Evolution/Creation
All posts tagged Evolution/Creation
‘Darwin gave us a world where miracles happen constantly. How did he know? Things exist; therefore they evolved.
One of the funniest, most ironic quotes about evolution was made in 1929 by D. M. S. Watson. “Evolution,” declared Professor Watson, “…is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (sources: John West, Evolution News; also CMI). Well, well, Dr. Watson. Let’s see what kinds of incredible beliefs are coming from your evolutionist colleagues.
Powered Flight: How Many Miracles?
Researcher questions whether powered flight appeared on non-avialan dinosaurs (University of Malaga, via EurekAlert). Professor Malaga Francisco Serrano Alarcón knows that the emergence of powered flight is extremely unlikely. [How unlikely? Watch these video clips on bird bones, feathers and muscles from Illustra Media and consider how many lucky mutations it would have taken to evolve them.]
Powered flight in animals—that uses flapping wings to generate thrus [sic]—is a very energetically demanding mode of locomotion that requires many anatomical and physiological adaptations. In fact, the capability to develop it has only appeared four times in the evolutionary history of animals: On insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats.
Four times: that’s tolerable. But seven? He simply cannot believe his colleagues that think powered flight arose three more times in dinosaurs. That is simply too improbable to accept!
“Birds are a group of dinosaurs of which we have discovered 150-million-year-old fossils with fully developed wings. Among their closest non-avialan relatives, we have also found fossils with sufficiently developed wings that could provide them with some aerodynamic benefit, whether to glide between trees or get thrust to climb and jump over obstacles. But this does not mean that they could take off by flapping their wings or maintain a powered flight“, explains Francisco Serrano.
Whew. Thank you prof. You saved the credibility of Darwin. Powered flight only emerged four times – not seven! And thank you, Luis Chiappe, for helping him publish this saving grace in Current Biology.
Cartoons by Brett Miller. All rights reserved. Used here by permission.
How Beethoven Evolved
These ‘creativity genes’ allowed humans to take over the world (Live Science). Genes that gave human beings immense powers of creativity in ideas, art and music just popped into existence one day. That’s what Yasemin Saplakoglu, staff writer for Live Science, believes. How does he know? Dr. Claude Robert Cloninger, a professor emeritus in the psychiatry and genetics departments at Washington University in St. Louis., told him.
Creativity could be one of the main reasons Homo sapiens survived and dominated over related species such as Neanderthals and chimpanzees, according to a new study [prepare to be hoodwinked].
Cloninger and his Darwin bigot buddies ran divination on genes and visualized a wonderful story of emerging creativity in our species. With wide mouth, reporter Saplakoglu slurped it up. ‘It exists, therefore it evolved.’ Ooh. Aah.
The emotional reactivity network evolved in monkeys and apes about 40 million [Darwin] years ago, the self-control network evolved a little less than 2 million years ago, and the self-awareness and creativity network emerged just 100,000 years ago, when humans were under pressure from a changing climate that reduced the supply of food and other resources necessary for survival, Cloninger said.
Then, some 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens with “unprecedented cultural and technological sophistication” began rapidly replacing Neanderthals around the world, according to the study. This sophistication was likely driven by our Homo sapiens ancestors’ creativity and self-awareness, which enabled them to live longer, healthier lives, the authors said.
Readers can forget all this, because at the end of the article, Cloninger gives some caveats about interpreting the genes that basically undermine everything he said. He must have realized this after coming down out of his Darwin science seance. (On Darwinist use of the word “likely,” see 21 April 2021, Evolutionists Are ‘Likely’ Clueless.)
Miracles Earlier Than Thought
58-million-year-old footprints show when mammals began paddling in sea (Krista Charles for New Scientist). Krista begins Tontologically, “An extensive set of fossilised footprints shows that prehistoric large mammals were gathering by the sea millions of years earlier than we thought” (who’s “we,” Paleface?). A little artwork helps the unsuspecting reader visualize the miracle: four-footed hippo-like mammals thinking about becoming whales some day. They were gathering by the imagined seashore in large numbers. Maybe they were having a betting contest to see who could evolve a blowhole first.
