Biology
John 1:3 “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
‘Nearly 50% of the people in the United States, including many Christians, believe that God did indeed create all things. Unfortunately, they believe He used evolution as His instrument of creation.
Christians often adopt this idea because they are unaware that there are thousands of scientists who believe God created the entire universe supernaturally in six days. Many are unaware that good scientific reasons exist to accept God’s work of creating just as it is described in the Bible. While it doesn’t get much media attention, the work being done by these creation scientists is challenging evolutionism. The work of creationists has appeared in scientific journals. Scientists who believe the truth of the Bible’s account of creation are involved in the professional scientific dialogue that continually goes on among science professionals.
At seminars conducted by these scientists, I have heard smiling, joyful people telling everyone they saw, “I didn’t know that the Bible offered an intelligent alternative to evolution. I didn’t know there were so many well-educated scientists who were creationists! What I have heard today shows me that I can be a more faithful follower of my Lord Jesus Christ and give up belief in evolution!”
There are no ‘facts” that demand that an educated person accept evolution as fact. The testimony of thousands of believing scientists confirms this. The instrument of God’s creation was not natural law, but His Son, who took our form upon Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ for our salvation!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/did-god-create-by-evolution-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=did-god-create-by-evolution-2&mc_cid=d9f244d1e3&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Acts 17:29
“Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.”
Nearly everyone just “knows” that if enough monkeys were allowed to pound away at typewriters for enough time, they would eventually produce all the great works of literature. But there are some fundamental laws of science and some very simple commonsense facts that show this claim to be nonsense.
Perhaps after a day or two some monkey might type the word “to” with spaces before and after it. Eventually another monkey might type the word “be.” Given sufficient time and monkeys, we might end up with “To be or not to be.” By this simple, mindless chance typing of letters we could eventually get all the great works of literature.
The truth is, time works against our fearless troupe of innumerable monkeys. If they are going to get their work done, they have to get their job done in a hurry. Neither monkeys nor typewriters last forever. Then there is the problem of paper. Someone has calculated that even if monkeys and typewriters lasted forever and there was an unlimited supply of paper, the worthless trash our monkeys would produce would fill the entire universe before they could get out one Shakespeare play—not to mention War and Peace!
Neither science nor the laws of probability support this nonsensical theory about monkeys. Common sense shows us that this illustration, often used by evolutionists, reveals the anti-scientific nature of evolution. The Bible isn’t against science. Evolution is antiscientific!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/monkeying-with-typewriters-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=monkeying-with-typewriters-2&mc_cid=e4f5616845&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
I attended a public high school and thank the Lord I had a biology teacher that spent only one hour in seeking to explain evolution. However, I do remember when she was sick for several days and we had students from the University of Iowa substitute and they sought to push the evolutionary theory during those few days. Now, I wasn’t a real knowledgeable student in creation science or the Bible back then but I did ask questions which made the substitute teachers just a little upset. Anyway, as I grew in my faith and researched things I became more and more convinced that in the beginning God….
Genesis 7:2 “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.”
‘Christians and non-Christians alike sometimes assume that natural selection is an inevitable part of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and that if we reject Darwinism, then we need to reject natural selection also. This is not so – natural selection, correctly understood, is a friend of creationism and is actually incompatible with evolutionary ideas.
All living things contain genetic information, leading to a wide variety of possible traits. Consider mammals, which have white fur (which is actually usually transparent fur without pigmentation, but which looks white from a distance). Such species may well be acclimatized to cold, snowy environments. For example, the Arctic Fox and the Red Fox have developed from a common ancestor. This is NOT evolution. Foxes – which are part of the dog-wolf kind, or baramin – contain information to produce different levels of fur pigmentation. Foxes with little or no fur pigmentation would not easily be seen, either by predators or prey, on a snowy background. Those foxes were more likely to survive there, so we say that those genes were naturally selected from a large range of existing genetic information. But this is not evolution because no new genetic information appeared.
In the past, we might have called this process “micro-evolution”. Micro-evolution is a misleading term, so we recommend that it is not used anymore; use the term speciation instead. New species are produced by natural selection, but only within an existing biblical kind or baramin. Natural selection happens. Evolution never happens.‘https://creationmoments.com/sermons/natural-selection/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=natural-selection&mc_cid=5c3f6d6578&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘A hospital in Colorado rejected a woman for a kidney transplant after she refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine, officials have confirmed.
Leilani Lutali received a letter on Sept. 28 informing her that the transplant team at the University of Colorado Hospital decided to designate her inactive on the waiting list for transplants.
“You will be inactivated on the list for non-compliance by not receiving the COVID vaccine,” the letter states.
If Lutali continues to refuse to get a vaccine, she “will be removed from the kidney transplant list,” it added.
