Archive for the ‘creationism’ Category

from Got Questions:

 In a letter to the church at Colossae, the Apostle Paul gave an intriguing description of Jesus. In it, he explained Christ’s relationship to God the Father and to creation. Some have claimed that Paul’s description of Christ as the first-born of creation means that Jesus was created — not eternal, not God. Such a doctrine, however, conflicts with the rest of the Bible. Christ could not be both Creator and created; John 1 clearly names Him Creator. Let’s take a careful look at the passage where Jesus is called the first-born.

Colossians 1:15-21
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

Jesus is God
Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase “the image of the invisible God.” The word “image,” meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ’s deity. This word involves more than a resemblance, more than a representation. He is God! Although He took on human form, He has the exact nature of His Father (Hebrews 1:3).

The “Word” of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction. In the incarnation, the invisible God became visible in Christ; deity was clothed with humanity (Matthew 17:2). God is in Christ: visible, audible, approachable, knowable, and available. All that God is, Christ is.

Jesus is Lord of Creation
The description “first-born of all creation” speaks of Christ’s preexistence. He is not a creature but the eternal Creator (John 1:10). God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ (Hebrews 1:2-4).

Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word “first-born” (Greek word “prototokos”) signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership.

Therefore, the phrase expresses Christ’s sovereignty over creation. After resurrecting Jesus from the dead, God gave Him authority over the Earth (Matthew 28:18). Jesus created the world, saved the world, and rules the world. He is the self-existent, acknowledged Head of creation.

Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: “I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).

Six times the Lord Jesus is declared to be the first-born of God (see Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; Revelation 1:5). These passages declare the preexistence, the sovereignty, and the redemption that Christ offers.

Thus, the phrase “first-born of all creation” proclaims Christ’s preeminence. As the eternal Son of God, He created the universe. He is the Ruler of creation!

Read Full Post »

from David Rohl: The Official Web Site:

by David Rohl

Upon visiting Egypt, the fifth-century-BC Greek historian, Herodotus, described the land of the pharaohs as the ‘Gift of the Nile’. What he meant was that, without the life-nurturing waters of the great river, there would have been no Egyptian civilisation to admire and study. The Nile valley is a thin thread of fertility in an otherwise parched and desolate landscape – an oasis in the vast expanse of the North African desert. As a result, virtually all archaeological work undertaken by Egyptologists in the last two hundred years has been concentrated in the valley itself or along its edges where the pyramids and tombs are located. Little attention has been paid to the far desert regions which constitute ninety percent of modern Egypt’s land surface.

We are all familiar with the jewels of Egyptian civilisation – the Pyramids of Giza, the Temples of Karnak and the Valley of the Kings with its golden treasure of Tutankhamun. You may have visited Egypt yourself and been introduced to many more pharaonic sites and priceless artefacts than those I have just mentioned. But few of these splendours from Egypt’s fluorite tell us much about the beginnings of Egyptian history.

The origins of pharaonic civilisation have always been shrouded in mystery. What caused dynastic culture to burst forth in the Nile valley within such a relatively short period of time? It has long been recognised that ‘the emergence of pharaonic rule coincided with an entirely unprecedented series of phenomena’ which formed the recognisable foundation of what we identify as pharaonic Egypt. There is little evidence of kingship and its rituals very much before the beginning of the 1st Dynasty; no signs of the gradual development of metal working, art, monumental architecture and writing – the defining criteria of early civilisation. Much of what we know about the pharaohs and their complex culture seems to come into existence in a flash of inspiration.

So what was the mysterious and sudden inspiration at the heart of the origins of Egyptian civilisation? The answer, I believe, is to be found in the Eastern Desert which separates the Nile valley from the Red Sea. There, in the rugged sandstone mountains, remarkable clues have been found to suggest that newcomers arrived in Egypt towards the end of the fourth millennium BC – just a couple of centuries before the foundation of the pharaonic state at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty. These clues come in the form of hundreds of prehistoric rock drawings. They depict high-prowed reed ships and their crews. Warriors are shown dragging their vessels through the desert. Some of the boats carry as many as seventy-five crewmen. These are not small river-going craft but huge ocean-going battleships.