Ankle and foot evolution gave mammals a leg up (University of Edinburgh). Evolving mammals needed happy feet for dancing to celebrate their new freedom after the dinosaurs died out, so the Stuff Happens Law gave it to them. What was the process called? Why, “ankle and foot evolution,” dummy. Stop asking silly questions! You underestimate the power of evolution!
The evolution of ankle and foot bones into different shapes and sizes helped mammals adapt and thrive after the extinction of the dinosaurs, a study [prepare to be hoodwinked] suggests.
A surge of evolution following the mass extinction 66 million years ago enabled mammals to diversify and prosper during a period of major global change, researchers say.
Analysis of bones that form part of the ankle and the heel of the foot reveal that mammals during this time – the Paleocene Period – were less primitive than previously thought.
Whatever Exists, It Evolved
Evolutionary biologists discover mechanism that enables lizards to breathe underwater (University of Toronto). Lizards can “re-breathe” air that has been absorbed through the skin. It’s pretty amazing what evolution can do. If an animal needs something, evolution gives it to them free of charge. Watch how the authors use the word “developed” as a synonym for “evolved” – same meaning. Believe it, people, because it is “likely.”
Rebreathing likely evolved because the ability to stay submerged longer increases the lizard’s chances of eluding predators….
As the authors point out, the rebreathing trait may have developed because anoles’ skin is hydrophobic — it repels water — a characteristic that likely evolved in anoles because it protects them from rain and parasites. Underwater, air bubbles cling to hydrophobic skin and the ability to exploit these bubbles for breathing developed as a result.
Ancestors may have created ‘iconic’ sounds as bridge to first languages (University of Birmingham). Herein is the origin of eloquence in speech and thinking: it evolved. That’s all you need to know. Now, a story to make it sound plausible.
The ‘missing link’ that helped our ancestors to begin communicating with each other through language may have been iconic sounds, rather than charades-like gestures – giving rise to the unique human power to coin new words describing the world around us, a new study [prepare to be hoodwinked] reveals.
In this article, “gave rise to” is like “developed” – it is a synonym for “evolved.” Same meaning.
To test this notion (idea is too charitable a word), they tested modern students with silly tests like pointing to a tiger and saying “Tiger… bad.” People from all language groups got it. That must mean that language evolved. How? By “language evolution,” silly. The students got it even quicker when the testers waved their arms. Chaucer and Milton could not be far behind.
Co-author Dr Marcus Perlman, Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: “Our study fills in a crucial piece of the puzzle of language evolution, suggesting the possibility that all languages – spoken as well as signed – may have iconic origins.
Conclusion
Now you know why you must believe in evolution. The alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
Vestigial organs are thought by evolutionists to be useless organs. Here is what one evolutionist says.
‘A “vestigial structure” or “vestigial organ” is an anatomical feature or behavior that no longer seems to have a purpose in the current form of an organism of the given species. Often, these vestigial structures were organs that performed some important functions in the organism at one point in the past.
However, as the population changed due to natural selection, those structures became less and less necessary until they were rendered pretty much useless. They are believed to be leftovers, only vestiges of the past.
Slow Evolutionary Process
Evolution is a slow process, with changes in species happening over hundreds or thousands if not millions of years, depending on how significant the change is. Although many of these types of structures would disappear over many generations, some keep being passed down to offspring because they do no harm—they aren’t a disadvantage for the species—or they have changed function over time. Some are present or functioning only during the embryonic stage of fetal development, or maybe they just have no function as we get older.
That said, some structures that were once thought of as vestigial are now thought as useful, such as the whale pelvis or the human appendix. As with many things in science, the case isn’t closed. As more knowledge is discovered, the information we know is revised and refined.’https://www.thoughtco.com/about-vestigial-structures-1224771
However, were these organs ever useless? Here’s what two creationists say.
‘First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.
Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.
Wings on birds that do not fly?
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:
a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.
b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?
c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.
Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?
Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.
Why do male humans have nipples?
See also Male Nipples Prove Evolution?
This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female — again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.
What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation.
Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?
This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.
Legless lizards
It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ‘amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ 26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.
Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.
The Appendix
See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!
It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.
Hip bones in whales
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.