Neither Lutali nor her designated donor, Jaimee Fougner, have received a COVID-19 vaccine. Fougner hasn’t for religious reasons, while Lutali believes there isn’t enough known about the vaccines, they told KCNC-TV.
According to Lutali, hospital officials previously said vaccination wasn’t required to get a transplant.
“Here I am, willing to be a direct donor to her. It does not affect any other patient on the transplant list,” said Fougner. “How can I sit here and allow them to murder my friend when I’ve got a perfectly good kidney and can save her life?”
The hospital didn’t respond to a request for comment. It told news outlets in a statement that there are many requirements in place at transplant centers, such as requiring patients to avoid alcohol.
“In almost all situations, transplant recipients and living donors at UCHealth are now required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in addition to meeting other health requirements and receiving additional vaccinations. Some U.S. transplant centers already have this requirement in place, and others are making this change in policy now,” the hospital stated.’https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/colorado-hospital-refuses-kidney-transplant-to-woman-over-covid-19-vaccine-refusal_4036808.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-10-07-1&mktids=fa086841de01cdddadcea9efb1b23ace&est=ZbbhQKK0aBYpLuS70pujUN51udOS1V9FRoX0zrhbACOBZE0fnUXWi8bZ0YAP%2FY%2BZfg%3D%3D
Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
‘One of the enduring myths popularized by evolutionary biologists is that there is a large amount of evidence to show that human beings evolved from apes. Of course, evolutionists are up in arms immediately – “We don’t believe humans evolved from apes!” they cry. “We believe humans and apes have a common ancestor!” But was that common ancestor human? We would suppose not. So the evolutionists do believe that the common ancestor was a non-human large primate. In any other circumstance, the word ape would satisfactorily label such a creature.
Another problem for evolutionary anthropologists – those who study human beings – is that their “evidence” keeps changing. One recent article, for example, suggested that three species of ape-men lived in the same area at the same time – homo erectus, paranthropus, and australopithecus. This is because evolutionists have changed the dates for homo erectus, making it older than they previously thought. Not content with re-writing the myths about human evolution, the report on the CNN website had to nod at another popular science icon, stating:
During the time all three species lived in the same area, they endured climate change as it shifted from warm and humid to cool and dry.
We have commented that ape-men are really completely ape or completely human. Homo erectus was completely human – not another species – while the other two species were apes. The constant redating is only evidence of an unwillingness to accept the logical biblical framework for these discoveries.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/new-studies-on-ape-people/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-studies-on-ape-people&mc_cid=8f6067eaec&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Most people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, will carry antibodies for at least a year, according to a recent peer-reviewed study.
The European Journal of Immunology accepted a study on Sept. 24 from scientists at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, who studied 1,292 subjects eight months after infection for the presence of antibodies.
Their findings included 96% of subjects still carrying neutralizing antibodies and 66% with the nucleoprotein IgG antibody.
After randomly selecting 367 subjects from the original cohort who were not yet vaccinated a year following infection, the scientists found that 89% of subjects still had neutralizing antibodies, and 36% with the IgG antibody.
Subjects who had experienced a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher antibody levels, anywhere from two to seven times as many antibodies as those with mild infections at least 13 months after contracting the disease.
While the antibodies provide lasting protection against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, their neutralization efficiency against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants decreased over time.
The neutralizing antibodies “were only slightly reduced” in the Alpha variant and “considerably declined” in the Beta variant. However, “over 80% of the subjects who had recovered from severe” SARS-CoV-2 infection still had neutralizing antibodies against the Delta variant a year after being infected.
Nature Medicine published a study in May that found “that neutralization level is highly predictive of immune protection” against SARS-CoV-2.
A preliminary study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, found that antibodies decreased 10-fold just seven months after subjects received the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.’https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/antibodies-last-over-year-after-covid-19-infection-according-study
Isaiah 44:8 “Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].”
‘It has been said that if you take a frog and turn it into a man by adding a kiss, you have a fairy tale. But if you take a frog and turn it into a man by adding millions of years, you have science. It seems that many people think if you add millions of years, the impossible becomes possible.
Even the most committed evolutionists admit that our knowledge of how things work makes it hard to explain how life could develop all by itself from nonliving stuff.
The late George Wald, who taught biology at Harvard, said just this in an article in Scientific American. He was marveling at life and all of its complex systems when he penned some of the most famous words ever offered by an evolutionist. He wrote: “The time with which we have to deal here is of the order of 2 billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles.”
Notice how Professor Wald admits the need for miracles to produce life. Will huge amounts of time – time we know didn’t exist – create these miracles? Not at all. A fundamental law tells us that if something won’t happen by itself in a short period of time, it is virtually certain that it will not happen over a long period of time. It’s true. If you reject Almighty God as your Creator, you will find another false god to work miracles. For many evolutionists, that false god is time.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/does-time-work-miracles-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=does-time-work-miracles-2&mc_cid=03afa6d717&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
