Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

TTMELS. Cat & Dog Paws, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
Author: John Hinton

Any tracker, from beginner to expert, knows the difference between canine and feline tracks and would never mistake one for the other. Dogs leave nail marks in all of their tracks, while cats never do. This in itself may not seem too striking, but it is a wonderful fact that helps make evolutionists look stupid. What amazes me so much is that I have read numerous books on tracking in which the author makes some idiotic allusion to our distant past as apes, or to the evolution of four-legged critters. All they need to do to know that this is idiotic is to look at the tracks of dogs and cats, but I guess that they are missing the forest due to the trees.

Cats have retractable claws and dogs do not. Dogs rely on their teeth to hunt, while cats rely mostly on their claws. A dog only uses its claws to help it with its footwork when it is walking or running, digging, holding pray once its caught and scratching fleas and such. They do not need to be sharp like the cat's claws so they do not need protection. What is amazing is that the cat's claws are retracted to protect them when they are not in use and they are only ejected when the cat needs to use them to hunt, defend itself, climb or for sharpening purposes. This requires specialized muscles to extend the claws like a switchblade and a specially designed sheath for these claws for when they are drawn back. It is absurd to assume that these specially designed features would have evolved by chance.

What did the cats do before they "evolved" the amazing feature of having retractable claws. They would have to have behaved like dogs. What made them decide to behave like cats and how did mindless Mother Nature respond by sticking those specially designed muscles in their paws? Was it by chance that these muscles and sheaths showed up at the same time? Did they think them into existence? Did they develop gradually over millions of years? If the latter is the case, how did they get along during the transition? Of course, they both do just fine as they were made, so why would it have been necessary for the design of either to be changed? It does not take a lot of brains to realize that they are both obviously well designed (especially dogs -- no offence to any of you who might be cat people). All of the alternatives are preposterous.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

Pigs have two short toes that do not touch the ground that are called dewclaws. Evolutionists suggest that these are vestigial because they do not understand their use, but they fail to explain of they are vestigial. If the dewclaw were useless on a modern pig, what possible use could it have had on an earlier type of pig? These same scientists are unable to suggest a possible "pre-evolutionary" use for this body part!

This is a dilemma for evolutionists for a very good reason; they are nitwits. I imagine that that these scientists would rather steal a few hundred thousand dollars from taxpayers in order to research the dilemma, but it they really want to know the purpose of dewclaws, they simply need to ask someone with some sense, like a tracker, a hunter, a dog breeder, or a farmer. Those of us who know much of anything about animals know that numerous animals other than pigs have these dewclaws, including deer, cats, and dogs.

As a tracker I know that it is quite common for some of the toes in tracks to fail to be visible. This is because they do not touch the ground in all situations, or they do so with differing amounts of force. It is very rare to see all of the toes in the tracks of certain animals. This does not mean that those digits are useless. My dog, like all dogs, has dewclaws that do not come close to touching the ground when she is standing or walking, however, she recently cracked a toenail on one of those toes. It stands to reason that she does perform an activity where those toes do come into solid and forceful contact with the ground in order for a toenail to crack.

Making a declaration that she has no use for those toes because some nutty professor is not smart enough to figure out the use is silly, to say the least. Dewclaws are used when they are running, especially when they are running uphill! Without them their forelegs would repeatedly bang against the ground and become bruised and scraped up. In the case of dogs and pigs they may also come into contact with the ground when they are digging, crawling, or a number of other activities. An evolutionist-designed dog would develop infections and die from gangrene after a short while. Fortunately for dogs and other creatures, God designed them, not ivory tower quasi-intellectuals.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

Although the presence of small bones that appear to the very imaginative as tiny remnants of legs in boa constrictors are no longer brought up much, but it still comes up every now and then. After I caught a garter snake when I was eleven years old I read several books on snakes, and most of them stated that these bones were evidence that snakes once had legs. I do remember thinking at the time about the serpent in the Garden of Eden being told that from henceforth it would have to crawl on its belly on the earth.

If I were a member of the evolutionist cult I would avoid this example, even if those small bones had proven to be remnant of legs, however, we know that the bones in boas are not remnants of legs. These alleged legs are tiny claw like structures near the base of their tale. Although they are not entirely understood, they appear to be related to the boa's sexual functions. The male actually uses them to sexually stimulate the female. Positing that these tiny structures were vestigial legs is foolishness.

Furthermore, the bones that have interpreted as remnant legs apply only to hind legs. Are they suggesting that boa constrictors walked upright with two legs and had no arms? This would make for an amusing image. Perhaps the mindless designer of the evolutionist cult failed to provide them with front legs and made the rear legs go away for symmetry's sake. That, of course, is devolution, not evolution. Of course, if this devolution took place, we'd have to explain how a mindless designer determined that there was a problem with the original design in the first place.

This would be like positing that a man that was sound asleep designed and built a watch, and later, while still asleep, altered its design by removing parts that were not necessary. How could a mindless designer be concerned with symmetry, and how could it design anything that worked? These creatures, like the whole universe, were designed by a designer that was an artist and an engineer, not by a chaotic, undefined force, and even the evolutionary cultists imply that in their writings at the exact same time that they are denying it. One might call that an oxymoron, but there are no oxymorons, only morons who posit contradictions.