Teeth in embryonic baleen whales
Evolutionists claim that they show that baleen whales evolved from toothed whales. However they have not provided an adequate mechanism for scrapping one perfectly good system (teeth) and replacing it with a very different system (baleen or whalebone). Also, the teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.’https://creation.com/vestigial-organs-what-do-they-prove?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Why+%27vestigial+organs%27+are+an+embarrassment+for+evolution&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2021.05.14
‘Charles Darwin himself shuddered at the thought that evolutionary processes had to explain human vision. He said, ‘To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”‘https://www.creationstudies.org/articles/theory-of-evolution/114-darwin-versus-the-human-eye
Job 9:9-10 “Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.”
‘The entire universe and all its forces were planned and created out of the mind of God. Since He is God, He was not forced to make anything in a certain way.
The study of the universe and its forces is called cosmology. The night sky is a breathtaking vision to anyone who views it far away from city lights. As cosmologists look into space, they see mysteries that cannot be explained. These mysteries can literally cause supercomputers to have nervous breakdowns from pondering imponderables. One would think that the cosmologist would be more likely than most to recognize the genius of God.
Researchers recently gave a supercomputer the task of calculating the results of gravitational collapse of a huge collection of matter in space. The result was what scientists call an “infinity.” This means that the answer to the mathematical problem is so complex that no scientist can calculate it. Even the most powerful computer in the world is not up to the task! The team that arrived at the incomprehensible answer admits that modern science really knows very little about the nature of the cosmos.
Cosmologists know that the universe is not an accident. They expect the universe to have laws and make sense. As they learn more about the universe, they are gaining an even greater appreciation for the Mind from which the universe has come. The study of cosmology has led even some of the most-hardened atheists to admit that sometimes the idea of a Creator God does not seem so far-fetched.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/gods-mind-is-bigger-than-ours-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gods-mind-is-bigger-than-ours-2&mc_cid=5c0b11324a&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
I don’t know about you but I have come to reconsider almost everything the state and federal governments tell me. Here in Australia during the China virus almost all one heard from local and federal governments was “We are following the science”. There are many problems with that statement but one is that they were all doing something different so therefore the science they were following was not the same. Anyway, the following article deals with this fact that governments do LIE to us! Dr. Guliuzza write that ‘Perhaps my parents were naïve. They raised me to respect my teachers, the government, and other authorities, and to believe these entities acted in my best interests and certainly wouldn’t lie to me. I was warned about the duplicity of politicians and used-car salesmen, but they were mostly grouped in classes by themselves.
Now I know I was misled by these authorities on some very important things. For instance, in biology class I was taught as scientific fact a totally fanciful—and atheistically religious—story that “survival of the fittest” caused the evolution of life on Earth. Disseminating that lie was an abuse of youthful trust in authority.
The lying has gotten far worse. Back then, I never felt institutional coercion to join a perverse government-led movement that affirms as truth many things I and most other people can clearly see are false. For example, until recently it was basic common sense to recognize that male and female are the two biological sexes. Today, anyone daring to speak common sense is publicly pummeled with disparaging names (or worse) by members of a rapidly growing deviant movement. They use a hostile crowd to systematically isolate people from each other by making everyone afraid to be associated with the pummeled person lest it also happen to them—a method to strong-arm conformity in thinking and control the behavior of an entire group.
As many Christians ponder whether to acknowledge more than the two sexes Christ created, they need to consider more than the “science” that floods schools and the media. The real issue is whether Christians, pastors, and seminary presidents will reject clear biblical teaching just to avoid the nasty social outrage against their ministries or themselves if they dare speak a truth the world finds offensive—that male and female are the only two human sexes.
Christians have faced the decision of whether to cast aside clear biblical teaching and embrace the world’s so-called science for a far longer period when it comes to Darwinian selection and evolution. Lies spread by government-sponsored institutions can be so absurd that they require years of forced, repetitive indoctrination for people to believe them. One government lie sits atop them all: that over a time frame far too slow for anyone to observe—and without the mind and power of God—life spontaneously started and nature exercised a type of selective agency to mold that “proto-life” into the diversity of creatures on Earth. We may not know how many people silently question this lie because dissenting views are quashed through government-tolerated academic oppression.
