The Science Supporting Creation

EVEN IF A SCIENTIST believes we are here by chance that does not make the belief science. Much of what is called science is really personal interpretation. For example, most scientists believe that the similarities between species and various life forms are due to a common ancestry. They believe this alone is the strongest evidence to support evolution. However, it is an interpretation, an assumption. Creationists believe that the similarities between various life forms are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. This, too, is an interpretation and assumption. Both interpretations are belief systems. No one observed the universe and life arising by either interpretation. Science depends on actual observation, directly or indirectly through instruments. The issue, then, is which belief system is better supported by science.

JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works doesn't mean that no one designed or made the airplane. And just because science can explain how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Designer and Maker behind them.

Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells from raw materials such as amino acids and other chemicals, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

Creationism cannot be scientifically proved but is supported by science. It's not rational to believe that information in any form, including genetic information, can arise by chance. It's not rational to be agnostic or atheist. Unbiased mathematical probability shows it is not rational to believe information, including genetic information, can arise by chance. Please visit: http://creationismnow.blogspot.com to read more comprehensive material on this issue.

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan
(B.A. Bible/Biology)

SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing and irreversible net energy decay, even in an open system). Even a hypothetical oscillating universe could not continue to oscillate eternally! Einstein's General Theory of Relativity teaches that the universe cannot be eternal. Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

The law of entropy doesn't allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn't happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That's not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing.

The supernatural origin of the universe cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean that no one designed or made the airplane. And just because science can explain how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Designer and Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

Even the father of Chaos theory admitted that the "mechanisms" existing in the non-living world allow for only very rudimentary levels of order to arise spontaneously (by chance), but not the kind or level of order we find in the structures of DNA, RNA, and proteins. Yes, individual amino acids have been shown to come into existence by chance but not protein molecules which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence just like the letters found in a sentence.

The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.

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. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

There’s no experiment that can repeat the past to see if we came about by chance or design. All we can do is examine the data from nature and see which position the scientific evidence best supports. Ask yourself this. If scientists must use intelligent design in the laboratory to perform genetic engineering, why then is it unscientific to believe that the DNA code found in nature originated by intelligent design.

Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemical building blocks (i.e. amino acids, nucleic acids) necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It requires an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't originate the cell or any form of life. An intelligent power outside of nature had to be responsible.

Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.” Of course, in the complexities of human society and relationships, prima facie may not always be what it seems.

An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

I encourage all to read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only micro-evolution, or evolution within biological "kinds," is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution 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 or variations of already existing genes. For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only limited evolution or adaptation, and variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible.

NEW SPECIES BUT NOT NEW DNA: 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 new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows etc.).

WHAT ABOUT THE GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SPECIES? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it's only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce.

WHAT ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION? Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection. Nature is not a genetic engineer and has no mind or ability to invent and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible!

Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza’s extensive research points to a better explanation than natural selection for variation and adaptation in nature. Dr. Guliuzza explains that species have pre-engineered mechanisms that enable organisms to continuously track and respond to environmental changes with system elements that correspond to human-designed tracking systems. This model is called CET (continuous environmental tracking). His research strongly indicates that living things have been pre-engineered  to produce the right adaptations and changes required to live in changing environments. It’s much like a car that’s been pre-engineered so that the head lights turn on automatically when day changes to night.

HOW COULD SPECIES HAVE SURVIVED if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds!

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. 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 will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. So, even if an ape or ape-like creature'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 of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.

What about the new science of epigenetics? Epigenetics involves inheritable environmental factors that can turn genes (in our DNA) on or off, but epigenetics does not alter or change the DNA code itself. Epigenetics cannot produce evolutionary change.

Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years, random mutations in the genetic code of reproductive cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.

Some evolutionists teach that evolution occurred across biological kinds suddenly due to massive environmental radiation so that, for example, a reptile suddenly changed into a bird. This, too, is nothing more than blind faith.

Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations. Mutations are accidents in the genetic code, are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. At best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species.

All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. This is powerful evidence that species did not come into existence gradually by any macro-evolutionary process but, rather, came into existence as complete and ready-to-go from the very beginning, which is possible only by special creation.

All 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 like creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited even by many evolutionists but still being taught in school textbooks.

There has never been unanimous agreement among evolutionary scientists on ANY fossil evidence that has been used to support human evolution over the many years, including LUCY.

Apes 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 tendon, muscle, bone, or cartilage, 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 anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged creatures. All 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.

What about the chimp-human DNA similarity? The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Only a certain segment of DNA between apes and humans was compared, not the entire DNA genome.

In some cases evolutionists use similarities of features between species as an argument for a "transitional link". But in all such cases the features are complete and fully functioning. And, evolutionists are not consistent when using this argument. For example, the duck-billed platypus has features belonging to birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't classify the platypus as a transitional link.

Also, so-called "Junk DNA" isn't junk. Although these "non-coding" segments of DNA don't code for proteins, they have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk").

Read my Internet article, ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?

Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.

CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Just google this title to access the Internet article. The natural tendency of matter (in an either open or closed system) is to break-down and go towards greater disorder rather than evolve towards greater order and complexity. Unless there is an already existing code and energy-converting mechanisms, substantial order cannot develop. A seed can develop into a tree only because there's a genetic code in the seed to direct its development into a tree. But, how did increasing order and complexity develop when there was no directing code in nature?

Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells from raw materials such as amino acids and other chemicals, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

What about the natural tendency for certain atoms to come together to form molecules. Or what about two or more magnets joining together? Isn't that greater complexity? It's different. There's already a natural tendency for these atoms and magnets to come together. In the case of various amino acids, however, there's no tendency for them to come together in a precise sequence to form proteins. They have to be directed to do so by DNA or the genetic code. The same is true for the various nucleic acids that make up DNA and RNA. DNA already has a code to replicate more DNA.

The issue for atheists and evolutionists is how could the original disorder of atoms and molecules (naturally) become greater order and complexity when there was both no natural tendency no existing code in nature to direct matter towards greater complexity.

Even in an open system (with abundant useful energy available), there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop substantial order. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any substantial degree. It requires an already existing DNA code to bring into existence another DNA code. How, then, did DNA originate when there was no DNA in nature? The answer is an intelligent Power outside of nature was the original source and origin of DNA and life.

THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Stanley Miller, in 1953, showed that individual amino acids can come into existence by chance but he did not show that protein molecules can arise by chance. Protein molecules require that the various amino acids come together in a precise and right sequence just like the letters in a sentence.

Furthermore, without DNA/RNA there can be no protein molecules and without protein molecules there can be no DNA/RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA and without DNA there can be no RNA. Gradually won't do.

DNA/RNA and proteins cannot function outside of a complete and living cell.

A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate, not wait millions of years to become complete and living. It couldn't have even gotten to the partially evolved stage! It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them. 

The great late British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle showed that the odds of a whole cell coming into being by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. How big is that? Consider that the number of atoms (yes, atoms) in the entire universe is 10 to the 82nd power! 

In nature there are both left-handed and right-handed amino acids, but all living things strictly require only left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the chain the protein won't work. DNA and RNA, comprising the genetic code, require strictly right-handed nucleic acids to be in an exact sequence.

Do you believe that a monkey randomly typing on computer keyboard over a billion years can produce a library of books with all the letters and words in their right sequence and place along with the correct punctuation? If yes, then you have the faith of evolutionists who who believe the first cell arose by chance over one billion years.

Of course, once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature?

Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

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. Even if creationists don't have all the answers, they should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the atheists. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

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.

There's no law in chemistry that the various molecules that make up DNA have to be in a sequence. It's possible for these molecules to come together in any order, just as it is possible for various magnetic letters to come together in any order. The fact that we find the various nucleic acid molecules in DNA in a precise sequence and order is powerful prima facie evidence of an intelligent cause and origin.

