By Babu G. Ranganathan (pronounced as Ranga-nathan)
The first edition of this article was previously published in the Science section of Russia's PRAVDA (English edition) and in the Opinion section of The Mercury newspaper of Pottstown, Pennsylvania (United States). The Mercury is the nation's smallest Pulitzer Prize-winning daily newspaper.
There's a war among evolutionists. Most evolutionists are Neo-Darwinian, believing in gradual change from one form of life to another, but a growing minority of evolutionary scientists is turning to a new theory of evolution which teaches that life forms changed suddenly from one kind into another as a result of massive genetic mutations caused by exposure to massive radiation in the environment. This new theory of evolution is known as Punctuated Equilibria.
The reasons for why these new evolutionists believe this way are because they know that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence for gradual change, and these new evolutionary scientists fully realize that partially-evolved species gradually evolving over, supposedly, millions of years with partially-evolved tissues, organs, biochemical systems and structures would be unfit for survival in the real world. How could species have survived if their vital organs were still evolving? Even non-vital structures and organs that are partially-evolved and useless would be a hindrance, interference, and liability to survival.
Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be for the fish? How would it be helpful to the survival of the species to exist in this condition over millions of years while waiting for fully formed feet and legs to evolve? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet (especially in avoiding and escaping its predators), and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers!
The new evolutionists also realize that the fossil record is hotly disputed and argued over by Neo-Darwinists. The mass media give the impression that all evolutionists agree on the fossils used to support evolution, particularly human evolution. That's not the case at all.
The reality, in fact, is that all the fossils (with their fancy scientific names), which have been used to support human evolution, have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not transitional between human and non-human (more on this subject later). The transitional links are missing throughout the entire fossil record. Could it be that the links are missing because they never existed in the first place?
There is no viable explanation for a gradualistic origin of life. How could a microbe have "survived" while evolving? A partially-evolved, incomplete, non-living, unprotected (i.e. no cell membrane) microbe would have disintegrated quickly in the open environment, not "survive" or wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and living. In fact, it couldn't have even gotten to a partially-evolved state.
Amino acids (the basic building blocks of life) have been shown to be able come into existence by chance but not proteins, DNA, and RNA. The cell is made up of millions of "building block" molecules that are arranged in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they're not in the right sequence, the cell won’t function. The laws of chemistry left to themselves could not have accomplished this. There’s no law in chemistry that these molecules have to be in a sequence. These molecules can come together in any order. The only reason for why the building blocks come together in a precise sequence in life is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of chemicals (i.e. instructions or program) in DNA.
Once you have a complete and living cell then the DNA, RNA, and other mechanisms exists to direct the formation of more cells. But, how did the cell come into existence when no directing DNA and RNA existed in nature? We ultimately have to look to an intelligent Cause outside of nature for the origin of the original DNA, RNA, and proteins. There's much more to say on this subject. Read my Internet articles, NASA, FANTASY AND SCIENCE and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
What if we find life on Mars? It wouldn't prove that it had evolved on Mars. In fact, if we do find life on Mars there would be a good reason to believe that it came from Earth. In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes and organic compounds into outer space which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors.
A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility. "We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. Read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH.
We do not hear much about this war in the media between the two views of evolution, but it's real and more and more evolutionary scientists are converting from Neo-Darwinism to Punctuated Equilibria every year by significant numbers.
Regardless of either view, the actual scientific evidence supports only the possibility of limited evolution and biological change in nature. The genes (or genetic information) already exist in all species for micro-evolution (or limited evolution within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but the genes don't exist in species for macro-evolution (changes across biological "kinds" such as from sea sponge to human).
All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible.
We have breeds or races of dogs today that we didn't have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these new breeds had always existed in the dog population but had no opportunity for expression until later. All the variety and bio-diversity that we witness among living things in nature are not the result of any evolution of new genes but simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Nature can only work with the given genetic potential of a natural species. Nature cannot increase that genetic potential.
Nature is mindless and has no ability to invent entirely new genes or new genetic information by way of random mutations of the genetic code, as evolutionists teach and believe. That’s evolutionary faith, not science.
When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic mutations in species over, supposedly, millions of years caused by random environmental agents such as radiation, produced new genes (i.e. new genetic code with new genetic information) leading to entirely new forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a faith, a belief!
Contrary to popular thought, there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by unthinking environmental forces such as radiation can or will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits. At best, mutations only produce more variations of already existing genes. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may change the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair!
Mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation and they're almost always harmful. Radiation cannot think, so when energy from radiation strikes the genetic code it results in a random change of the code. Mutations do damage to the genetic code similar to how the random energy from an earthquake damages a building. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being deleterious to the species, even causing extinction. Even "neutral" mutations will become harmful when enough of them accumulate and are passed on. Mutations may also trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. extra fingers, extra toes, etc.), even in another area of the body, but none of this involves any creation of new traits. An extra finger simply is a duplication of what already exists! Most biological changes are not from mutations but from new combinations of already existing genes.
What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It is we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Just because these segments don't code for protein doesn't mean they're not useful or that they don't code for something else. Every part of the genetic code is useful. There are no useless sections in the genetic code for random mutations to operate safely, as once thought.
Isn't nylon-eating bacteria evidence of mutations producing new genetic information? No. The genes actually were degraded by mutations and that's how the capability came about. "It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it" (Brian Thomas). Read The Internet article NYLON-EATING BACTERIA AND EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas.
What about Darwin's teaching about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only "select" from variations that are genetically possible and which have survival value. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive (i.e. change in skin color, etc.), that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible, the real issue is what biological variations are possible in nature, not natural selection.
Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before (After all, something has to be alive first before a change can have survival value). A non-living, partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by what happens to our body parts, as Darwin believed. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn't affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair won't affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Thus, even if an ape's muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations that occur in the genetic code (genetic information) of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.
Apes, in fact, are quite comfortable in how they walk just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures any more than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. All of the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human).
Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks. Read my Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Not all evolutionists agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete or there's no certainty of all the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. Museums continue to display and textbooks continue to publish so-called evidences for evolution that many evolutionists have discarded and no longer rely upon.
What about the genetic and biological similarities between species? Isn't that evidence of common biological ancestry and evolution? No. Genetic information, like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's far more rational and logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common Designer who designed similar functions and structures for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. All species share a common Designer, not a common ancestor!
What about the genetic and biological similarities between species? Isn't that evidence of common biological ancestry and evolution? No. Genetic information, like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's far more rational and logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common Designer who designed similar functions and structures for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. All species share a common Designer, not a common ancestor!
The genetic code is made up of molecules arranged in a certain sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. This sequence tells the body how to build cells, tissues, and various organs. The material used to make new cells and build our body and its various parts actually comes from food! Read my Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
To change a fish into a human being over millions of years would require changing the code. The belief by evolutionists that mutations (random changes in the genetic code caused by the environment) will change a fish into a human being over millions of years is similar to believing that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel over millions of years will change the novel into a book on astronomy!
It's interesting that Carl Sagan would have acknowledged sequential radio signals in space as evidence of intelligent life sending them, but he wouldn't acknowledge the sequential structure of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) as evidence for an intelligent Cause. Read my Internet article, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM. It requires already existing DNA or a human genetic engineer in the laboratory to bring about more DNA.
Some evolutionists have used certain similarities of traits between species as an argument for evidence of transitional forms. This is not a good argument because the traits these evolutionists cite are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. Look at the duck-billed platypus? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't argue that it's a transitional link between birds and mammals because of that!
A true transitional form wouldn't survive. It would be unfit for survival. Remember the example of the fish with part fins, part feet? Natural selection would have eliminated any such forms of life, if ever they even got to that point!
If gradual evolution occurred across biological kinds then we should find billions of clear indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record. Instead we have only a few highly disputable "transitional" forms that not even all Noe-Darwinian evolutionists can agree upon.
Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes the point that "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."
Again, the lack of indisputable, clear-cut transitional forms in the fossil record this is a major reason why more and more evolutionary scientists are converting from gradualistic, no-Darwinian evolutionary theory to Punctuated Equilibria theory. The famous late evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould believed in an extreme form of evolution. He believed that massive genetic mutations occurred in the past so that a reptile (i.e. a lizard) laid an egg one day and out of it hatched a bird! These new evolutionary scientists are at war with the old evolutionary scientists who believe in gradual evolutionary change.
However, macro-evolutionary changes from one "kind" to another "kind," whether gradually or suddenly, are totally in conflict with what we know in science concerning genetics and entropy. Random genetic mutations caused by random environmental forces such as radiation cause increasing disorder (entropy), not increasing order or complexity.
The fossil record clearly shows that all species of plants and animals came into existence as complete, fully-formed, and fully functional from the very beginning! That can happen only by a creative act. Again, partially-evolved plant and animal species would be unfit to survive while waiting millions of years to become complete and fully functional. The fact is that Darwinian macro-evolution is nothing more than a modern myth, the religion of atheism.
