Genesis 1:21
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
‘The pseudo-science of climate change is replete with scare stories. New Scientist recently contained a most disingenuous example, with the headline: “Climate change will make world too hot for 60 per cent of fish species”. “Fish are at a far greater risk from climate change than previously thought,” the article opined.
Yet, in the very next sentence, the article conceded that the figure of 60% of species becoming extinct was only a concern in the “worst-case scenario of 5°C of global warming.” A rise of 5°C is equivalent to a 9°F rise. Previous warming models – which have still over-estimated global temperature rises by more than 200% – have suggested rises of 2.3°C. The New Scientist article suggests that a 1.5°C rise would kill off 10% of fish species. Actual temperature rises have stayed below 1°C, with no noticeable reduction in species of bony fish.
The article is fallacious on many levels. Evolutionists have made great play in the past of criticizing creationists for referring to “fish”, as evolutionists have concluded that former fish class is actually three classes – bony fish, cartilaginous fish and jawless fish. Yet, this climate-change article, purporting to be scientific, uses the old fish classification. Also, the extraordinary ability of fish to adapt to different environments has been overlooked.
God made the oceans to teem with fish. And His promise to continue the seasons as they are has not been superseded.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/a-fishy-climate-change-scare/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-fishy-climate-change-scare&mc_cid=3923d50855&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Stonehenge in England is one of the most mysterious artifacts on earth. This megalithic structure dates to about 4,000 years ago with huge stones placed in concentric rings. Who built it, why, and how?
There are two types of stones at Stonehenge. The larger sarsen stones are believed to have been brought from about 20 miles away. On average, one sarsen stone weighs 50,000 pounds. Eighty-one sarsens were needed. The bluestones weighed up to 10,000 pounds, and 80 of them were used. These bluestones came from 135 miles away (as the crow flies). Yet, they had to take a different route. The builders brought these stones from the mountains to the coast, shipped them by boat around the coast, and finally carried them over land. Large waste piles north of the stones’ excavation site indicate that the stones were shaped on-site before shipment.
To fit the upright stones with the horizontal lintels, mortice holes and protruding tenons were created. In 1923, a professional mason did an experiment of shaping a single sarsen with a stone maul; he was able to remove about six cubic inches of stone per hour. Researchers estimated that it would have taken 50 masons, working 10 hours a day and 7 days a week approximately 2 years and 9 months to finish the dressing of the stones.
Then the stones had to be laid in a precise geometrical pattern. Holes were dug. Then the stones were hauled into position and stood upright. The skills required to build sophisticated megalithic structures came as a result of highly intelligent people in a stratified society. This project required designers, architects, surveyors, managers, masons, etc. A simple farming community does not generate these skills. People 4,000 years ago were not ignorant but intelligent, just as is recorded in the Bible. Man was intelligent from the beginning.’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
Matthew 16:2
“He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.”
‘One good test of whether a theory is scientific is whether the theory can accurately predict new and surprising findings. If you have a barometer, you may do this all the time. The sky may be clear, but the barometer is falling fast. No matter how nice the weather looks, you know that rain is likely.
Creation scientists believe that humans have been on Earth in their present so-called “modern” form ever since the model first came out. Since that was on day six of creation, humans have been on Earth as long as any creature. So creation scientists have predicted that as we find more fossils, we will find fossils of “modern man” in older and older rocks. Such a discovery would shock the evolutionists!
Evolutionists say that, according to their theory, “modern” humans have been around for only a small part of the world’s history. In their inflated estimate, they say we have been here for only 35,000 years. Evolutionists received a surprise when that age recently had to be almost tripled. A new discovery pushed the date for “modern” humans back 92,000 years. As a result, evolutionists had to admit that we turn out to be older than some of the creatures from which we were supposed to have evolved!
Of course, one has to take the hot air out of those evolutionary dates. They can be adjusted down to a number that fits the biblical calendar. However, the scientific prediction made by creation scientists has proven out. And creationists are predicting that the history of “modern” humanity will continue to be pushed back further and further!
Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
‘While the Bible teaches us that sex is a wonderful gift of God, evolutionists believe that sexual reproduction should not have evolved. According to evolutionists, if sexual reproduction were to develop, evolution is supposed to get rid of it.
To make matters worse, immobile plants use sexual reproduction. This creates a problem in transferring the male genes to the female for fertilization. Just to confound things even more, God uses insects and even mammals to transfer the pollen. Since evolutionists believe that plants were around for many millions of years before animals, evolutionists have yet another problem.
The European family of the Arum lilies attracts beetles and flies. When one of the insects lands on a flower, he finds a slick, oil-coated surface and ends up sliding down into a chamber filled with small hairs. Imprisoned, he finds a sweet sap that makes good eating. While he is gorging himself on the sap and getting sticky in the process, the male part of the flower showers him with pollen. The next day, the sticky, pollen-coated insect finds that the doors to his prison are open. So he flies off to another flower to unwittingly deliver his load of pollen!
It sounds like science fiction to say that a flower figured out how to do this. And it certainly doesn’t sound very scientific to say that nobody designed and made this complex arrangement. As we learn more about these arrangements in nature, it becomes even more clear that an all-wise Creator designed these beautiful, symbiotic relationships between different members of the living kingdom.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/creative-procreation-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=creative-procreation-2&mc_cid=58dfbbd8f7&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Lyell, C. 1873. Antiquity of Man, 4th Ed., 518.
Tomb, J. W. 1925. “On the Intuitive Capacity of Children to Understand Spoken Language.” British Journal of Psychiatry 1, 553–555.’https://newcreation.blog/how-did-humans-learn-to-speak/?mc_cid=c226022714&mc_eid=2abe4a38b0
‘A pig farmer in the UK heard an academic talk about how the breeding of farm animals shows evolution. At the end of the lecture the pig farmer said, “Professor, I don’t understand what you are talking about. When I breed pigs, I get pigs—if it were not so, I would be out of business!”
Evolutionists understand that the addition of new, increasingly complex information is required if a bacterium is to evolve into a man. For a reptile to change into a bird would require new genes to transform scales into feathers. The odds of random natural processes (like mutations) creating a new gene coding to make feathers (instead of reptilian scales) is essentially zero. Mutations always degrade the information found on the DNA molecule. Mutations never result in increasingly complex information. As ardent evolutionist Carl Sagan admitted: “… mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.” Rare indeed – and in most cases, NEVER!
There are many breeds of dogs, chickens, cats, and pigs, but they are all dogs, chickens, cats and pigs. The reshuffling of different genes produces the great variety within a kind, but the variety is limited to the genes that are present. If there are no genes for feathers, then feathers will not be present. Variation within a kind is not evolution! Galapagos finches are still finches, peppered moths are still peppered moths; they just show variety within a kind, not evolution. Things reproduce after their kind just as the Bible states. As the pig farmer said to the evolutionist, “I would be out of business if pigs did not produce pigs!”’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
 | Elise on NY Times Warns Companies From… |
 | Martin on School Boards, Hot Mics &… |
 | pacanter7 on Creation News and Views Januar… |
 | Scriptural Vision on Climate Change & Community… |
 | crisscross767 on Prophetic Signs in the He… |
whatyareckon 