Modern evolutionists seem to be devoting their lives to proving that a mindless designer can design something that works by their own attempts to design theories that are mindless, but even that does not prove that it can be done. They still have designed words in patterns that form structures that can be understood by others. However stupid these theories may be, it still required minds to structure them.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

Last summer there was a huge garden spider in the center of an intricate web next to our deck. I spent a few minutes watching it every day for a couple of weeks as this miraculous creature bounced up and down on its web. I can't honestly say that I like spiders, especially the brown recluse-like spider that made a nest in the pants that I almost put on a couple of months ago from off the floor (I smashed it too fast to discern if it was a recluse or not).

Likewise, I can't say that I liked the big black one that ran into the pile of papers behind my computer not too long ago, which kept surfacing in different parts of our house for a few days. Nevertheless, they do fascinate me to a great extent, and I do have a great appreciation of the creative genius that our Creator used to design these creatures. I also appreciate the many wonderful ways that spiders have of making evolutionists look stupid.

Spiders are able to make seven different types of webs, which they use for different purposes, such as for catching prey, for walking on, for anchor points, for wrapping prey, and for other functions. It is ridiculous to suggest that a creature could randomly develop the irreducibly complex apparatuses to make and eject one type of webbing, but to make seven types is mind-boggling. An irreducibly complex apparatus is something that could not operate if even one of its components were missing. The chances of something of this nature to appear by accident with all of its necessary parts intact are essentially zero.

This amazing material is five times stronger than steel thread, but it will stretch to over four times its length without breaking. 1 It has been used to make bulletproof vests, it can be used to close bleeding wounds, and scientists have produced nothing with which it can be compared. Furthermore, spiders have an amazing range of talents that for which they utilize their webs. Making a regular spider web is amazing enough. Many spiders make a complex web every day and eat it later as it starts to wear, after which they make a new web. How do they know how to produce such elaborate structures without instruction? It does not stop there. Harun Yahya has provided the following astonishing examples of how spiders use their webs and camouflage for hunting. 2

Trapdoor spiders build a door with their webs and attach a web hinge to them so that they may close them and remain concealed until prey comes along. Did this happen by chance, and how did it get to be a trait of all trapdoor spiders? Bola spiders make a bola out of their webs and even put small weights on them. They are quite accurate too. They wait until a moth flies by, then they throw this bola like a lasso with great accuracy and reel in their prey. I had to practice a while with my bola from Argentina in order to get reasonably good with it. The bola spider did not have to practice. He would have starved to death if he did have to do so. This could not be accounted for by evolutionary theory. The same question could be asked about Dinopsis spiders. These amazing spiders make nets out of their webs that they throw over their prey. Their mothers are not around to teach them how to do this. How does such a skill evolve?

Even more amazing are bell spiders. The bell spider makes a diving bell out of its web and actually uses it to hunt under water. How did this entire species figure out how to do this if their creator had not implanted in them the knowledge required?

There is a species of spiders called Myrmarachne that look almost like ants, except for having eight legs. They will stand around waving their two extra legs in the air to resemble antennae until an ant comes close so that they can pounce on them. How did such a small creature end up looking like an ant, and with their minute brains how do they know how to utilize this resemblance so ingeniously?

There are a number of spider kinds that surf the sky as babies. These kinds of spiders will spin a thin strand of web and leap into the wind where they can sometimes be carried thousands of feet into the air and for hundreds of miles. They are able to hang on to their threads and ride them like air surfboards. Scientists have spotted baby spiders as high as 16,000 feet in the air. This explains why spiders are often one of the first creatures to inhabit volcanic islands. How did they learn this skill on their own? 3

A very lengthy book could be written on the miraculous nature of spiders, but I'll stop here for now. Spiders are amazingly sophisticated creations, and give us many reasons to stand in awe of God's creativity.

Oddly, one of Kent Hovind's video debates was against a woman professor from Augusta University whose area of expertise was, of all things, spiders. All of this incredible evidence lay before her, and she was probably aware of all of it (I say probably because she was an incompetent scientist even by evolutionist standards), so she should have known better than anyone that spiders are evidence of intelligent design. In spite of this, she defended a nonsensical and irrational theory called the theory of evolution.

It was, however, clear that her hatred for God's people overruled any standards of scientific objectivity that she might have had. Her hatred and hostility toward Christianity and Christian values were not hidden during the debate. Perhaps, she likened herself to a venomous spider, but if she did it was very weak venom, because it failed to even make her intended victim flinch, let alone wound him. Much, or most, of her life was spent studying creatures that make evolutionists look stupid in more ways than she could have counted, but she chooses to remain stupid. What a sad and wasted life!

[Soldier4Christ]

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

One of the most astounding and preposterous claims made by evolutionists is that the human coccyx is the remains of an ancient tail. This is certainly a very amusing notion on one level, but the humor of the tale of the tail is lost when it is pointed out that it is still being taught to public school children as science. The suggestion is that we lost this tail because we no longer need it. I would agree with Kent Hovind that a tail would still come in handy. For instance, at the moment that I am writing this essay I am using both hands to type; I sure would like to be able to take a sip from my coffee cup without interrupting my typing. I could even turn the pages of music without interrupting the music. I have this Bach piece with a page turn in the middle of a flurry of 32nd notes that was troubling me just today. Why would we lose something so handy?