Nature cannot build DNA code from scratch. It requires already existing DNA code to direct and bring about more DNA code or a genetic engineer in the laboratory using intelligent design and highly sophisticated technology to bring DNA into existence from scratch.

Read my popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?, and then ask yourself why you don't believe. DNA can't come by chance. It requires already existing DNA or a human genetic engineer in the laboratory to bring about more DNA.

I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

IMAGINE A SCIENTIST or genetic engineer in a lab who by using intelligent planning and design makes an entire living cell, including its DNA, from scratch in a laboratory. This cell reproduces into billions of more cells.

After a hundred years, someone discovers this cell and thinks that it is nothing more than an accident of nature. That it originated by chance and was not ultimately a product of any intelligence or design. Doesn’t that sound like atheists on this site?

In reality scientists have never created life. Even if they do, it won’t be by chance. What scientists have done through intelligent design and planning is genetically modify already existing forms of life through genetic engineering. By modifying already existing forms of life scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter.

In every case of modern genetic engineering scientists have had to use already existing forms of life or their parts. But, again, if scientists do produce a living cell from scratch, it won’t be by chance but by intelligent design. So, such a feat would never support any theory of a chance origin of life. 

Recently, a scientist did use intelligent design and planning in building DNA from scratch and then planting it in an already living cell.  

Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

BIG HOLES IN BIG BANG THEORY: Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away (Red shift), but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies, and there are galaxies even running towards us (Blue shift). All this is contrary to Big Bang. Also, if Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.

The uniform distribution of gasses throughout the universe would have made sure that the gasses didn't have enough gravitational attraction to form into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited.

Big Bang scientists have never proved the existence of dark matter. They only assume that it exists. The latest technologies to detect dark matter have come up empty. Big Bang scientists must hope that dark matter exists so that it would provide enough gravitational force for planets, stars, and galaxies to form.

Big Bang scientists believe that dark matter can be the only gravitational explanation for how galaxies behave. However, other scientists have successfully shown an alternative explanation to dark matter known as MOND which stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics which you can read about here: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/is-dark-matter-just-us-being-wrong-about-gravity. In other words, it is not necessary to believe that 80% of the universe must be made up of dark matter in order to explain certain behavior and movement of galaxies.

However, “the (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses." Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in billions of galaxies. Gravity may explain how that order is maintained, but mere gravity cannot explain the origin of that order!

The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.

Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn't support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It’s one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

Read the Internet article, 'SMOKING GUN' PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert.

Most people don't realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn't report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.

HOW DO EGG YOLKS BECOME CHICKENS? (Internet Article) When you divide a cake, the cake never gets bigger. However, when we were a just a single cell and that cell kept dividing we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence of molecules in our DNA directed the molecules from our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. When you understand how your DNA works, you'll also understand how egg yolks can become chickens. Read my popular Internet article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME? Just google the title to access the article.

This article will give you a good understanding of how DNA works, as well as cloning and genetic engineering.

NOT INVENTED BY NATURE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemical building blocks (i.e. amino acids and nucleic acids) necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to organize and assemble them into a cell. It requires an already existing cell (with an already existing genetic code and biological machinery) to direct and bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't originate the cell or any form of life. An intelligent power outside of nature was responsible for the origin of life.

Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

TALES OF FISH LEGS AND DINOSAUR FEATHERS The recent news is scientists have discovered that some snippets of DNA from a fish, they once thought was extinct, can cause mice to grow limbs. This is wrongly being interpreted and hailed by the mass media as evidence that fish evolved legs. Isn’t it very interesting that the fish they got the DNA from doesn’t have any legs?

These snippets of DNA from the fish seem to be “triggering” mechanisms. They can only trigger (“turn on”) formation of limbs if the genes for limbs first exist, and since genes for limbs exist in mice then these triggering mechanisms, even if from a fish, will work. None of this means fish evolved legs.

Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can’t use either fins or feet efficiently. There are absolutely no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to support that any fish evolved limbs. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!

All real evolution and adaptations in nature are within limits. The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human). The unthinking environment has no ability to design or program entirely new genes. Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being.

A major problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of Darwinian macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. 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” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist).

Recently, it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that many of the so-called feathers were actually scales. The scales took upon a feather-like appearance during the fossilization process. There’s strong evidence that other structures interpreted as feathers are woolly plumages and collagen fibers. A few evolutionists (not even most) interpret these structures as proto-feathers and have artists drawing dinosaurs with fancy feathers for magazines and newspapers!

What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations. It can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations and traits are possible in species, not natural selection.

Genetic and biological similarities between species are no proof of common ancestry. Such similarities are better and more logically explained due to a common Genetic Engineer or Designer (yes, God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it’s more rational to believe that DNA or genetic similarities between species are due to intelligent design.

What about “Junk” DNA? The latest science shows that “Junk DNA” isn’t junk after all! It’s we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the “non-coding” segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body).

All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human.

All species in the fossil record and living are found complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. There are no partially evolved species anywhere! There is no macro-evolution in nature.

THE SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE: The Christian Scriptures (The Holy Bible) is not a book about science, but where Scripture does touch on a scientific issue, we can accept it as being true. It’s not blind faith to believe what the Bible says on a scientific issue because science itself shows us that the Christian Scriptures are the Word of God. How is this so?

When God told Moses to speak for Him before the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt, Moses asked God how the people would know that He sent him. God said that the miracles He will perform through Moses would be evidence that Moses was sent by Him. These miracles were unique and visible to all and, therefore, scientific evidence to all that Moses, indeed, was sent from God and his message can be trusted as being true.

Now, it is true that the Egyptians also were able to perform miracles (the Devil has supernatural power also), but, after a certain point, the Egyptian authorities could not replicate the miracles seen through Moses, thus demonstrating the superiority and uniqueness of the divine source of Moses’ miracles and authority.

The greatest fact of history is the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ was witnessed by His disciples, as well as many others. The disciples were afraid after Jesus died and went into hiding. It’s only because they witnessed Jesus having rose from the dead that they had the courage to preach the Christian Gospel at the risk of being put to death.

Christianity would not have succeeded if Christ had not risen from the dead. The disciples wouldn’t have had the courage to preach that Christ is Lord and Savior and that salvation is only through His name if they really believed Christ was still dead.

The unique message of the Christian Gospel that men cannot save themselves, as the other religions taught, and that only through Christ’s atoning work on the Cross can men be saved was an unwelcome message and could not have been invented or originated from men. The early Christians were threatened with torture and death for preaching such a message.

The Apostles performed signs and wonders as evidence of their authority. We could not have even gotten the Christian Scriptures and the spread of the Christian faith without the Apostles providing objective (scientific) evidence that they spoke for God. Therefore, we can trust that the Bible we now have is of divine and supernatural origin and that the men who wrote the original Scriptures were, indeed, guided by God so that it was error free.

There are numerous scientific truths in the Bible giving evidence that the writers of Scripture were, indeed, guided by God. For example, the Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 that the Earth is a sphere: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (KJV). The word “circle” in the passage comes from the original Hebrew word meaning “sphere.”

In Job 26:7 we read that the Earth is suspended in space: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing” (NIV).

In Isaiah 55:10 we read about the evaporation and condensation cycle: “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater” (NIV).

In Psalm 8:8, the Bible states that there are ocean currents in the depths of the sea, something only discovered in modern times. There are many more examples that can be cited.

