‘The origin of life is a key point of distinction between the Creationist and Darwinist schools of thought.
Creationists believe that God created all forms of life on earth (including humans), endowing non-living matter with life through a deliberate, supernatural act. In contrast, naturalists typically believe that life descended from a single self-replicating protocell which in turn came into existence through spontaneous chemical reactions. This atheistic theory for the origin of life is commonly known as abiogenesis (Greeka “without”, bios “life”, and genesis “beginning, origin”).
Both views require an extraordinary or miraculous event. To date, scientists have not observed abiogenesis happening in nature, nor have they been able to create a lifeform through controlled experiments, which is why biogenesis, the opposite of abiogenesis, is considered a scientific law. In fact, reaction conditions resembling the Earth’s early conditions have even failed to produce the most basic polymers that all lifeforms possess (protein, DNA, RNA, etc.). It is now understood that the probability of even a single protein forming through purely natural processes exceeds what is acceptable based on the law of probability. It is also important to understand that and the origin of life in reliant upon chance alone, since natural selection could play no part until a self-replicating cell had been formed. Jonathan Sarfati states:
“
Also, when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply. .[1]
”
The probabilities of life forming through purely random processes is so remote that Darwinists are at a complete loss for an explanation. To avoid the issue they often insist that the origin of life and biological evolution are separate issues. However, theory of evolution must (and does) include a theory of the origin of life, much as stellar evolution also postulates a mechanism for the birth of stars. It therefore appears that intelligent design is more reasonable explanation for the existence of life than the evolutionary model. At present, each model still requires faith and currently falls outside of the realms of science since neither has been observed nor have they been proven by experimentation.’https://www.nwcreation.net/course/origin_or_life.html
‘One of the fascinating things about maps is that they give us a bird’s eye view of God’s creation.
When we were filming at Cedarville University in 2021, Dr. John Whitmore pulled out a map of the Grand Canyon to provide some perspective on what he and Dr. Andrew Snelling accomplished on their research trip. (You can watch this in the video at the end of the post.)
Dr. Snelling’s research provides the backbone for our upcoming film. In 2017, he and Dr. Whitmore traveled by boat down the Colorado River to collect a series of rock samples at different points in the Canyon. Their primary interest was understanding more about the enormous folded rock layers at the bottom of the Canyon.
DR. JOHN WHITMORE TAKES A SAMPLE AT MONUMENT FOLD.
Were those layers soft and pliable when they formed, or were they hard and brittle? If it could be demonstrated they were soft when they folded, they couldn’t be hundreds of millions of years old. This new research could therefore provide important new evidence of a global flood and a young earth.
Although the folds appear to be smooth at normal observational levels, Andrew knew he needed to look at the rocks under the microscope. What did they reveal at a crystalline level? Did they show evidence of slow movement while brittle over a long period, or rapid movement while soft over a short period?
To test his theory, Andrew needed to collect two different series of samples from the same layer of rock. One series would be taken from where the rock layer was sharply folded; the other series would be taken many miles aways where the same rock layer was lying flat. By comparing these samples, he would have a good indication of the condition of the rock when it folded.
‘A guide listing 37 different gender terms and sexual identities has been issued to police officers and staff to help them when dealing with members of the public.
Norfolk Constabulary’s document, ‘The + in LGBT’, explains current terminology alongside a picture of a ‘gender bread person’ – a play on gingerbread man.
Proverbs 17:7 “Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince.”
‘Several different animals communicate on a limited basis with one another. But human speech is unique, leaving those who believe in evolution perplexed. The very oldest human fossils show the bony structures needed to support speech. Evolutionists will admit, in a candid moment, that they have no idea how speech could have evolved. One modern researcher said they have only “inferences based on hunches.”
Some scientists have observed that human beings come with the built in ability to learn and speak. While this idea is not popular among evolutionists, it is supported by the unique structure of the human vocal tract. No other creature has anything like it. The human larynx is placed low in the throat. That placement creates a sound chamber that allows us to make language expressive. Moreover, the placement prevents us from breathing and eating or drinking at the same time. But we are not born that way. A newborn’s larynx is placed higher up in the throat, allowing a baby to breathe and suckle at the same time. By the time a child is six – and has no need to suckle and breathe at the same time, but is learning language – the larynx has moved to its adult position.
‘A 159-year-long debate has finally been resolved. It concerns the first fossil feather ever found.1 Did it belong to a member of the famous bird type Archaeopteryx or not? (Archaeopteryx, an extinct perching bird with fully formed flight feathers, is widely considered the ‘oldest’ bird fossil under evolutionary ‘dating’). The isolated feather is alleged to be 150 million years old, or Upper Jurassic. It was discovered in 1861 in the same Solnhofen Limestone deposit in Bavaria, Germany where the first Archaeopteryx skeleton was later found, also the same ‘age’.’ Whether you are a creationist or evolutionist you should read the rest of this article at https://creation.com/oldest-feather
Genesis 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
‘TRILOBITE EYES INSPIRE BIFOCAL LENSES as researchers from China and the USA have studied the eyes of a trilobite named Dalmanitina socialis. These creatures had ‘bifocal’ eyes consisting of two lenses that bent light at different angles, enabling them to see both close up and far away objects at the same time. The researchers were “inspired by the optical structure of their eyes” to design a bifocal micro-lens system capable of taking snapshots of scenes containing objects as close as a few centimetres plus objects that are kilometres away at the same time. They also used a computer algorithm called a neural network, that mimics the human nervous system, to compensate for blurriness and aberrations in mid distance objects in the same scene. The research team wrote in their report: “Inspired by compound eyes of the trilobite Dalmanitina socialis, we design and construct a chiral light-field camera … Combined with a deep-learning-based neural network reconstruction algorithm, the system provides distinct aberration-free photographic capabilities, including the ability to achieve a polarization-controllable extreme DoF imaging while maintaining high spatial lateral resolution.” (DoF – depth of field) References: PhysOrg 19 April 2022, Nature Communications 19 April 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41467- 022-29568-y ED. COM. Don’t worry if you don’t understand all the technical terms in the research team’s conclusion. Just note the use of the words “inspired” and “design and construct”. Researchers “inspired” in the right way would be giving honour and thanks to the Creator of the trilobite, as well as using their God given brains to design and build a similar system, and put it to good use. But all evolutionists who think either the trilobite built it, or that it came about by chance random processes deserve the condemnation set out in the Bible’s book of Romans: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).’https://creationresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/Enews/enews-20220504.pdf
whatyareckon 