If we did use to have a tail, I wonder what we did with it that was so unimportant. Perhaps we used it to wag when we were happy to see other people, and we later decided that shaking hands was more dignified, so the tails just started falling off. Or maybe the tails were prehensile and we started overeating and got too heavy for the tails, and they just started breaking off when we tried to hang from trees. These wacky scientists (falsely so called) actually go on to say that this "vestigial tail" has no use at all now that it has fallen or broken off. The coccyx is more than the end of the spinal column. The human coccyx is the attachment point of nine muscles that allow for a number of movements, most important of which is for the act of defecation. Evolutionists should ask Ashley Murry of Wilmington, Delaware if she agrees with their conclusion that a coccyx is unnecessary. This young woman will be forced to wear a diaper for her entire life because she was born without a coccyx. It is unlikely that she would be very supportive of their contention.1 Another important use of the coccyx is that it assists us in the act of sitting. It is not impossible to sit without one, but it is awkward and uncomfortable. Furthermore, the coccyx helps to support certain internal organs.2

Even if we were not able to point to a precise use for the coccyx, it would still be a great absurdity to state that the end of the spine is useless. The spine has to end somewhere, so why not with the coccyx. It would not make a lot of sense for it to end with an open and unprotected spinal cord, it would be painful and messy with all of the spinal fluid dripping out into one's legs. This error on the behalf of false scientists is by no means harmless. My stepfather was told by an incompetent doctor that he needed to have his coccyx removed due to a back problem. Fortunately, he got a second opinion from a doctor who not only told him that the only thing that he needed was a series of back exercises, but that the coccyx removal operation was no longer performed by doctors. Nevertheless, apparently it was performed until fairly recent times. Those doctors who fell for this Darwinian nonsense about the coccyx would have discovered the error within twenty-four hours after their very first operation. By the way, my stepfather has not had any serious back problems in the last 30 years since following the doctor with the second opinion, and he saved a sizeable amount of money that he would have had to spend on adult diapers, braces, and follow-up surgeries. As absurd as the claim of the coccyx being useless is, it still persists.

Professed expert on science and evolutionary proponent, Isaac Asimov, numbers among modern "scientists" who have used the coccyx as an example of a vestigial organ.3 Why does he have any credibility at all, if he can believe such a yarn? The persistence of this false belief is without excuse and must be seen for what it is, propaganda for Darwinistic religion, and another great piece of evidence of the stupidity of evolutionists.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

The former claim that the human appendix has no current function was, perhaps next to the example of wisdom teeth, the most common argument for the existence of vestigial organs. I am only in my forties, but I distinctly remember asking what the function of the appendix was when I was in elementary school and being told that it no longer had a function. I was suspicious, since no one ever explained to me what the former function might have been that the appendix had allegedly lost, but I did not question it too much. I only recently learned that this alleged "former" function was posited as having to do with differences in mankind's former diet. Considering the vast differences in diets of various peoples around the world, such a claim could hardly be taken very seriously.

For years surgeons removed appendixes with the attitude that they had no function and were no serious loss. It is only fairly recently that it has been realized that the appendix has a number of functions, all of which are important. The appendix is an important part of our immune system. It is a germ free section of the dirtiest part of the body that helps the body produce antibodies and protects the intestinal tract from infection, It also is on the bottom of the only part of the intestinal tract where waste materials must move upward. The appendix performs an important role by creating fluids that force waste matter up this section of the intestines. Without an appendix we become more susceptible to a large number of diseases that are caused by bacteria and viruses, as well as to cancer.

Furthermore, as Ian Taylor has pointed out, many of our alleged ancestors, including monkeys and apes do not have appendixes, while rabbits, wombats and opossums do. 1 If this organ were a part of some evolutionary chain, where could it possibly fit in? I even encountered the absurd falsehood of a useless appendix in an anatomy textbook that is used by some medical schools, even though it was published recent enough that they should have known better. I expected such nonsense from the pseudo-scientists in fields like anthropology and paleontology, but I would expected better from medical doctors that teach anatomy to future doctors! This idiotic belief is not at harmless. Since the appendix is seen as useless, or of marginal value, many doctors have little compulsion about trashing them. Some even go so far as to offer to remove healthy appendixes while performing unrelated operations for "saving the patient from future troubles." This is the act of butchers, not healers.

I would not offend the bought and sold fascists who regulate the health industry in America by offering medical advice, but I will relate alternatives to appendectomies that have worked for others without actually advising anyone to follow these procedures. Richard Schulze, the successful naturopathic doctor so hated by the FDA and AMA for being successful, has outlined the way that he has dealt with appendicitis, which I will outline here. Appendix problems are caused by poor diet and severe constipation. The first thing that he recommends is to immediately stop eating and get an enema. A high enema, or high colonic, is very much preferable. A series of regular rectal enemas may have to suffice, if the proper equipment is not available. The enema will relieve the pressure that has built up inside of the appendix. It might even be a good idea to start with a rectal enema and work your way up to a high enema.

Fasting is recommended to be done for a few days, during which time only juice or water should be drunk and some herbal laxatives. An appendix problem is much more serious if there has been a perforation. If there has been an infection caused by a perforated appendix, antibiotic-like herbs should be taken in very heavy doses. Purple coneflower (or echinacea, echinacea purpurea, pallida and angustifolia) and garlic (Allium sativum) are recommended. A light massage of the abdomen would help at this point, but it should only be done with great care, if there is inflammation. 2

A final procedure is to apply castor oil packs 24 hours per day over the appendix. Only fresh caster oil should be used. Rancid castor oil can be more detrimental than beneficial.