It is from science we know that the Bible is God's Word and, therefore, it is totally scientific to judge the scientific theories of men by Scripture. We need not prove scientifically everything in the Bible to know that it's true. That's not necessary. Once it has been shown from science (external evidence) that the Bible must be of divine origin then it stands to reason that whatever Scripture teaches on any subject must be true. No further external or scientific evidence is necessary. 
The truth of God's Word does not depend on external evidence (science). God's Word is true regardless of any external or scientific evidence simply because it comes from God, but external evidence (science) can show us that we have God's Word. What God said to Moses was true, but how were the people to know that God spoke to Moses. That's where the external (scientific) evidence has a role to play.

MICRO-EVOLUTION VS. MACRO-EVOLUTION: Micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) simply is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution to occur, but not for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds). We have breeds or races of dogs today that we didn't have a few hundred years ago. The genes were always there in the dog population but didn't have opportunity for expression until much later. Micro-evolution does not require evolution of new genes. Macro-evolution, however, would require evolution of entirely new genes which mindless nature cannot design. Nature can only work with already existing genes or variations of already existing genes.

NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION (Internet Article): Read this article published in Russia's Pravda magazine. Just google the title to access it. Only evolution within biological "kinds" (micro-evolution) is genetically possible (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not evolution across biological "kinds" ( or macro-evolution, such as from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? Read also my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

THE FEW "INTERMEDIATE" (SO-CALLED TRANSITIONAL LINKS) IN FOSSILS claimed by evolutionists are highly disputed, even among the evolutionists. If macro-evolution really occurred there should be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils. Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms. This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. What about 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 intermediate would be unfit for survival. Species with partially evolved tissues, organs, limbs, over millions of years would be unfit for survival!

IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (i.e. genes, genetic code) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or to invent entirely new genes via random genetic mutations caused by random environmental forces like radiation. That’s blind evolutionary faith, not science. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

We have breeds or races of dogs today that we didn't have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these new races or breeds were always there in the dog population. They just didn't have opportunity for expression until much later. All species of life carry both expressed and unexpressed genes. When we witness new variations within a natural species, what we're witnessing is the expression of previously existing genes. The genes were always there. The genes themselves didn't evolve, but when previously unexpressed genes have opportunity to express themselves, we witness micro-evolution (evolution within a natural species).

How do we know that the genes were always there and didn't evolve? Because genes are chemical information. Chemical information, like other forms of information, does not and cannot arise spontaneously (by chance). An intelligent power had to have placed the genes allowing for all the variations and adaptations within natural species. Certainly, mindless nature or the environment could not have done it. It is entirely logical to believe that, in the beginning, life's Supreme Genetic Engineer (our Creator God) placed within all natural species the recessive and dominant genes for producing all varieties that exist within every natural species (i.e. varieties of humans, dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.).

MUTATIONS: There are genetic limits to biological change (evolution) in natural species. In order for biological change and evolution to occur across natural species, there must be a way for entirely new genes to originate, not just variations of already existing genes. Evolutionists hope and believe, by blind faith, that mutations will provide those new genes. Mutations are accidental changes in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation. Radiation is mindless, so when energy from radiation penetrates the genetic code that radiation randomly changes the sequential structure of the code.

Evolutionists teach that, if given millions of years, random genetic mutations caused by mindless radiation will produce entirely new genes in species so that evolution can occur from one type of life into another. It's much like saying that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel will change it into a book on astronomy! However, random genetic mutations, caused by environmental forces such as radiation, are destructive, not constructive. That's why we protect ourselves from radiation! Even if mutations are not immediately harmful, after enough of them accumulate they will be harmful. And, even if a good mutation does occur, for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being harmful to the species as a whole and even causing extinction, not upward evolution.

Geneticist John Sanford “outlined the research he had done revealing that even when a mutation arises—one that does not kill or harm a creature—it typically produces such a miniscule effect that natural selection never detects it. In other words, the survivability of one organism essentially equals that of its neighbor in a population, so that outside factors like predators or weather patterns affect them equally. Plus, even if one imagines a beneficial mutation arising in a population, it gets totally overwhelmed by huge numbers of the very slightly deleterious, invisible ones. This way, genetic information is sure to constantly diminish” (Powerhouse of Scientists Refute Evolution, Part Two, an Internet article by creationist and scientist Brian Thomas).