What about new species? Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Because of time constraints, scientists have depended on just looking for similarities in physical appearance when classifying organisms rather than actual reproductive experimentation and verification. As a result, scientists many times have classified organisms as belonging to separate species (just based on looks) when, in reality, they’re the same species, and many times scientists have classified organisms as belonging to the same species (again, based on looks) when, in reality, they’re separate species. The actual number of species of plants and animals in the world may be far, far less than what is officially documented.
Because of time constraints, scientists have depended on just looking for similarities in physical appearance when classifying organisms rather than actual reproductive experimentation and verification. As a result, scientists many times have classified organisms as belonging to separate species (just based on looks) when, in reality, they’re the same species, and many times scientists have classified organisms as belonging to the same species (again, based on looks) when, in reality, they’re separate species. The actual number of species of plants and animals in the world may be far, far less than what is officially documented.
The Bible says in the first chapter of Genesis ten different times that all life forms must reproduce after their own kind (most likely meaning species). Both the Bible and true science reveal that all biological change and variety in nature is strictly within a natural species.
Evolutionary scientists have no better explanation than chance for their origins. Evolutionary theory teaches that random (chance) mutations in the genetic code caused by the unthinking environment produced the progressive changes for natural selection to use, eventually changing a sea sponge over, supposedly, millions of years into a human being. They wouldn't even dare think that a sand castle on a beach could come about by the chance motion of wind and waves, but when it comes to themselves, life, and the universe, Darwinists worship at the altar of the chance god!
But, don't genes come together randomly in our bodies when reproductive cells are produced? Yes, but the individual genes themselves didn't originate by chance. Imagine in a dance, various individual partners coming together randomly. That doesn't mean the individuals themselves came into existence randomly or by chance.
Most (not all) scientists believe that we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. It's their personal belief, their philosophy. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is neither rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Einstein, a far greater scientist than Hawking, Dawkins, and Hitchens will ever be, believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all-powerful and intelligent Creator!
Einstein, the greatest scientist since Isaac Newton (who also believed in God and who was a devoted Christian), was no atheist! All of the founders of modern science were believers in God, including the Catholic monk, Gregor Mendel, known in science as the Father of Genetics. Darwin wouldn't have even bothered to write his fantasy book if he had known of Gregor Mendel's research and writings! Gregor Mendel's experiments with plants proved that there were limits to biological change and variation in nature. Mendel showed that only micro-evolution was possible in nature, but not macro-evolution.
By the time Gregor Mendel's works were understood, Darwin's theory had become entrenched, and evolutionary scientists used the shallow argument of mutations (random changes in the genetic code caused by radiation) as the modus operandi for macro-evolution. Even those who believed in God came to accept macro-evolution as somehow divinely guided and directed without thoroughly thinking the issue through and understanding the biological aspects and the theological implications thoroughly. Many theologians came to accept Darwinism in order to look respectable and educated. After all, it was considered intellectual to be an evolutionist and still is! Unfortunately, many creationists today don't know enough science to successfully refute Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory.
I have given lectures defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, and rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully answered them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Hawking are playing on the scientific ignorance of the masses!
Why didn't God have a beginning? The law of entropy (increasing energy decay in the universe) shows that universe requires a beginning, regardless of whether it's a closed or open system. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If the universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe will be unable to sustain any activity. The Creator, obviously, is not under the law of entropy and, therefore, doesn't require a beginning. Read my Internet article, GOD DIDN’T NEED A BEGINNING.
Scientific counter- arguments and facts from creationists concerning fossils, genetics, geology, etc. are not presented to students. Presenting these arguments alongside of evolutionary theory will help strengthen critical thinking among students. Natural laws can explain how the order in life and universe operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Look at even man-made things! Science and natural laws can explain how an automobile or T.V. works, but that doesn't mean there was no designer behind them. Mere undirected natural laws were not responsible for their origin. An intelligent mind was responsible in directing natural laws to produce the automobile and T.V.
When it comes to life, once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no previous cells and no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? We have to look outside of nature for the answer. All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
The Creator in His wisdom placed (programmed) the genes and genetic ability in all species for limited adaptation to changing environmental conditions. We exist and reproduce in nature, but we were not invented by Nature. God is the first and original Genetic Engineer!
An earthworm exists and reproduces in nature but was not invented by Nature. Take all the chemicals of an earthworm and leave them to themselves and poor Mother Nature won't be able to construct an earthworm. It requires an already existing earthworm to bring about another earthworm. The earthworm exists and reproduces in nature but was not invented by Nature!
There is no real violation of church/state separation in teaching both because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
Visit the author's new website: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION at: http://www.creationismnow.blogspot.com/. Below are some samples from the site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.