For illustration we’ll consider the above-mentioned lie that humans can be classified into a sex other than male and female. Perhaps it will serve as a contemporary wake-up call for Christians to refuse to live by the world’s lies.
Biological Sex and the Institutional Lie
In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the Ministry of Truth produced lying propaganda and the Ministry of Love dispensed torture. In Orwell’s farsighted story, reality was totally inverted through the government’s highly coordinated actions to manipulate its citizens’ thinking. What’s remarkable in the book is that almost all citizens eventually became willing promoters of government lies themselves.
An NBC News report demonstrates the combined power of government, academia, and the media to bring about a 1984-like adoption of total nonsense. In this case, even highly educated leaders of independent corporations participate. NBC stated that “[the brand] Always announced it will remove the Venus symbol from its menstruation products packaging” in response to protests by “transgender and nonbinary people” who were born female but now believe they’re male.1
Procter & Gamble, Always’ parent company, has come to regret placing the female symbol on their packages. In response to the outrage of these “men,” Always now recognizes that the packages were offensive “by not acknowledging that they [men], too, can experience menstruation,” and they dismiss the criticisms of people upset over the symbol’s removal as being “rooted in the misconception that [male] transgender and nonbinary people cannot experience menstruation—a claim medical experts have debunked.”1
How do you get people to assent to completely bizarre flights of fancy? By repeating them incessantly. Several months after their story on Always, NBC added a personal account and reported, “When transgender model and activist Kenny Ethan Jones experienced his first period, he faced both physical and psychological pain.”2 Kenny Jones was born female but is now considered by many (including “medical experts”) to be male. Perhaps to make it easier for readers to jettison their common sense, NBC adds Jones’ personal testimony:
“Having a period already causes me a lot of [gender] dysphoria, but this dysphoria becomes heightened when I have to shop for a product that is labeled as ‘women’s health’ and in most cases, is pretty and pink,” Jones explained.2
How powerful are the combined forces of government, academia, and the media targeted against individual citizens? Pretty powerful, it seems. After presenting stories like that of Kenny Jones, it’s as if those in power sit back and watch to see if ordinary people will compliantly speak about “his first period” without a tinge of humiliation over the mental confusion or muddled judgment needed to state something so nonsensical. A power that conditions a mass of people to embrace such ridiculous notions should grab the attention of Christians.
We are witnessing authorities use the stamp of scientific authority as a propaganda tool to dishonestly assert that something everyone knows is true—that men cannot have monthly cycles—has been debunked. Most people likely resent being coerced into accepting something that has never been observed and is utterly foolish.
What many Americans don’t recognize is that the train long ago left the station and took our country along the line to nonsensical beliefs. That happened when they swallowed the lie that over a long period of time one kind of creature can morph into another—something else that has never been observed. What’s worse is that these lies about both evolving creatures and interchangeable sexes are not just ludicrous, they’re intellectually and morally perverse.
Government Perverting Its God-Ordained Role
God denounces the government-sanctioned corruption of truth: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Moral perversion goes hand in hand with governments acting in perverted ways.
Two passages in the New Testament detail the God-ordained role of government. Those in authority today should rule by these mandates: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil….For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:3-4); and government leaders “are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).
The Bible’s teaching is plain. Government is responsible to promote good and punish evil, but today’s rulers often oppress—if not outright persecute—people doing good and exult in the evil behavior they promote, which they mischaracterize as good. The destruction of the moral fiber of its citizens through lying and coercive tactics is a perversion of government’s mandate and authority.
Lessons Learned from the Soviet Union
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1974Image credit: Bert Verhoeff
Citizens of the United States now face increased institutional deception. People in other lands have endured habitual governmental lying, and their experiences may prove useful to Christians who refuse to live by the world’s lies.
Last year someone forwarded the link to a very helpful essay titled “Live Not by Lies” written in 1974 by the late Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn’s essay isn’t long, and I’d recommend that everyone read it since the actions he encourages other Soviets to adopt are valuable for Americans today. He sets the stage of the sad state of isolation and fear oppressing the Soviet people.