It appears that Egypt was invaded by seafarers from a distant land to the east, and that these newcomers were the crucial cultural and technological influence which triggered early civilisation in north-east Africa. Later I will be going into the reasons why this was the historical reality but, for now, I want to concentrate on the discovery of the prehistoric rock art and describe to you a typical expedition to locate and record these amazing images from Egypt’s most ancient past.

The expeditions into the Eastern Desert are logistically difficult operations. They have to be completed in a very short time because essential supplies are soon used up. Each survey, therefore, lasts no longer than a week. In these short bursts of activity we have to be highly mobile, moving from location to location in search of more signs of the predynastic rock art. It is also only safe to camp out in the desert in late November through to early February when the snakes and scorpions are tucked up in their holes hibernating through the short winter.

The survey mission consists of several site recorders, a team of experienced Egyptian drivers and a pair of talented beduin cooks – all crammed into five Toyota Land Cruisers, roofs piled high with tents, food rations and those two most vital commodities – water and fuel.

Let me tell the story of one particular mission to give you the flavour of an Eastern Desert Survey mission.

We set off from Edfu, heading east along the desert road to Mersa Alam on the Red Sea coast. Just beyond the little rock-cut temple of Pharaoh Seti I at Kanais we left the asphalt road and struck north-east into the wide mouth of the Wadi Abu Ashayir el-Atshan. The desert surface was hard and flat. The convoy hurtled along, billowing clouds of dust in its wake. Within an hour we were deep into the complex wadi system which would be our home for the next five days. In prehistoric times these wadis were seasonal streams affording travellers and local pastoralists oases of shady refuge and life-giving water in an otherwise inhospitable environment.

Over the last five thousand years the mountains of the Eastern Desert have become desiccated as the climate has turned much drier. Today, an expedition like the ones I lead need to be self sufficient, because even the wells cut by the pharaohs are bone dry. Hardly surprising then that few Egyptologists have ventured into this harsh terrain. However, two hardy souls need mention here because they were the first to find what we ourselves have come all this way to rediscover and record.

In March 1907 British Egyptologist, Arthur Weigall, had visited Kanais temple. He arrived by camel and spent a couple of nights camped in the ruins of a Roman fortress close to Seti’s monument. In his book Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts he mentions the discovery of early rock-art carved on the cliffs and boulders nearby. Weigall published a couple of plates of ink drawings which he had made on site. They show boats with high prow and stern, several carrying human figures or animals. This was the first occasion that these amazing Eastern Desert boats were revealed to scholars and the wider public.

Thirty years later the German explorer, Hans Winkler, headed off on his camel to the Wadi Hammamat region, east of Luxor. He too found examples of the high-prowed boats scattered all over the desert along the ancient tracks through the mountains. Winkler spent several weeks exploring the area and logged thirty-nine sites and scores of boats. Unfortunately, the final publication of his research was a meager affair with very brief descriptions, a few photographs, a set of ink drawings and a completely inadequate map of the site locations. It was obvious to me that his amazing discovery needed to be properly recorded and published for posterity. So, in 1997, the Followers of Horus Eastern Desert Survey came into being, set with the task of completing the work begun by Weigall and Winkler.

By four o’clock our convoy had travelled eighty kilometres from the asphalt road at Kanais. It was time to establish our first camp site and get some well-earned rest. We pitched our tents on the only soft sand we could find in an otherwise rocky terrain and bedded down for the night. The next day was going to be a tough challenge with nine recently located sites to record and several new wadis to explore.

