depth perception. Thus, one of the "earliest" in vertebrate creatures had clear underwater vision through eyes which could detect both depth and imperceptibility small motions in all directions simultaneously. Yet this creature was not at the end of the supposed evolutionary line but near the beginning! Yet no direct ancestor to this incredible complex creature (or its eye) has been found.

The complexity of eyes still argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen. With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.

[Soldier4Christ]

TTMELS. Anthropoligists, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
Author: John Hinton

I ate lunch with a bunch of anthropologists about 20 years ago and still vividly recall the words of a cultural anthropology instructor concerning the legal system of Pakistan, where this gentleman had done his Ph.D. fieldwork. He was recounting the sad truth that this wicked Islamic system gave rapists virtual carte blanche. In Pakistan, as he factually disclosed, a woman who is raped is required to produce four male witnesses in order to successfully prosecute the rapist.

As if the requirement for this absurd scenario was not bad enough, the woman faced the fear of being imprisoned for adultery if the rapist was not found guilty, after which her life would be destroyed. Obviously, no one could ever win a rape case in Pakistan, and all would be terrified to try. This anthropologist found this appalling, as did all of the anthropologists present, including both physical and cultural anthropologists. All present shuddered at how vile and repugnant this legal system was, and all were adamant that it was evil to the core. This response was, of course, to be expected, because only the lowest of humanity would condone such a miscarriage of justice.

About three months later I was again having lunch with this same anthropologist and one of his colleagues. He began carrying on about how "stupid" the students in all of his classes were. He explained that he had tried to explain cultural relativism to all of his classes, but the students were "all too stupid" to accept it. In spite of the low morals of today's youth, these students still accepted the premise that there are absolutes of right and wrong. This anthropologist could not convince them otherwise. I put my two cents in by suggesting that the students were not the stupid ones, but rather it was the idea of cultural relativism that was stupid. I reminded him of his own words about Islamic law in Pakistan, but the conversation suddenly stopped.

This same anthropologist had judged the culture of Pakistan only a few months before and every anthropologist present did likewise. He did not accept cultural relativism any more than his students did. The only difference was that they did not profess to accept it and did not contradict themselves by trying to promote it. This anthropologist was the one who could not think, not his students, and he proved himself to be unable to reason at even an elementary level. These are the people that call themselves scientists. They are the ones that present us with the most illogical, inconsistent, wild, baseless theories based on deceit, fabrications, and fallacious premises. Nothing makes evolutionists look more stupid than what they themselves say. What is so sad is that there are people who actually listen to them.

[Soldier4Christ]

TTMELS. Beetles, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
Author: John Hinton

The example of the bombardier is probably given more often than any other example as a proof against evolution. This amazing insect has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. The beetle also has a third compartment into which these two substances are injecting when the beetle feels threatened. A third liquid, an enzyme, is then injected into this chamber and acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot it out of an outlet duct with amazing accuracy at the offending animal. The hot chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.

Not only is this a beautiful example of irreducible complexity, but it makes evolutionary theory seem even wackier than ever. Evolutionary theorist and intellectual lightweight Richard Dawkins has tried to say that this was simply nature making use of materials that it had around. Not only does this preposterous argument require that nature must have had forethought and design, but it fails to explain why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place if they were not intended to be used as parts of a defense mechanism. Even in the ridiculously unlikely event that the beetle would evolve two chambers to contain otherwise useless liquids, it is even more absurd to propose that a third chamber for the catalase, and a fourth chamber for the three to combine, would come into existence along with a highly sophisticated system of sphincters for a shooting mechanism all at the same time.

This beetle is a particularly good proof that evolutionists are stupid. They only stutter or babble irrelevantly when presented with this example. The only argument that I've even seen was from a numbskull (I believe that it was Dawkins) who was criticizing a creation scientists for leaving out the catalase from his description. In other words he was arguing against the creationist view by pointing out that the whole apparatus was much more complicated than the creationist had stated, and that the impossibility of it having come into being by chance was even greater. Two chemicals were proof enough of design; three chemicals are even greater proof! We could use more enemies like Dawkins.

One would think that these wannabe scientists would get excited about such a proof and it might occur to them that if there were a designer, then their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now. They would then have a reason to pursue knowledge, instead of having wasted, useless lives geared toward the pursuit of erudite babbling that serves no purpose. What point is there in pursuing "knowledge" when they believe that their only outcome is to become one with the soil? Why would it matter to a person with such a belief what anyone believed? On the other hand, someone with a functioning brain would alter their worldview when faced with such strong evidence of creation. The evolutionist not only wastes his time with nonsense, but with nonsense that would have no value to anyone even if it were true. What makes this even more illogical is that they deify nature anyway. By positing that nature designed such creatures, they have posited that nature is an intelligent force.

How could a non-intelligent force design anything? They have posited a designed universe with an impersonal designer that doesn't think or judge. What does that do to their claim that there is no creator at all? Either the world came about by chance or it was designed. They seem to want it both ways, but of course, their real reason that they want to deny God is that they hate what is good and those who do good. Logic and reason take second place to that hatred. This is the true mark of a reprobate mind, and a very undeveloped one at that. The bombardier beetle is another thing for which we can thank God, because they make utter fools out of evolutionists.