There was a time when we dared not rustle a whisper….[We] heartily complain to each other of all they [the government] are muddling up, of all they are dragging us into!…They put whomever they want on trial, and brand the healthy as mentally ill….Already a universal spiritual demise is upon us…while we continue to smile sheepishly….We have so hopelessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants—anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence…..[We] fear only to take a civic stance! We hope only not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own.3
Solzhenitsyn then explains why government-sanctioned violence alone can never enslave an entire population. Real enslaving power is wielded through institutional lying.
But it [breaking the oppressive cycle] will never come…if we all, every day, continue to acknowledge, glorify, and strengthen it, if we do not, at the least, recoil from its most vulnerable point. From lies….Violence ages swiftly….To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.3
Thus, the road to freedom is to refuse to live by lies. “And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies!…For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.” The first of eight vital behaviors Solzhenitsyn says are necessary to shake off enslavement begins with each citizen declaring they “will not write, sign, nor publish in any way, a single line distorting, so far as he can see, the truth.”3
Creationists have historically demonstrated the courage to resist institutional lying. Maybe that’s why the world uses the name “creationist” as a title of derision. Nevertheless, we must remember “let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). If we don’t want to unknowingly advance any of the world’s lies, shouldn’t we examine ourselves to see whether our own minds have been “evolutionized” to some degree?
Recognizing How Lies Are Built into Terminology
Evolutionists invent terms all the time that simultaneously express evolutionary concepts and are used as more evidence for evolution. For instance, the literature is full of terms like convergent evolution, vestigial organs, pseudogenes, and highly conserved sequences. These terms have a built-in presupposition of evolution that makes them inherently misleading. Thus, just by speaking the jargon, a person is assisting the deceitful evolutionary indoctrination of society. The same type of built-in lying occurs when we talk about people as being transgender—as if that’s a real state of being—just because the world imagines more than two human sexes.
Evolutionary theory is full of imaginary, misleading scenarios. The most egregious is when nature is personified, presented as exercising agency, and then invoked as a substitute god to explain the origin and diversity of life. Selectionists project onto the environment abilities to “select,” “favor,” “act,” “send information,” and similar verbs indicating the work of an intelligent agent. The terminology they use therefore embeds a potent lie—that nature has some type of innate volition. The constant personification of nature as exercising creative agency transfers credit from the Lord Jesus as Creator to the creation itself…the principal lie described in Romans 1:25.
The denial of two biological sexes as illustrated by the Kenny Jones nonsense shows how serious the scope of these institutional lies and the coercion to conform is. The challenge facing Christians is whether we will cast aside clear biblical teaching and embrace the world’s so-called science. We belong to the Lord Jesus, who promised, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Christians need to be a sanctuary of truth; we must refuse to live by the world’s lies.
References
- Aviles, G. Always to ax female symbol from sanitary products packages in nod to trans users. NBC News. Posted on nbcnews.com October 21, 2019, accessed February 4, 2021.
- Atkins, C. For transgender men, pain of menstruation is more than just physical. NBC News.Posted on nbcnews.com January 11, 2020, accessed February 4, 2021.
- Solzhenitsyn, A. Live Not by Lies, February 12, 1974. Posted on solzhenitsyncenter.org.’https://www.icr.org/article/12773/?utm_source=phplist9395&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=May+Acts+%26+Facts+Is+Now+Available
Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.”
‘Do your eyes ever play tricks on you? Our eyes regularly play tricks on us with the help of our brains.
Repeated research has shown that the images we see are not exactly what our eyes see. Our eyes and brains work together to construct the images we call sight. It’s not that our eyes are out to hoodwink us. Most of the time our eyes are working to help us. Working together, our brain and eyes add logical details to the images we see. Each of us has a blind spot in our vision because there are no vision cells where the optic nerve is. Instead of showing us a spot of nothing at the blind point in our field of vision, our brain invents an image from surrounding details. Your brain pulls the same trick on you when you proofread your completed manuscript. While others can still find typos, you may not. Your brain knows what you are saying and so it automatically shows you a repaired version, making many of your typing errors invisible.
Your pupils can reveal your thoughts. Studies show that when seeing unpleasant scenes the pupils retract. Pleasant or interesting scenes cause the pupils to open wider.