Sandra Ellis describes treating her daughter for appendicitis in which the appendix actually did appear to have ruptured. 3 She followed Jethro Kloss's advice 4 and used a lobelia poultice, which was supplemented by Christopher's formula that added ginger, slippery elm and mullein. She also used comfrey tea and herbal enemas, olive oil and lobelia poultices, chamomile tea, catnip tea, alternating cold and heat packs, and reflexology. Her daughter recovered without an appendectomy, and without any infection. She provides the following formula for a poultice.
"Mix 1 tbs. of granulated or powdered lobelia with a large handful of granulated or crushed mullein leaves, and sprinkle with ginger. Add water to the herbs and mix into a paste, adding powdered slippery elm."5

Some doctors advise against using any type of laxative and suggest that this may cause a dangerous irritation of the appendix. 6 This may be good advice, but these same doctors fail to suggest releasing pressure through the other end, which would precede the laxative and relieve most of the potential for a "dangerous" irritation.

Once you get over an appendix problem, you must learn from the experience. Your eating habits should change and you should work to ensure that you remain regular. If you eat garbage that acts as intestinal glue, you get what you ask for. Most doctors have the attitude is that mutilation is the only option in the case of appendicitis, and that without them death is inevitable. We can thank the stupidity of evolutionists for this harmful misconception.
Additional Information:

   1. Taylor, Ian. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Toronto: TFE Pub., 1991, p. 268.
   2. Richard Schulze taped lectures. See also Richter, John T. Nature the Healer, p 33 ff. I suspect that Schulze may have learned of this procedure from Richter's writings.
   3. Ellis, Sandra k. Livingston. Dr. Mom: Success Stories of an Herbalist Student. Springville, Ut.: Christopher Publications, 1996, pp. 39 ff.
   4. Kloss, Jethro. Back To Eden. Back to Eden: A Human Interest Story of Health and Restoration to Be Found in Herb, Root and Bark: The Classic Guide to Herbal Medicine, Natural Foods, and Home Remedies since 1939. new revised ed. ed. Loma Linda, Cal.: Back to Eden Books® Publishing Co., 1988.
   5. Ellis, p. 45.
   6. Balch, James F.; and Phyllis A. Balch. Prescription for Nutritional Healing: A Practical A-Z Reference to Drug-Free Remedies Using Vitamins, Minerals, Herbs & Food Supplements. New York: Avery, 2000, 3rd ed., p. 183.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

The existence of wisdom teeth may very well take top dishonors as an alleged proof of evolution in the form of a vestigial human body part. It is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people - and by no means all people - is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.

Jack Cuozzo, a creationist orthodontist, did a thorough study of the skulls of so-called Neanderthals. His conclusion was that the Neanderthals were from a time when human beings had much longer life spans, developed and grew much slower, and were of superior strength, and possibly intelligence, if their larger brain capacities are an indication of this. Biblically-based theories of the degeneration of the human race are supported by evidence provided through genetic decline. The problems often caused by wisdom teeth are further evidence of this generation. Cuozzo's discussion explanation for the problems that are common with wisdom teeth in modern times may be a consequence of an increased consumption of growth hormones in foods, and due to the heavy emphasis on cooked foods that require less chewing.1 Due to less chewing, jaw muscles will develop less size. This is an environmental factor, not an evolutionary one. Evidence of this is found all over the world. People who do more chewing due to raw diets, and who are not fed the huge amounts of growth hormones that western cultures are given, have few problems with lack of space for wisdom teeth.

John D. Morris cites several other possible causes of wisdom tooth problems that have been suggested. These include poor nutrition, improper hygiene, and improper sleeping position in infants.2 Assuming that our not using these teeth means that they are useless is absurd. It is like saying the brains of evolutionary scientists are useless vestigial organs just because they do not use them.

The theories of these creation scientists is strongly supported by the research published by the Price-Pottinger Foundation.3 The research of Weston Price demonstrated that cultures that ate wholesome diets that included much raw and foods and no processed foods had considerable less teeth problems. They had no cavities, and few if any problems with crooked teeth or tooth crowding within the mouth. This shows that overcrowding in the mouth, and subsequent problems with wisdom teeth, is connected with the degeneracy of modern man. The modern world has not only strayed from God's plan for us in regard to our moral behavior, but in regard to everything else that we do. Modern man's lifestyle, music, art, clothing, and food is all unnatural and synthetic. A price must be paid for such rebellion. Part of that price is poor health, which includes poor dental health. Once again, the stupidity of evolutionists is by no means harmless. Listening to such follies as their teaching that wisdom teeth no longer have a use leads to poorer health and shortened lives.

[Soldier4Christ]

What A Wonderful World - Creatures That Defy Evolution
Author: Jordan Niednagel

If there's one thing we can all agree upon, it's that the world around us is a wonderful place; wonderful in terms of diversity, complexity, and sheer wonder, confounding our presuppositions, and often negating our preconceived ideas. We have so much to learn, even after millennias of habitation on this planet we call earth. Truly, we have scarcely seen the tip of the iceberg.