At eight o’clock the next morning we found ourselves at the entrance to the ‘Canyon of the Boats’, discovered on one of our earlier expeditions. Here, in the shade of the sandstone cliffs are dozens of rock-drawings previously unknown to Egyptologists. Again, they depict large high-prowed reed ships, as well as hunting scenes, goddess-like female figures with arms raised above their heads and chieftains with tall-plumed head-dresses. We have no contemporary texts to tell us what event is being depicted or why these extraordinary illustrations are to be found here in the vastness of the Eastern Desert. There are tantalising clues to be found in the strange spells and incantations of the Pyramid Texts of half a millennium later which hark back to a time of myth and legend known to the Egyptians as the primeval age or ‘First Time’. But these prehistoric rock drawings, now coming to light, provide us with a real insight into the people of this First Time. They left us their images here in the Eastern Desert and it is up to us to try and understand who they were and why they were here.

Three hours of careful logging of the exact location by satellite GPS (Geographical Positioning System) and recording the details of the drawings was all the time available before we had to strike north once more in the direction of the black mountains of Gebel esh-Shalul. There we stopped for a late lunch in the narrow gorge which, on a previous expedition, was found to be the only route through to the Wadi Zeidun. Whilst the team examined and copied a short hieroglyphic inscription pecked out on the smooth rock-face, our Egyptian support crew set out a fine spread on the black rocks – tinned tuna, tomatoes, brown beans and unleavened bread (by now the consistency of leather). The readable part of the pharaonic text simply said ‘Overseer of the goldmines, Amenhotep …..’ – evidence of an 18th Dynasty mining expedition into the ancient gold fields which were scattered all around here but are now completely exhausted. Refreshed, fed and watered, it was time to clamber back into the four-wheel drives and head out into the Wadi Zeidun which sweeps round in a great arc before spilling into the wide expanse of the Wadi el-Kash drainage system. On we went, past herds of wild camels and the occasional fleet-footed gazelle, sometimes at break-neck speed over hard, flat ground, at other times crawling (all wheels engaged) through the soft sand and dense shrub of the wadi bed which snaked across our path. Three hours later, as sunset was fast approaching, we pitched our tents at Camp Two on a sandy dune flowing down from the craggy peak behind us. The lonely isolation and sheer scale of the setting demanded that we christened this beautiful place. I decided upon ‘Tranquillity Base’ after the first landing site on the moon. It somehow seemed appropriate.  

Like a wagon train from the wild west the vehicles had been arranged in a semi-circle to afford some protection from the cold wind of the desert nights. The open end of our corral looked out across the plain to the mountains from which we had recently exited. We huddled by the flickering camp fire enjoying hot coffee in battered enamel mugs. The eighty-degree daytime temperature was rapidly dropping as a canopy of stars began to appear above our heads.

In today’s street-lit world we have lost all sense of the astonishing beauty of the night sky. Only in places such as this, hundreds of miles from civilisation can you witness the true glory of the heavenly realm. Tucked up in a sleeping-bag your eyes are drawn skyward to observe the majestic march of Osiris (Orion) across the sky, followed by the bright star Isis (Sirius). The ancient Egyptians believed that the stars were the myriad transfigured souls of the dead. But they also developed an amazing mythology surrounding the death of the Egyptian king. The divine essence of kingship, carried within the body of Pharaoh, could not die – it was immortal. So, when the mortal king passed away, his soul began a dangerous journey through the underworld on a great ship which took the spirit of the deceased monarch from his tomb, in the western desert, eastwards towards the land of sunrise. The night sky was somehow understood to be a giant mirror reflecting that dark ocean of the underworld through which the king’s soul journeyed. As above, so below. When it finally reached the eastern horizon the divine essence of kingship was reborn as the rising sun in a place called the Isle of Flame (represented by the dawn glow). The ship which transported the spirit of the king and the accompanying gods was made of reeds. In fact it was identical in shape to the boats found on the desert rocks which we were busy recording. It too had upturned prow and stern and a central cabin. Just such a giant ship (this one made of Lebanese cedar) was found buried in a pit beside the Great Pyramid at Giza, waiting for Pharaoh Khufu to undertake his magical journey to the Isle of Flame.