Charles Darwin wrote, “To suppose that the eye, with all of its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” We don’t often agree with Charles Darwin, but this time we do!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/the-deceptive-eye-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-deceptive-eye-2&mc_cid=6c722ff4e8&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Most people laughed the first time they saw this photo of a cow with an accurate map of the world on its hide.’https://creationmoments.com/
‘ROCK HARD SKELETONS RESIST CLIMATE CHANGE, according to articles in Rutgers University News 8 April 2021, SciTech Daily 18 April 2021 and, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 24 February 2021, doi: 10.1098/rsif.2020.0859. Coral reefs are formed as coral animals lay down a hard rock-like material that consists of the mineral aragonite, a type of calcium carbonate, along with various organic molecules including proteins, lipids and sugars. The process of making this combination of minerals and organic molecules is called biomineralization. Scientists at Rutgers University carried out detailed studies of proteins in the mineralised skeleton of a coral named Stylophora pistillata and found they were not just a random mix in a mineral matrix. They found over 20 different proteins forming a highly organised intricate network, consisting of a framework built by collagens, fibronectin and laminin that supports calcium binding proteins that form the aragonite crystals.
They concluded: “These spatial arrangements clearly show that protein–protein interactions in coral skeletons are highly coordinated and are key to understanding the formation and persistence of coral skeletons through time”. Manjula Mummadisetti, who led the study, explained “It’s important to understand the mechanisms of coral biomineralization and how these invaluable animals persist during the era of anthropogenic climate change”. Another scientist in the study, Paul Falkowski commented: “Our findings suggest that corals will withstand climate change caused by human activities, based on the precision, robustness and resilience of their impressive process for forming rock-hard skeletons.”
Links: Rutgers, SciTech Daily
ED. COM. The process of forming coral skeletons is certainly impressive. The minerals give them hardness, fibrous proteins such as collagen which give them resilience, but these must be organised in a way that make best use of the properties of both. We have long known that mineralised organic structures, such as shells and our own bones, get their strength from the way the components are organised as much as from the substances they are made from. The result is a structure that is hard and rigidly holds its shape, but resists being cracked and broken by strong forces acting on it. It is no surprise that coral skeletons have the same highly organised robust structure as they live in an environment of where they are constantly exposed to strong forces from moving water. Anyone caught in a rip or knocked over by a wave in the surf knows what a powerful force moving water can be. This is why coral skeletons and fossil corals resist erosion and weathering long after death.
It seems that to get anything reported in the popular media these days it has to be linked with climate change. The original scientific report has a passing reference to climate change in the introduction, but nothing in the results or conclusion, which concentrate on describing the brilliant organisation of the coral skeleton proteins. However, the news released all revolve around climate change, with the inevitable claim that it is caused by human activity. In their obsession with climate change these researchers and media reporters are missing the real point – an intricately organised structure needs an organiser. The Creator who made the first coral animals programmed into their DNA the information for making the proteins and the control functions for laying them down in the right spatial arrangement to give the mineralised skeletons the strength and resilience needed to live in the environment He placed them in. Coral reefs, living and fossil, are more rock-solid evidence of creative design.’https://creationresearch.net/
Psalm 148:3 “Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.”
Why is the sky dark at night? There’s more to the answer to this question than the fact that the stars do not appear as bright as the sun from Earth.
If stars were evenly distributed throughout an infinite universe – as predicted by the evolutionary big bang theory – a star would be shining no matter where you looked in the night sky. The night sky, while not as bright as the daytime sky, would not be dark anywhere. The fact that this is not what we see at night has been named “Olber’s Paradox,” after the German amateur astronomer who first asked the question.
Ever since, astronomers have been trying to fit Olber’s Paradox into whatever theory about the universe was current. Modern followers of the big bang theory have written that the main reason every inch of the night sky is not glowing with stars is that the expanding universe prevents space from filling with light. New calculations and research now show that if the universe were expanding, it would have very little noticeable effect on the stars in the night sky. Even more interesting, concluded astrophysicist Paul Wesson, is the fact that the main reason the night sky is not bright is that the universe is simply not old enough to have filled with light.
The daily cycle, which includes night’s darkness, is important to almost all the life that the Creator placed on Earth. The truth is that we live in a universe that has been designed for life.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/olbers-paradox-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=olbers-paradox-2&mc_cid=34f24f6311&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
whatyareckon 