DAWKINS AND OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS won’t debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by Master's and Ph.D. degreed scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site (http://www.icr.org/). Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the mainstream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site. Visit the site and use the "search" feature to research your topic of interest.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the first cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE cannot be eternal because it couldn't sustain itself eternally due to entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
HIGGS BASON, THE “GOD PARTICLE”: What about the "God particle" or the Higgs boson? "The Higgs mechanism does not miraculously create mass out of "nothing." Rather, the mass is transferred to the particle from the Higgs field, which contained this mass in the form of energy.4, 5 Thus, the Higgs mechanism does not account for the origin of mass in the ultimate sense" (Dr. Jake Hebert and Dr. Jason Lisle, "Have Scientists Found the 'God' Particle?").
Einstein confirmed that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. So, although space cannot be felt, space actually is something not nothing! Space can be stretched and manipulated. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all-powerful and intelligent Creator.
Einstein confirmed that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. So, although space cannot be felt, space actually is something not nothing! Space can be stretched and manipulated. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all-powerful and intelligent Creator.
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Just google the title to access this Internet article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. The law of entropy in science shows that the natural tendency of matter is towards greater disorder, not towards greater order and complexity. To overcome local entropy, there must first exist an energy-converting/directing mechanism to direct and develop order, such as the DNA in a seed that directs the seed to become a tree. Spontaneous (or undirected) evolution and order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS, DNA, AND RNA: Find out why. Read my Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is neither rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME? When you divide a cake, the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my Internet article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? (Just google the title to read this Internet article). This popular Internet article of mine examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as the built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating as well as arguments about starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and assumptions regarding the geological column. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
NO REAL EVIDENCE FOR DINOSAUR TO BIRD EVOLUTION: (Just google the title to access this article). Also, go to the Internet site ANSWERS IN GENESIS to find out about how true science supports the Bible. Find out answers to questions about dinosaurs and the Bible, the age of the earth, the fossil record, etc. Just type into the "search" box on the site your question or topic of interest to find relevant articles.
PHEX PROTEIN IN T. REX DINO BONE DOES NOT MEAN BIRDS DESCENDED FROM DINOSAURS! First, single bio-molecules are typically – as in, more often than not – widely distributed within one broad taxa, but also show up in otherwise unrelated groups. For example, earthworms use mammal-specific hemoglobin in their systems, but other worms and leeches do not. So, we cannot responsibly build giant stories about relatedness based on one molecule. Second, the assertion that PHEX is bird-specific may be a reflection of low sampling data. Perhaps PHEX is in some modern reptiles, but nobody has yet found it or searched for it. So, there are several possible reasons why T rex has PHEX, and only one of those is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. And of all the reasons, that is the least likely, since there is no known natural process that can dismantle one irreducibly complex organ (reptile billows lung or T rex hip structure) and reassemble a novel irreducible organ (flow-through lung or bird’s box-like hip structure). ~ Brian Thomas (Biologist and science writer at The Institute for Creation Research).
PHEX PROTEIN IN T. REX DINO BONE DOES NOT MEAN BIRDS DESCENDED FROM DINOSAURS! First, single bio-molecules are typically – as in, more often than not – widely distributed within one broad taxa, but also show up in otherwise unrelated groups. For example, earthworms use mammal-specific hemoglobin in their systems, but other worms and leeches do not. So, we cannot responsibly build giant stories about relatedness based on one molecule. Second, the assertion that PHEX is bird-specific may be a reflection of low sampling data. Perhaps PHEX is in some modern reptiles, but nobody has yet found it or searched for it. So, there are several possible reasons why T rex has PHEX, and only one of those is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. And of all the reasons, that is the least likely, since there is no known natural process that can dismantle one irreducibly complex organ (reptile billows lung or T rex hip structure) and reassemble a novel irreducible organ (flow-through lung or bird’s box-like hip structure). ~ Brian Thomas (Biologist and science writer at The Institute for Creation Research).
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx (at the end of the spinal column). Because it grows faster than the rest of the body, it has the appearance of a tail. The coccyx is useful in supporting the pelvic muscles.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? (Just google the title to read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas). Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming the existence of something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
CANNOT MIX GENESIS AND EVOLUTION: God began with a perfect creation. Even all the animals, in the beginning, were herbivorous (not meat-eating and killing each other to survive, Genesis 1:30). Evolution doesn't begin with a perfect and harmonious creation. God says in Genesis1 ten times that life must reproduce after its own "kind." Macro-evolution teaches that life can change across "kinds." The Bible and true science confirm that only micro-evolution, changes and adaptations within "kinds" are possible. Read my Internet article: EVOLUTION AND BIBLE CANNOT MIX.