It was on long starlit desert nights like these that I first began to develop an idea – an idea which I will introduce you to in part two of this article. But for the moment the myrrh-like fragrance of steaming chicken soup was wafting my way. Time for supper and six hours well-earned sleep before cracking on to Winkler’s Site 26 and the best-kept secret in the land of the pharaohs.

Another early morning start before dawn enabled us to reach the Wadi el-Kash by eight-thirty. After travelling westwards for twenty kilometres we turned south, back in the direction we had come but down one wadi system further east. This was the only way to reach Site 26. Two hours of tortuous manoeuvring through a tangle of rocks and pristine sand-dunes saw us into a wide wadi with a rich vein of vegetation running down the middle. This suggested that in ancient times there may have been a spring or perhaps even a small lake here.

The main rock-face at Site 26 is covered in extraordinary art. At the centre is a large boat (over one metre in length) in which stand five figures. The two tallest wear plumes on their heads and carry bows in their hands. Three smaller figures appear to be children. The iconic image gives the impression that you are standing before a sacred family. There is no other image in the desert quite like it.

Up and to the right of the main boat is another smaller vessel with eleven crewmen and a chieftain figure carrying a throw-stick shaped like a boomerang. He too has tall twin feathers on his head. Another scene, on a small rock below the main wall depicts a ‘dancing goddess’ with raised arms standing in her boat but, this time, her vessel is being dragged by five figures. On the opposite side of the wadi from Site 26 are more drawings. One is of particular interest. It shows a chieftain in a boat with animal’s figurehead at the prow. The chieftain wears two plumes and carries a pear-shaped mace. The latter is a typical Sumerian weapon which was unknown in Egypt before this time – an important clue as to the original homeland of the boat people.

The hidden wadi in which Site 26 and the other rock-drawings are located is a treasure house of prehistoric art, so much so that we have dubbed it the Wadi Abu Markab el-Nes – the ‘Valley of the Father of the Boat People’. Its exact location is known only to a few and we believe that our expedition is the first to reach the place since Hans Winkler discovered it in 1938. Site 26 and the other boat people locations so far discovered have all been photographed, logged and described for a catalogue entitled ‘The Followers of Horus’, published by the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences in 2000.

What we and our predecessors have discovered in the Eastern Desert is evidence of one of the most remarkable epic voyages of ancient times. We are still trying to piece together the story from the visual fragments and later epic literature of both Egypt and Mesopotamia describing the ‘First Time’. This last part of that journey, through the parched desert mountains towards the Nile valley, was perhaps the most astonishing feat of many. By dragging their huge reed ships from the Red Sea to the Nile, these foreigners, with their new weapons and culture, came to settle in Africa and, in doing so, became in effect the pharaonic culture which was later responsible for the pyramids of Giza and, ultimately, the treasures of Tutankhamun. The Egyptians knew them as the ‘Followers of Horus’, their first king, and every succeeding pharaoh regarded them as his ancestors. In Part Two of this article you will learn more about this so-called ‘Dynastic Race’ but, to close here, we should just wonder at the men and women who took it upon themselves to make this journey and the adventures they must have had on their way to their new homeland by the banks of the River Nile.

Herodotus may have regarded Egypt as the gift of the great river – but then he knew nothing of the people who had come from afar to ignite that Egyptian civilisation which the Greeks so admired.

Read Full Post »

from The Last Crusade:

Last January, Scientific American declared 2009 as “the year of Darwin” in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the revolutionary evolutionist who turned man into a monkey.

The celebration is understandable.

No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.

No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.

No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.

His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.

But a recent finding in Kenya has sent evolutionists into a tail-spin.

And freshly unearthed discoveries of Darwin’s life have caused the academic community to reconsider his greatness and his contribution to advancement of modern science.

The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – – the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.

Darwinist scientists who discovered the footprint in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.

By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer. 


David Braun, a professor at the South Africa Cape Town University and one of the scientists who came upon the fossil, states the following in Science magazine:

    “It was kind of creepy excavating these things to see all of a sudden something that looks so dramatically like something that you yourself could have made 20 minutes earlier in some kind of wet sediment just next to the site. These could quite easily have been made on the beach today.”