What about "Junk DNA?" It's not junk. It's we who were ignorant of its usefulness. These so-called "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been shown to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk"). Even more recent scientific evidence shows that they do code proteins, after all, and that we need to readjust our thinking of how the cell reads the genetic code (Read "Human Proteome More Complex Than Previously Thought," Internet article by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins). Recent research also shows that repetitive structures in DNA are vital in forming the chromosome matrix which, in turn, enables chromosomes to be functional and operative. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

At best, mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. Mutations may change the gene(s) for human hair so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair and not feathers or something else. Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.

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!

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, individual partners come together randomly. That doesn't mean the individuals themselves came into existence by chance. Genes combine by chance but that doesn't mean the individual genes came into existence by chance!

What about the new science of epigenetics? Epigenetics involves inheritable environmental factors that can turn genes (in our DNA) on or off, but epigenetics does not alter or change the DNA code itself. Epigenetics cannot produce evolutionary change.

What about the famous Tierra computer simulation supporting evolution? "In one paper, Dr. Ewert, an electrical and computer engineer, along with mathematician and philosopher William Dembski and computer engineer Robert Marks II, showed that Tierra failed to evolve information in computer simulations, even though its programmer placed unrealistic, evolution-friendly parameters into the software.

Avida is held as proof of “digital evolution,” but Symposium scientists laid bare its ugly flaws. Most notably, evolutionists had added “enormous amounts of front-loaded design” into the Avida software.¹ No wonder it shows evolution—it’s been rigged. Yet, when biologically realistic parameters are plugged in, Avida shows no information increase after all.

In another paper, mathematician Dr. Basener calculated that natural selection cannot generate new information because all evolutionary advance stops once a trait becomes optimized to its environment. So, both mathematically and in real-life biology, selection leads to a stabilized, un-evolving organism" (Powerhouse of Scientists Refute Evolution, Part Two, an Internet article by creationist and scientist Brian Thomas).

"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: We were simply ignorant of its usefulness. Recent research shows that these so-called "non-coding" and/or repetitious segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Even more recent scientific evidence shows that they do code proteins, after all, and that we need to readjust our thinking of how the cell reads the genetic code (Read "Human Proteome More Complex Than Previously Thought," Internet article by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random genetic mutations, caused by random environmental radiation, are destructive. Even if mutations are not immediately harmful, after enough of them accumulate they will be harmful. And, even if a good mutation does occur, for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being harmful to the species as a whole and even causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.

Recent research also shows that repetitive structures in DNA are vital in forming the chromosome matrix which, in turn, enables chromosomes to be functional and operative.

Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

DNA similarities within a true species can be used to establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore, similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological relationships.   

VIRAL GENOME JUNK HITS TRASH: Read this interesting article by creationist and scientist Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins (http://www.icr.org/article/9253)

Evolutionists have long claimed that human chromosomes were infected with many different viruses over millions of years, which then multiplied in the genome. Then, as some of these sections of virus-like DNA were shown to be functional, evolutionists claimed they had become "tamed" like the domestication of wild animals. When virus-like DNA were first discovered, it was thought the majority of them would prove to be junk—until now. ~Jeffrey P. Tomkins

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 new genes for 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 not always experimented and made verification before classifying organisms. Consequently, scientists many times have classified organisms as belonging to separate species when, in reality, they’re the same species, and many times organisms have been classified as belonging to the same species when, in reality, they’re separate species.

THE BIBLE TEACHES SNAKES ONCE HAD LEGS! The Bible teaches in Genesis 3:14 that the serpent (snake) was a member of the cattle family before it was cursed and made to crawl in the ground. So, the Bible implies that snakes, indeed, once had legs.

ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CAN'T BE PASSED ON: 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. 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 will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. So, 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 of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.

NYLON-EATING BACTERIA is not evidence of mutations producing new genetic information. The genes 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." Read The Internet article
NYLON-EATING BACTERIA AND EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas.

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA is a new theory of evolution that depends upon mega random radiation causing mega random mutations (accidental changes in the genetic code) to produce mega sudden changes. More and more evolutionists are believing in Punctuated Equilibria because the sudden changes would mean that species wouldn't have to go through transitional states. It's not rational to believe that mega random radiation and mutations will produce new genetic information enabling macro-evolution (evolution across biological "kinds") anymore than gradual accidental changes in the genetic code caused by low levels of random radiation. In fact, such complexity by chance is mathematically impossible! Read my Pravda Internet articles: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

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 popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?, and then ask yourself why you don't believe. DNA can't come by chance. It requires already existing DNA or a human genetic engineer in the laboratory to bring about more DNA.

SYNTHETIC DNA IS NOT CAPABLE OF MACRO-EVOLUTION, only micro-evolution. The genetic code that scientists created by intelligent design in the lab is capable of undergoing only micro-evolution (variations of already existing genes), which can produce varieties within a natural species. It is not, however, capable of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution would require scientists to engineer entirely new genes because mindless Nature isn't capable of doing that. Read my Internet article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES: Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

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. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are genetically possible. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before (After all, something has to be alive first before it can experience any change having survival value). Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A 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 alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST actually would prevent macro-evolution (evolution across biological "kinds"). Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because these traits wouldn't have any survival value while they're evolving, and, in fact, would be a hindrance and liability to a species. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete, which can only be possible by creation!

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM (Internet Article): Just google the title to access this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith.

ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! (Internet Article): Just google the title to access this Internet article. In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars, according to a Newsweek article. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.

WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each others way? Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, operate, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

DEBATE ON EVOLUTION IS NOT OVER, contrary to Hitchen's claim. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives and grant money are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO 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 scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site. Visit the site and use the "search" feature to research your topic of interest.

I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.

DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

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 of an intelligent Cause. Read my popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME, and then ask yourself why you don't believe. DNA can't come by chance. It requires already existing DNA or a human genetic engineer in the laboratory to bring about more DNA.

ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? https://english.pravda.ru/science/107069-fossils/This Internet article which examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species in fossils (i.e. reptile and mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).

DOES FISH DNA SUPPORT EVOLUTION OF LIMBS? Recent news is that scientists have discovered some snippets of DNA from an ancient fish that can cause mice to grow limbs. This is wrongly being hailed as evidence that fish had developed legs. Isn't it interesting that the fish they got the DNA from didn't have legs!

These snippets of DNA from the fish seem to be  "triggering" mechanisms. They can only trigger ("turn on") genes, such as genes for formation of limbs, but, if the genes for limbs first exist, and since genes for limbs exist in mice then these triggering mechanisms, even if from a fish, will work. None of this means fish evolved legs.

Fish do not and did not have genes for limbs. They have certain similar regulatory genes as humans. Regulatory genes regulate and control other genes. In the case of humans regulatory genes regulate and control genes for hands and fingers, and in fish they regulate and control genes for fins.

PHEX PROTEIN IN T. REX DINO BONE DOES NOT MEAN BIRDS DESCENDED FROM DINOSAURS! First, single biomolecules 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).

MICRORAPTOR WASN'T A DINOSAUR! It was a bird, a unique bird with four wings (it had fully-formed feathers!), but evolutionists classified it as a dinosaur to fit their theory. All of its traits were fully-formed and developed (not in a transitional state, i.e. part scales/part feathers). Species in a true transitional state wouldn't be fit for survival because their traits wouldn't be fully-developed or formed. Imagine a dinosaur with limbs evolving into wings and feathers over millions of years. It couldn't fully use its limbs and it couldn't fully use its wings and feathers. How would it be fit for survival over millions of years while it was evolving? Read the excellent Internet article, IS NEW FOSSIL A BIRD-EATING DINOSAUR? by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas.