THE EVOLUTION HANDBOOK published by Chick Publications has almost 1,000 pages of easy-to-read and well referenced, documented scientific facts and explanations refuting macro- evolutionary theory and supporting creation. The book is only $5.95. Go here to read about it: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1254.asp
Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/). Excellent articles by scientists who are creationists! Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. Just type your topic of interest in the "search" box on the site!
The Institute for Creation Research offers a professional certificate diploma in The Creationist Worldview program (a comprehensive course on creation science for everyone, laypersons and scientists alike). Check out the program at: http://www.icr.org/cw/
Be sure to visit MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown's creationist site: http://www.creationscience.com/ for excellent material and study on the subject of origins.
Visit also, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.christiananswers.net/ . These sites especially answer many problem questions people raise about the Bible and science, i.e. how dinosaurs fit in with the Bible, etc. They answer many of the assumed "contradictions" people say exists in the Bible.
Finally, although I am a conservative Christian (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches or supports the traditional doctrine of eternal torment or suffering. The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. You can read the article here: http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/traditional-doctrine-of-hell-has-greek_03.html
Some popular articles by the author: Just google the titles (below) to access them.
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
UNQUENCHABLE FIRE WON'T BURN ETERNALLY
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD (7th Edition)
CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN - NOT CREATED!
WILL CHRISTIANS ENJOY SEX IN HEAVEN?
CHRIST FULFILLED THE SABBATH!
NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION
MAKING SENSE OF DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE:
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH!
HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD!
GOD DIDN'T NEED A BEGINNING
GOD DIDN'T NEED A BEGINNING
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?
EVOLUTION AND BIBLE CANNOT MIX
NO HALF-EVOLVED DINOSAURS
FISH DNA DOESN'T SUPPORT EVOLUTION OF LIMBS
FISH DNA DOESN'T SUPPORT EVOLUTION OF LIMBS
RATIONAL CHRISTIAN ANSWER TO AYN RAND
INDIAN CHRISTIANS DESPERATELY NEED YOUR HELP
PROTECT YOUR BODY WITH COLLOIDAL SILVER
TREASURE OF GOOD HEALTH AT WALMART
CHEMOTHERAPY SUCCESS WITH ALOE VERA
THE RACIST GERMAN SHEPHERD AND THE BULLDOG
PURE RACES AREN'T DESTROYED BY INTERRACIAL MIXING
BLACK RACE AND THE MYTH OF HAM’S CURSE
SOULS NOT CREATED AT CONCEPTION
THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPONSE TO HOMOSEXUALS
SOCIETY'S RIGHTS VS. CAPITALISM'S RIGHTS
THE FAR LEFT AND RIGHT OF THINGS
THE FAR LEFT AND RIGHT OF THINGS
THE UNITED STATES OWES MEXICO
WHY TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY WON'T TRICKLE DOWN ANYMORE
HOW WE CAN GET OUR KIDS TO LEARN IN SCHOOL! There is a teaching method that will ensure that all students will do their homework, learn their lessons, and have fun doing them (no joke). Read my letter-to-the-editor, "Creativity, Not Class Size" published in USATODAY on May 30, 2012. My letter is underneath the letter on PSAtesting: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/story/2012-05-3PSA-test-education-class-size/55292028/1
*ABOUT THE AUTHOR: The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology from Bob Jones University (the author does not endorse or support everything about the University). Mr. Ranganathan has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East." He also completed two years of full-time graduate study in law at Western New England College School of Law. The author’s articles may be accessed at http://www.religionscience.com/
The author was born in Madras (Chennai), India. Although born and raised in a Hindu family, he received Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Lord and Savior at the young age of fourteen. The author had heard the Gospel message from the preaching of evangelist Dr. Billy Graham on television. In due time, the Spirit of God brought a great conviction of sin and saving repentance and faith in Christ to the author's life. Read the author's essay on God and His plan of salvation, THE CHRISTIAN GOSPEL: http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/christian-gospel.html
Visit my friends:
The Mercury (http://www.pottsmerc.com/)
Pravda (http://www.english.pravda.ru/)
Winner of the Best Films Series of the Year award, plus the Best Documentary Film of the Year award - Christian Film Distributors AssociationRead more here: http://christiananswers.net/catalog/or-vs.html
ORIGINS
How the World Came to Be (A scientific film documentary supporting creation)
The most highly acclaimed and popular creation series ever!Winner of the Best Films Series of the Year award, plus the Best Documentary Film of the Year award - Christian Film Distributors AssociationRead more here: http://christiananswers.net/catalog/or-vs.html