“The prints match a men’s shoe size of about 9, which gives you a height of about 5 feet 9 inches,” says Brian Richmond of George Washington University, who was part of the excavation team. “Here, we have really compelling evidence that they were walking with a long stride, they had an arch in the foot the way we have, and the arch puts a spring in our step, which makes walking more efficient,” he says.

Compounding the problem was the discovery in the same area of a second set of human footprints that had been left about 1,000 years after the first set.

“It’s incredible. I’ve never excavated anything like this before,” says team director John Harris of Rutgers University.

The discoveries are not only incredible but devastating for Darwinists who have held that Homo Erectus did not appear on the scene until 200,000 years ago. This assumption is contained in almost every world history and social studies text in the United States.

Since Christians are compelled by the U.S. Department of Education to present Creationism as a fanciful theory, the same ruling should now be applied to the questionable theories of Darwin and his contemporaries.

To be sure, previous problems with the theory of evolution have been found. To support natural selection, Darwin argued that giraffes gradually grew long necks in order to reach into high trees for the leaves, which the Great Scientist believed, were their sole source of sustenance. He remained blissfully unaware that giraffes eat grass and bushes, and he failed to account for the fact that female giraffes are two or three feet shorter than the males.

In their efforts to materialize empirical proof for evolution, Darwin’s followers turned to scientific hoaxes, such as “Nebraska Man” — an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig, and Piltdown Man, who was reported to represent the missing link between monkey and man.

Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man created a sensation until the artifact was exposed in the 1950s as the skull of a Medieval Englishman which had been attached by jaded scientists to the jaw of an Asian ape, whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained by shellac to look old.

Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.

Other Darwinian claims have been uncovered as asinine assertions. Bird feathers, for example, do not come from the scales of reptiles, human embryos contain no gills.

Thus far, not one fossil has been found to validate Darwin.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,” admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.

In addition to the discoveries in Kenya, newly uncovered data about Darwin the man present him as an opportunist and charlatan.

Darwin, noted scientist Eugene Winchy demonstrates in his book The End of Darwinism, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a “completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection.”

“All my originality … will be smashed,” a distraught Darwin cried when he got Wallace’s manuscript.

Darwin also lied in “The Origin of Species” about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.

In his book, Windchy devotes a chapter to the Scopes trial which formed the basis for Inherit the Wind, a Bible-mocking movie with Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow and Frederick March as William Jennings Bryan.

The trial, as it turns out, was a carefully orchestrated scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tennessee.

Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury.

And the devout Christian Bryan more than held his own against the atheist Darrow as evidenced by the actual transcript of the trial.

Read Full Post »

from Answers in Genesis:

Many of you will be familiar with the organization Reasons to Believe, headed up by Dr. Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross is known in Christian circles for compromising secular ideas, such as the big bang, billions of years, etc., with the Bible and reinterpreting the clear language of Genesis. He is one of the leading compromisers in the church today—sadly popularizing beliefs that undermine the authority of Scripture.

In the past, the largest Christian television network in the world, TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network), has featured Dr. Ross giving several presentations. Later this month, TBN will air a docu-drama called Dual Revelation. Hugh Ross speaks of dual revelation meaning that one needs to take secular interpretations such as billions of years and the Big Bang and add them to the written revelation, Scripture.

From the trailer, this docu-drama seems to involve (at one stage) a child asking her father a question about dinosaurs. Knowing what Hugh Ross believes about dinosaurs (basically the same as what the secular world teaches, that they died out 65 million years ago and well before the first humans), it is distressing to see how a worldwide television network that purports to be Christian and Bible-upholding will be airing this documentary that appears to be telling people if they don’t tell their children to believe what secular scientists are teaching, the children will walk away from the Christian faith.

