Don’t laugh, but dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists believe that therapod dinosaurs like T-Rex evolved into birds. In fact they don’t stop there. They also believe that dinosaurs didn’t really go extinct. They’ll tell you when you’re looking at birds, you’re looking at dinosaurs. “We don’t have to talk about how dinosaurs went extinct anymore because they’re all around us. Once you realize that, you can never look at a bird the same way again” says ornithologist and evolutionary biologist Rick Prum. A recent article on the topic of dino to bird evolution states in the subtitle “Birds aren’t descended from dinosaurs, They are dinosaurs.” So yes, they really believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. Continue Reading
The Gilgamesh Epic is a series of Sumerian poems that tell heroic stories about the Sumerian god Gilgamesh. Included in the poems is a story of a global flood. That story is named after the people in Mesopotamia who occupied the land after the Sumerians – the Babylonians. The stories are written in clay tablets in cuneiform – one of the oldest, if not the oldest, form of writing known. Thus the Epic of Gilgamesh has come to be known as the Babylonian flood epic, and is one of the oldest written stories known.
Secularists who (true to form) deny the existence of the supernatural of course do not believe the Babylonian flood epic either. But they use it as a means to try to disprove the Biblical flood epic since that is clearly a symbol of divine judgment. Using the story of Pandora as an example, their logic goes something like this:
The story of Pandora and the closed box of evil that she opens which releases all manner of evil upon the world is myth, not to be believed.
The story of Eve in the garden of Eden who takes a bite of the forbidden fruit, which releases all manner of sin and evil upon the world is borrowed from the story of Pandora, and thus is also a myth, not to be believed.
In the previous article I introduced the concept of chirality. Proteins are composed of amino acids and chirality is a property of those amino acids. To better understand how this is yet another concept that proves the impossibility of Darwinian evolution, we’re going to take a journey into the world of proteins and amino acids. Along with us on the journey, our tour guide and my featured guest: Dr. Kenneth Funk. Dr. Funk holds a Ph.D. in Organic (Peptide) Chemistry. He worked for 28 years as a synthetic organic chemist in peptide process development for Abbott Laboratories for 28 years. He is pictured above giving a talk on chirality and demonstrating how the orbitals of the four shared electrons of a carbon atom form the perfect shape of a tetrahedron. That shape is a perfect arrangement for creating chiral compounds. We’ll come back to shape. For the journey we’ll borrow Cosmos’ transport method: the ship of the imagination. Because “In this ship of the imagination, free from the shackles of space and time, we can go anywhere.” Continue Reading
We’ve been looking at why Darwinian Evolution and its updated version neo-Darwinism are impossible. In part 1 I defined the terms so I won’t bother to do so here. Parts 1 and 2 cover the first 10 of the 15 reasons evolution is impossible as promised in the title. Without further ado, let’s get right to the last set of reasons.
15 Reasons why Evolution is impossible and never happened (Part 3)
The Digital Problem
11. The Digital Nature of Information in living creatures
Digital information – which by nature is coded information – is fully integrated within all living creatures. Let me point out a few examples: Continue Reading
Pavlov and his Scientists
“In the Spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love” Alfred, Lord Tennyson famously wrote. Likewise the hearts of scientists involved in origin of life studies turn to hopes of finding life somewhere in the universe other than earth. But theirs is not a “lightly turning” – it’s more like a conditioned response – the type of response you get from Pavlov’s dogs. Continue Reading
Since the original sin in the garden of Eden, mankind has searched for reasons not to believe God so he could live a life independent of God. In the garden, the serpent convinced Eve not to trust God. Why? Supposedly because God was holding back the knowledge of good and evil to the detriment of Adam and Eve. The serpent suggested God was wrong f0r withholding that knowledge, but that if they were to discover the truth, they would be “like God”. (Gen 3.5) That was a big lie. God was indeed withholding the knowledge of evil, but he was not wrong in doing so because he knew that (experiential) knowledge of evil (like disobeying God) would lead to death. And the biggest irony is – they were already like God (Gen 1.26), there was nothing to be gained from what the serpent offered.
Today there is another lie circulating to destroy belief in God: The claim that the biblical accounts are not history, but rather stories borrowed or stolen and then adapted from the made up stories of pagan religions. If there’s no reason to believe the pagan religions, then there’s no reason to believe a made up story based on it either. Continue Reading
As the above image implies, there’s a mist that surrounds the concept of microevolution that conceals clarity on the matter. If you’re not a close follower of the theories that comprise Darwin’s theory of evolution, you are probably laboring under a misconception of what microevolution is. That misconception is furthered (it appears to me) by Darwinists seeking to bolster the evidence-lacking theory. To dispel the mists surrounding this often abused term, and shine the light on the truth, following are five myths or misconceptions, and the reality or the truth behind each one.
As I point out in an article titled “Games Evolutionists Play: The Name Game” part of the problem with demonstrating the falsity of Darwinism is that evolutionists keep changing the definition in an attempt to keep evolution from being falsified. So let’s start with a firm definition. Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution” provides a firm definition of both micro-evolution and macro-evolution in the glossary of his book “The Myth of Junk DNA“: Continue Reading
In part 1 of this article, we began to explore the dynamics around the question, “Is creation relevant?” What we found is that to God, it is quite relevant – it is the first thing he wants us to know about himself, as indicated in the first verse of the Bible – “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” But today, due to a desire to make and live one’s own reality, people are throwing away what God has clearly created and instituted in order to fashion a world made to their own likings and tastes – whether such a world is true or not. And since they have rejected God’s truth – the world they fashion is increasingly distant from the truth of what God created. And thus like the shadow of Mordor over Tolkien’s middle earth, the shadow of self deception grows increasingly long over the lives of people today.
In our previous exploration, we left off pondering the question “how do we begin to address this problem of a rejection of absolutes and the creator?” – the Creator being of course the ultimate absolute. Which is where we pick it up today. In order to address the problem, we must understand what is at the root of the problem of people rejecting the Creator and His teaching on creation. Otherwise we will merely be treating symptoms, while the disease continues to ravage the body (Some of those symptoms – 80-90% who make a profession of faith fall away; 2/3 of professing young adults leave the faith by the time they leave college; the falling numbers of people adhering to Biblical truth, etc.). Thus we must understand why people reject the creator. Continue Reading
A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience. That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience? Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.
As you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.” The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience. Yet regardless of how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”
According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:
“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”
So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:
“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience
Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience: Continue Reading
|Those who deny God’s activity in the creation routinely try to kill any evidence that originates from the Bible.|
In their zeal to defend evolutionary theory evolutionists often make unfounded and fallacious charges and accusations. Following is the problem with three of those attacks.
1. A Misguided attack on reason: “There’s no evidence of God”
The only alternative to life arising via some form of evolution, is that all life originated from God. There is no other alternative. Thus, in support of the godless theory of evolution, atheists and evolutionists alike tend to use the argument “there’s no evidence of God”, and its variant “there’s no evidence for x” – for any “x” they don’t believe. They don’t believe in God, so they say there’s no evidence of God. They don’t believe in an intelligent designer, so they say there’s no evidence for intelligent design. They don’t believe in miracles, so they say there’s no evidence of miracles, and some will foolishly go so far as to say there’s no evidence of the miracle worker Jesus. What are we to make of such allegations? Continue Reading