NOT DINOSAUR FEATHERS! There's a lot of hype out there in the media. Read the interesting Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas, FEATHERS MISSING FROM 'FEATHERED DINOSAUR' DISPLAY. What some interpret as feathers may have been nothing more than "artifacts of the fossilization process, or partly decayed skin fibers."

MAKING SENSE OF DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE (Internet Article): Just google this title to access the article.

HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Only a certain segment of DNA between apes and humans was compared, not the entire DNA genome. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site (www.icr.org). Whatever similarities exist are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance common ancestry. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

APES 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 anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. All 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 Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.

NO VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE separation in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. 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. 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.

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 Genesis 1 ten times that life must reproduce after its own "kind." Macro-evolution teaches that life can change across "kinds." The Bible and true science teach that only micro-evolution, changes and adaptations within "kinds," is possible. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.

DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? (Internet Article) Just google the title to access 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 being flawed or useless.

RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF POOR DESIGN: Ignorance of the total usefulness of a structure is what gives evolutionists their excuse to claim that something was poorly designed. Read this interesting article: http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/

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.

ARGUMENT OF VESTIGIAL OR USELESS STRUCTURES: At one time 180 organs in the human body were considered useless or vestigial until further knowledge revealed that they weren't useless after all. The appendix, for example, has anti-bacterial properties like the tonsils. Even if a structure becomes useless because of mutations, that wouldn't support macro-evolution. Macro-evolution requires new organs to come into being. The breaking-down of existing organs because of mutations, etc. is not a helpful argument for macro-evolution. The big picture of science shows that we're here by creation and not by chance, so if there is a problem that creationists cannot answer right away, the benefit of doubt should be given to creationism. After further discovery and knowledge, the creationists will have an answer.

ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and strong scientific arguments and evidences contradicting macro-evolutionary theory are suppressed and are not presented or made known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.

AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda 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 not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!

Recommended science and creation sites: 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.

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 macroevolutionary theory and supporting creation. The book is only $5.95. Go here to read about it:http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1254.asp  

ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Reformed Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. Scripture teaches that God's wrath in hell is not an end in itself but a means to an end. 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, 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

CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN - NOT CREATED!

UNQUENCHABLE FIRE WON'T BURN ETERNALLY

SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD (7th Edition)

WILL CHRISTIANS ENJOY SEX IN HEAVEN?

CHRIST FULFILLED THE SABBATH!

NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION

THE SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scientific-authority-scripture-ranganathan-b-a-bible-biology-?published=u&trk=hp-feed-article-title-share

WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition)
http://darwinvsdarwin.blogspot.com/

MAKING SENSE OF DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE:

http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/20110423/OPINION/304239959/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

ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?

http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-fossils-really-millions-years-old.html

EVOLUTION AND BIBLE CANNOT MIX 

NO HALF-EVOLVED DINOSAURS

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

BLACKS AND WHITES EQUALLY SINNERS 

PURE RACES AREN'T DESTROYED BY INTERRACIAL MIXING 

http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/20111217/TMP08/312179974/pure-races-not-destroyed-by-interracial-mixing&pager=full_story

BLACK RACE AND THE MYTH OF HAM’S CURSE

http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/negro-slavery-and-myth-of-hams-curse.html

SOULS NOT CREATED AT CONCEPTION 

THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPONSE TO HOMOSEXUALS

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 Bible 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. One day the Spirit of God brought a great conviction of sin to the author and he remembered the words of Billy Graham and cried out to God asking Jesus Christ to come into his heart and cleanse him with His blood. 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/)

NEWSPAPER OP-ED ARTICLES ON RELIGION AND SCIENCE by Babu G. Ranganathan published in Pennsylvania's Pulitzer Prize-winning Mercury newspaper: http://www.pottsmerc.com/search?text=babu+g.+ranganathan

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

CREATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY WITH DAVID RIVES http://creationinthe21stcentury.com/creation-in-the-21st-century-episode-archive-list/