However, the opposite is true. Such compromise that comes from Hugh Ross and his organization is what leads young people to walk away from the church. Our research reported on in the book Already Gone makes this very clear indeed. . . . .

read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

from OneNewsNow:

Ida_skeletonThe president of Answers in Genesis says an alleged new “missing link” found by scientists is nothing more than an extinct primate. 

 On Tuesday, scientists in New York unveiled what they described as the missing link in human evolution, a fossilized skeleton reportedly 47 million years old. They said the creature — nicknamed “Ida” — had four legs and a long tail, was about the size of a small cat, and had human-like nails instead of claws, along with a bone in her foot that is similar to humans.
According to Associated Press, scientists said while the creature is not a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, it provides a good indication of what that ancestor may have looked like.

Ken Ham, president of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, finds it ironic that the same scientists, in a research paper detailing their findings, toned down their pronouncements after pressure from colleagues in the scientific community.
“One of those reviewers said that…whether nor not it’s going to be a transitional form, or missing link, is a judgment for the scientific community,” Ham states. “And he’s quoted as saying that [issue] will be sorted out, or at least debated extensively in the community for years, once the paper is published.”
Ham says the fossil is similar to a modern lemur, and in no way resembles a human skeleton. 
The ministry has stated: “Because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the ‘missing link’ other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate — from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.”

Read Full Post »

you wouldnt find an article like this in an American paper. How ironic that it would appear in Pravda. The Russian Newspaper that was the former official newpaper for the Athiest Communist government of the Soviet Union.

from Pravada:

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or “races” of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that’s no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity’s first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity’s first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race – the human race – within which exists myriad variations and permutations.

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological “kind” such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological “kinds”, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

We have varieties of dogs today that we didn’t have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won’t change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.

Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or chance mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon or preserve.

However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic engineering!

Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don’t do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don’t do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

Most biological variations within a biological kind (i.e. varieties of humans, dogs, cats, horses, mice, etc.) are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations.

For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call “genes” are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one.

Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random forces of nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming for entirely new traits. Again, mutations only have the ability to produce variations of already existing traits. It would require intelligent manipulation of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a human being. The random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic engineering!

If the environment doesn’t possess the ability to perform genetic engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common design in planning the varied architecture of buildings!

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don’t understand is that natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations.

Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved (“selected”) and be passed on to offspring. That is called “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. But, neither “natural selection” nor “survival of the fittest” has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations.

The term “natural selection” is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic code.

Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature? As we have seen all biological variation or evolution is limited to within plant and animal kinds.

Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species – not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn’t fully evolved yet?

Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book “In The Beginning”, makes this point by saying, “All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.”

Usually what is meant by the term “biological kind” is a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological “kind” to another biological “kind” entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or recombination of already existing genes. If, for example, offspring are produced which cannot be crossed back with the original stock then there is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits developed then there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the two distinct species would continue to belong to the same “kind”.

Science cannot prove we’re here by creation, but neither can science prove we’re here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life’s origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is “A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” .

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, so-called transitional links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the Earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com .

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth’s past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah’s Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at http://www.ChristianAnswers.net.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article “The Natural Limits of Evolution” at my website http://www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.

Read Full Post »

from Fox News:

crown_of_thorns_galaxyAn unusual large galaxy with a shape bordering between spiral and elliptical has been spotted by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope.

NGC 7049 sits in the southern constellation Indus, and is the brightest of a cluster of galaxies, a so-called Brightest Cluster Galaxy (BCG). Typical BCGs are some of the oldest and most massive galaxies, which provide excellent opportunities for astronomers to study the elusive globular clusters lurking within.

The halo, a ghostly region of diffuse light surrounding the galaxy, is composed of myriads of individual stars and provides a luminous background to the swirling ring of dust lanes surrounding NGC 7049’s core.

Small faint points of light sprinkled throughout the galaxy represent globular clusters, which are gravitational groupings of several hundreds of thousands of stars. They contain some of the first stars to be produced in a galaxy.