And the question still remains; how did we get here? How did life as we now know it come to be? Were we wisely fashioned by an all mighty creator, or are we the result of natural processes? Design, or chance? In this unique article, we simply will touch upon a few creatures of our world; creatures that, if nothing more, put modern technology to shame.

The Gecko

They walk across walls and ceiling as though gravity didn't exist. But how? For a long while, geckos defied all attempts to explain how they could cling to any surface with no visible sign of glue or suction cups. Then, when a group of biologists and engineers studied the microscopic hairs on the toes of geckos, the answer was found. The ends of the hairs directly attach to molecules in the surface by what is called van der Waals force, a type of attraction between atoms. According to a report in Nature, scientists concluded that engineering a structure like the foot of a gecko is "beyond the limits of human technology." However, they hope that the "natural technology of gecko foot-hairs can provide biological inspiration for future design of a remarkable effective adhesive."

The Bombardier Beetle

It's just a little bug, but it has an amazing talent. No more than three-quarters of an inch long, the bombardier beetle possesses, in a sense, its own bomb. Inside the body of this beetle are two special chambers that manufacture two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. They are mixed together and sent to a storage chamber that is attached to a second chamber, appropriately called the explosion chamber, through a muscle that acts as a control valve. Inside this explosion chamber are a number of tiny extodermal glands that feed into it, adding an enzyme catalyst. Once this all takes place, a violent explosion ensues, being sent out a perfectly positioned tube at the rear of the beetle's body. Where does it then go? Quite frankly, into the enemies' face! The would-be predator is left choking in a hot, noxious smoke, while the beetle is left with enough time to quickly make a run for it. This amazing insect can even fire with tremendous accuracy in almost any direction necessary.

The HummingBird

Those who have taken the time to set a liquid feeder outside should be familiar with the incredible acrobatics of the hummingbird. They are the smallest birds in nature, weighing less than a tenth of an ounce, with some 300 different varieties worldwide. Hummingbirds can fly backwards, forwards and sideways, or can hover in midair like a helicopter. If there's one that distinguishes hummingbirds from the rest of their feathered cousins, its their wing-flap speed. They can beat them at an incredible 80 strokes per second; so fast that the human can only view their wings as a frenzied blur. Equally incredible is their heart rate. Beating 1,000 times a minute, they inhale some 250 times in the same period of time. Because of this high metabolic rate, they must feed almost constantly. However, at night, all this changes. Hummingbirds don't sleep at night. Instead, they hibernate at night (except when the female is nesting). During this hibernation, the entire body slows down and the temperature drops to conserve energy. An amazing feat, one without which the hummingbird could not survive.

The Giraffe

What can compare to the unique design of the giraffe? Reaching 18 feet or more in height, the giraffe has one of the largest hearts in the animal kingdom, with nearly double the blood pressure of any creature. Indeed, when you observe the uphill climb that the blood must make to reach the top, you can see why so much pressure is needed. But what about when the giraffe lowers its head? Doesn't the blood rush to the brain with such tremendous force that it would kill the giraffe? Surely, you know how it is when you have been leaning over for awhile, and then suddenly stand up straight to feel sickeningly dizzy. How does the giraffe avoid this problem? Amazingly, the jugular blood vessels in its neck have a series of one-way check valves that hold back the blood from flowing to the brain when it lowers its head. Then, when the giraffe lifts its head again, it prevents the blood from flowing away from the brain too quickly. Also, at the base of the brain is a network of spongy tissue that soaks up any excess blood. Truly, an astounding example of plumbing technology.

The Seahorse

They're a fish, but they don't look like a fish. As their name indicates, they look like a horse. Swimming vertically, they even "ride" like a horse. Strangest of all, the male seahorse gives "birth" to the babies! Course, the eggs originally come from the female, but she actually deposits the several thousand eggs at a time into the abdominal pouch of the male where they are later fertilized. After that, she leaves and from that time on has nothing to do with either her eggs or her mate. The faithful male, however, protects the eggs in his pouch, and when they finally hatch, he secretes a nourishing fluid that the babies feed on. About two weeks later, he "gives birth" to the thousands of miniature seahorses, who are then, for better or for worse, left completely on their own.

Cont'd next post

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

The Platypus

Inhabiting Tasmania and southern and eastern Australia, the peculiar platypus sports a duck-like bill roughly 2.5 inches long and 2 inches wide. Inside this leathery snout are sophisticated electronic sensors that it uses to detect prey, such as shrimp, worms, and shellfish. This incredible "detector" actually senses the faint electric waves produced by these smaller creatures, where it then becomes only a matter of seconds until the platypus finds itself a meal. Stranger still is that, although the platypus is classified as a mammal, it lays eggs! As if that weren't enough, it is also venomous. Males possess a poison gland in the hind leg that opens through a bony spur on the ankle. The spur is used to defend against predators and possibly to defend its territory.

Questions:

Such amazing animals. Such complexity that we have yet to even begin to understand. For every answer, there is a question, and the more we know, the more we don't know.

How did the gecko develop its outstanding ability to climb? Were the hairs on its toes useless up until the time they were just right? Why haven't a host of other lizards developed such a beneficial ability?

How did the bombardier beetle slowly evolve such a dangerous mechanism without obliterating itself into extinction? If the chemicals were not just the right strength or right ingredients, or if the control valve did not close when the explosion took place, think of the consequences. If the mechanism didn't work until fully formed, think of the extra baggage it would have been.

How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it? What fossils do we have that show its gradual development into what we know them as today?

How did the giraffe slowly develop such a brain structure that would allow it to raise and lower its head without any problems? If they are the result of millions of years of evolution, wherein they grew longer and longer necks overtime in order to eat from the trees, why aren't there hundreds of other animals with such necks?

How did male seahorses ever evolve from non-pouch to pouch? Why would they ever develop a pouch in the first place? How did the eggs survive before the male ever developed a pouch, and who convinced the male to watch over the eggs once the pouch was developed?

If the platypus developed from some type of rat millions of years ago, how did its fleshy snout develop into a leather bill? How did the electric sensors evolve where none existed before? And why do they lay eggs? Why don't many other mammals lay eggs?

Conclusion

These are questions that some can imagine answers to, but such answers remain just that . . . imagination. An Englishman by the name of William Paley wrote nearly two centuries ago in his book, titled Natural Theology, that design requires a Master Designer. If someone found a pocket watch, he said, lying on the ground, he would reach the conclusion that it had been designed by a watchmaker. The order and design of the natural world, Paley reasoned, also points to the existence of an omnipotent Creator Designer.

As always, we don't make the conclusion, but leave the conclusion up to you.

[Soldier4Christ]

Paleontologists have discovered fossils of a species that they have called Tiktaalik roseae. The newly found species, Tiktaalik roseae, has a skull, a neck, ribs and parts of the limbs that are similar to four-legged animals known as tetrapods. After doing some more research of my own I have found that Salamanders and newts also fall into this category.

Salamanders and newts are amphibians that in early stages has gills and later developes air breathing lungs. This newly found fossil is not a missing link as touted by evolutionist scientists but rather a large version of the newt/salamander. The head is the exact same shape as that of a newt or salamander only much larger. Those that have studied Creation Science know that there is evidence that all living things were much larger at one time than they are today. The reduction in size of living things proves devolution not evolution.

Again, evolutinist scientist are getting desperate to "prove" that evolution exists and are grabbing at straws and willing to falsify their finds in order to reach their objective.

[Soldier4Christ]

About Dinosaur Adventure Land

Dinosaur Adventure Land started as a dream of Dr. Kent Hovind's. Tired of the constant propaganda being spread about evolution through nearly all public state-funded science centers and museums, as though it is a fact, Dr. Hovind decided that it was time to start a Creation Museum, Science Center, and Theme Park that glorified God. Dinosaur Adventure Land opened its doors in October of 2001 bringing in over 4,000 visitors that year. The next year the number of visitors grew to over 10,000 visitors, and then 13,000, and finally in 2004 there were over 17,000 visitors that had toured the park. Dinosaur Adventure Land offers over 80 Activities with both scientific and spiritual lessons.

Our goal is for your visit to leave you tired, smarter and closer to the Lord. There are activities for all ages from 2 to 92. There is a 3 story hands-on Science center in the middle of the park with tons of activities that will keep you busy all day long. The Creation Museum has hundreds of amazing artifacts, that show evidence for creation. Such as, the Ica stones from Peru, showing pictures of men and dinosaurs on them. As well as, a fossilized pickle, charcoal, coconut, and crayon proving that it does not take millions of years to form fossils. About 250 people have their birthdays at Dinosaur Adventure Land each year.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fine Feathered Friends and Dinosaurs
Author: Bruce Malone

From magazines to newspapers...from museums to textbooks...the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:

   1. Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.
   2. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein!
   3. Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur."

Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated.

Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever "come alive". An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator.

[Soldier4Christ]

Moore's Beach Monster - Santa Cruz, California
Author: Jordan Niednagel

Introduction

My research has been enjoyable, I'll start off by saying that. The creature of Monterey Bay, washed ashore the rocky beach of Moore more than 70 years ago, has long intrigued and spurned my imagination as few other things have. Why? Besides the obvious, I really don't know. Perhaps because the discovery was so popular that they named the place of its occurrence after the man who found it, Charles Moore. Perhaps because countless people, among them a well-known scientist, twice president of the natural History Society of British Columbia, could not dogmatically identify it. Or, perhaps just because I think this find is vastly different from the others. In my book, it stands unique.

The information I am about to convey is coming from the following type of individual: One who, at one time or another, came from both perspectives. In the beginning, I was convinced the creature was a species of plesiosaur, an animal claimed to be long extinct by mainstream science. Later, I came to the belief that, indeed, the animal was a beaked whale. Now . . . well, that is for the reader to discover.

So join me as I share a few thoughts, and then, with these thoughts in mind, I ask that you endeavor to make that ultimate, long-debated decision for yourself.

- J.P. Niednagel

The Discovery, The Area

Details of the initial discovery aren't known. Similarly, little is known about the discoverer, Charles Moore. The year was 1925, and the place a remote beach roughly two miles north of Santa Cruz. Dubbed "Moore's Beach" at the time, it is known today as Natural Bridges State Beach. Apparently, three connected arches carved out of a sandstone cliff inspired the naming of the area. The annual migration of monarch butterflies is a featured attraction, and the shore is backed by a eucalyptus grove, where the monarch butterflies arrive by the thousands in the fall.

One would think, after the name change, Moore would soon be forgotten. He wasn't. A creek in the vicinity, which drains into the ocean, is named Moore Creek. It is home to a number of ducks, coots and occasional migratory visitors of various kinds. Where it empties out at the beach, a wide and shallow pool has been formed that is popular with waterfowl.

I'd like to take a moment to describe an incident which reportedly happened some time before the discovery. A report was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel of an account of a "terrific battle" between a dozen or more sea lions and a monster fish that had been observed by a Mr. E.J. Lear, days before Charles Moore found it. As stated by Mr. Lear himself:
"I was driving a team toward Capitola, when suddenly I was attracted by some young sea lions not far out. They were lined up and several large lions were swimming back and forth in front of them. Much farther out I saw the water being churned to foam and thrown high up in the air. It was shiny and I took it for a big fish. A dozen or more lions were battling it, and every once in a while all would raise out of the water. It looked to me as though all the sea lions were attacking it beneath as the monster came out of the water several times. In telling of the battle of that night I estimated its length at 30 feet.

"The battle continued as long as I could see it from the road. I was driving toward Capitola with a load of sand. I have not seen the monster on the beach, but it may have been that which I saw."

Evidence such as this should be taken with a grain of salt, though taken nonetheless. If the account be true, the strange animal was surprisingly mauled to death by sea lions, only to wash ashore a few days later. As to why it was mauled, that is zoologist guesswork.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Descriptions

Disappointing. That's the only way to put it. The accounts and descriptions of the Moore's Beach Monster are so varied that one would think folks were describing two completely different animals. Similarities, however, do exist, and by pinpointing and identifying them one can seemingly come up with a generally good idea.

We'll begin with a well known Monterey merchant of a half-century ago. When telling of the beast, he described it as being a "serpent-like monster" approximately fifty feet in length, two feet in diameter, with a fish's tail, and a duck's head. Strangest of all, he took note of "elephant-like legs every few yards along the body," along with numerous "ivory toenails" on each one.

Our next description comes from the Monterey Peninsula Herald, which referred to the creature as a "freak of Father Neptune." They described it as being thirty-five feet in length, five feet in height, possessing a duck-shaped head, a tail like a whale, and "an odor which kept curious ones at a respectful distance."

According to the Santa Cruz News, the specimen was thirty-four feet long, its head bigger than a barrel, and its eyes bigger than an abalone. Also, it had a great oval shaped body with a neck seven feet long and thirty-six inches in diameter. Its body was covered with a coat of "semi-hair and feathers," and its mouth was like that of a duck's bill.

"In the Wake of Sea Serpents," Bernard Heuvelmans' authoritative book, discusses the monster in the following terms: "It was a strange creature, with a huge head longer than a man, tiny eyes and sort of duck's head beak. It was joined to the main body by a slender neck that seemed to be about thirty feet long."

We now come to perhaps the most intriguing description of them all, given by one of the most scientifically competent of them all. Mind the reader, not most competent, but one of the most competent. His name was E.L. Wallace, a man who served twice as president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia. He had the following to say about the animal:
"My examination of the monster was quite thorough. I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth. Its head is large and its neck fully twenty feet long. The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal. Again, its tail is too weak for an animal of the deep and does away with that last version.

"With a bill like it possesses, it must have lived on herbage . . . I would call it a type of plesiosaurus."

A stunning conclusion, no doubt. Later, Mr. Wallace offered the theory that the monster may have been preserved in a glacier for millions of years, finally being released by the gradual melting of ice, eventually ending up cast upon the shore in Monterey Bay.

In line with the "prehistoric" idea, another observation was offered by the respected Santa Cruz Judge W.R. Springer. Although he wasn't sure as to how to classify the animal into which "prehistoric" category, he was confident it was a monster from long ago. He described it as possessing a duck-like head, a twenty foot long neck, and "evidences of two short feet (or flippers, or fins) beneath the ugly gigantic head." In photographs shared later, you will see for yourself what he was referring to. Judge Springer was also quoted in a Santa Cruz newspaper as stating, "A monstrosity of the sea would probably best describe the strange creature. Should such a head as it possess be protruded over the rail of a vessel, it would be enough to put the hardest kind of an old tar on the water wagon for life."

Enough with the written descriptions. Let the reader see for himself, as below we provide most if not all of the photographs taken of the Moore's Beach Monster. (Credit - Special Collections, University of California at Santa Cruz)

[Soldier4Christ]

In a short time, these photographs will be examined more closely. Before we do so, however, we must first familiarize ourselves with one particular species of animal that has been the focal-point of the Moore's Monster controversy.


Moore's Beach Monster - Santa Cruz, California
Author: Jordan Niednagel

Introduction

My research has been enjoyable, I'll start off by saying that. The creature of Monterey Bay, washed ashore the rocky beach of Moore more than 70 years ago, has long intrigued and spurned my imagination as few other things have. Why? Besides the obvious, I really don't know. Perhaps because the discovery was so popular that they named the place of its occurrence after the man who found it, Charles Moore. Perhaps because countless people, among them a well-known scientist, twice president of the natural History Society of British Columbia, could not dogmatically identify it. Or, perhaps just because I think this find is vastly different from the others. In my book, it stands unique.

The information I am about to convey is coming from the following type of individual: One who, at one time or another, came from both perspectives. In the beginning, I was convinced the creature was a species of plesiosaur, an animal claimed to be long extinct by mainstream science. Later, I came to the belief that, indeed, the animal was a beaked whale. Now . . . well, that is for the reader to discover.

So join me as I share a few thoughts, and then, with these thoughts in mind, I ask that you endeavor to make that ultimate, long-debated decision for yourself.

- J.P. Niednagel

The Discovery, The Area

Details of the initial discovery aren't known. Similarly, little is known about the discoverer, Charles Moore. The year was 1925, and the place a remote beach roughly two miles north of Santa Cruz. Dubbed "Moore's Beach" at the time, it is known today as Natural Bridges State Beach. Apparently, three connected arches carved out of a sandstone cliff inspired the naming of the area. The annual migration of monarch butterflies is a featured attraction, and the shore is backed by a eucalyptus grove, where the monarch butterflies arrive by the thousands in the fall.

One would think, after the name change, Moore would soon be forgotten. He wasn't. A creek in the vicinity, which drains into the ocean, is named Moore Creek. It is home to a number of ducks, coots and occasional migratory visitors of various kinds. Where it empties out at the beach, a wide and shallow pool has been formed that is popular with waterfowl.

I'd like to take a moment to describe an incident which reportedly happened some time before the discovery. A report was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel of an account of a "terrific battle" between a dozen or more sea lions and a monster fish that had been observed by a Mr. E.J. Lear, days before Charles Moore found it. As stated by Mr. Lear himself:
"I was driving a team toward Capitola, when suddenly I was attracted by some young sea lions not far out. They were lined up and several large lions were swimming back and forth in front of them. Much farther out I saw the water being churned to foam and thrown high up in the air. It was shiny and I took it for a big fish. A dozen or more lions were battling it, and every once in a while all would raise out of the water. It looked to me as though all the sea lions were attacking it beneath as the monster came out of the water several times. In telling of the battle of that night I estimated its length at 30 feet.

"The battle continued as long as I could see it from the road. I was driving toward Capitola with a load of sand. I have not seen the monster on the beach, but it may have been that which I saw."

Evidence such as this should be taken with a grain of salt, though taken nonetheless. If the account be true, the strange animal was surprisingly mauled to death by sea lions, only to wash ashore a few days later. As to why it was mauled, that is zoologist guesswork.

The Descriptions

Disappointing. That's the only way to put it. The accounts and descriptions of the Moore's Beach Monster are so varied that one would think folks were describing two completely different animals. Similarities, however, do exist, and by pinpointing and identifying them one can seemingly come up with a generally good idea.

We'll begin with a well known Monterey merchant of a half-century ago. When telling of the beast, he described it as being a "serpent-like monster" approximately fifty feet in length, two feet in diameter, with a fish's tail, and a duck's head. Strangest of all, he took note of "elephant-like legs every few yards along the body," along with numerous "ivory toenails" on each one.

Our next description comes from the Monterey Peninsula Herald, which referred to the creature as a "freak of Father Neptune." They described it as being thirty-five feet in length, five feet in height, possessing a duck-shaped head, a tail like a whale, and "an odor which kept curious ones at a respectful distance."

According to the Santa Cruz News, the specimen was thirty-four feet long, its head bigger than a barrel, and its eyes bigger than an abalone. Also, it had a great oval shaped body with a neck seven feet long and thirty-six inches in diameter. Its body was covered with a coat of "semi-hair and feathers," and its mouth was like that of a duck's bill.

"In the Wake of Sea Serpents," Bernard Heuvelmans' authoritative book, discusses the monster in the following terms: "It was a strange creature, with a huge head longer than a man, tiny eyes and sort of duck's head beak. It was joined to the main body by a slender neck that seemed to be about thirty feet long."

We now come to perhaps the most intriguing description of them all, given by one of the most scientifically competent of them all. Mind the reader, not most competent, but one of the most competent. His name was E.L. Wallace, a man who served twice as president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia. He had the following to say about the animal:
"My examination of the monster was quite thorough. I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth. Its head is large and its neck fully twenty feet long. The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal. Again, its tail is too weak for an animal of the deep and does away with that last version.

"With a bill like it possesses, it must have lived on herbage . . . I would call it a type of plesiosaurus."

A stunning conclusion, no doubt. Later, Mr. Wallace offered the theory that the monster may have been preserved in a glacier for millions of years, finally being released by the gradual melting of ice, eventually ending up cast upon the shore in Monterey Bay.

In line with the "prehistoric" idea, another observation was offered by the respected Santa Cruz Judge W.R. Springer. Although he wasn't sure as to how to classify the animal into which "prehistoric" category, he was confident it was a monster from long ago. He described it as possessing a duck-like head, a twenty foot long neck, and "evidences of two short feet (or flippers, or fins) beneath the ugly gigantic head." In photographs shared later, you will see for yourself what he was referring to. Judge Springer was also quoted in a Santa Cruz newspaper as stating, "A monstrosity of the sea would probably best describe the strange creature. Should such a head as it possess be protruded over the rail of a vessel, it would be enough to put the hardest kind of an old tar on the water wagon for life."

Enough with the written descriptions. Let the reader see for himself, as below we provide most if not all of the photographs taken of the Moore's Beach Monster. (Credit - Special Collections, University of California at Santa Cruz)

In a short time, these photographs will be examined more closely. Before we do so, however, we must first familiarize ourselves with one particular species of animal that has been the focal-point of the Moore's Monster controversy.