NGC 7049 has far fewer such clusters than other similar giant galaxies in very big, rich groups. This indicates to astronomers how the surrounding environment influenced the formation of galaxy halos in the early universe.

Hubble captured this image using its Advanced Camera for Surveys, which is primed to hunt galaxies and galaxy clusters in the remote and ancient universe. The space telescope recently imaged a group of colliding galaxies chosen in an online voting contest.

Read Full Post »

“the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a “higher power” must be responsible for the complexities of life.”

Now does anyone need ANY further proof that Roman Catholicism is a false belief system? For a so called “christian church” not to believe that God is responsible for the complexities of life is just ludicrous!

If a belief system does not hold that the God of the Bible is the ultimate creator and origin of ALL creation then it cannot claim to be a Biblical belief system!

Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1-3:

“In the beginning was the Word, [logos] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; [i.e., before creation] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Colossians 1:15-17

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

One of the key words in the Colossians passage above (“…and in Christ all things hold together”) is the Greek word sunistemi which means “to stand-together,” “to be compacted together,” “to cohere,” “to be constituted with.”

This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call “weak” and “strong” forces.

Among secular scientists today there are many who acknowledge that God exists. But He is usually considered as only a First Cause-the One who brought the universe into existence and set it into motion. But most of these same scientists assume God was not involved after the initial act of creation.

This is contrary to clear statements in the Bible that God is very much involved in every event that takes place in the ongoing history of the entire universe. Causality links everything together, because God “works (Gr: energizes) all things according to the counsel of His will.” (Ephesians 1:11.)


from The Daily Telegraph:

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin’s theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a “higher power” must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a “cultural phenomenon” rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the “time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation” of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth approaches.

Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin’s opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are “totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality”.

Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin’s legacy.

They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin’s theory.

The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his “forgotten” work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds.

Read Full Post »

When I heard this I was like what? But then it turns out to be pretty neat!

do a Google on  “Laminin”

Colossians 1:17:

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together”

Read Full Post »

I mean come on! Does anyone need ANY more proof that Roman Catholicism is an Apostate and Idolatrous Church, when it shuts out those who defend that an Intelligent being was the original and ultimate Creator!


In First Things (December 2008), editor Richard John Neuhaus comments on the decision not to invite intelligent design theorists like Michael Behe, author of Edge of Evolution to the Vatican conference next March:

So let’s see now: The conference is strictly scientific. In that case, there would seem to be no reason for the Church to be sponsoring it, since there are numerous other institutions that attend to the strictly scientific. But then we are told the conference will also include philosophers and theologians, but only those who are rational – meaning, presumably, those who do not raise critical questions about the strictly scientific. We are told it will exclude scientific ideologues who reject that philosophers and theologians have to say about creation, history, teleology, and human nature, and will also exclude scientists who, on the basis of scientific evidence, contend, as the Catholic Church contends, for design and purpose in nature. The organizers seem to think they are being even-handed, but it is all quite confusing. One would not like to think that the purpose of the March conference is to secure for the Catholic Church a clean bill of health from Jeffrey Sachs and others who condemn any deviation from scientistic ideology as anti-intellectualism.

Actually, not inviting biochemist Michael Behe is scandalous. Behe, who happens to be a Catholic, is in no sense a philosopher; he is a biochemist, and the Darwin cult’s howls of outrage against Edge are the best evidence that he is on to something and that his work should be seriously considered at such a conference.

However, I think the real purpose of the conference is precisely what Fr. Neuhaus hopes it isn’t: Faith and science bores reassure each other that they are the clever ones – when they are merely the irrelevant ones.

Lots of faith and science bores are smart enough to read and understand Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box or Edge of Evolution (or for that matter Bill Dembski’s Design Inference or No Free Lunch). But when talkng to me they carefully avoid considering the arguments laid out therein, and utter instead some pious fatuity about God using evolution – like that was a new idea that had never occurred to anyone! And usually at considerable and entirely uncalled for length.

Come to think of it, Behe is a working biochemist, and the faith and science snooze fest might only be wasting his time.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: