Psalm 51:11 “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.”
‘Even though many frogs live much of their lives out of the water, they need water to reproduce. This can be a problem since some frogs live in trees and some even live in the desert!
For a tree frog, the trip from the treetops to a nearby pool is a long and dangerous journey. However, the Creator cares about all of His creatures. The leaves of the bromeliad that grows in the branches of many trees in the tropical forest form a private pool far above the ground. As a result, mama frog can raise her young without ever leaving the treetops!
The desert would seem to offer an even greater challenge for a frog. However, since it pleased the Creator to place frogs in the desert – maybe to challenge the evolutionists – He has also provided for their needs. It may rain only once every two years in the deserts of central Australia. When it does rain, the water-holding frogs emerge from their underground hideaways to lay their eggs in the puddles. Before the puddles disappear, not only do the eggs hatch, but the young grow and develop into frogs that are able to store water until the next rain. As the desert again takes over, the frogs dig themselves back into the ground and go into suspended animation until the next rains come. A year or two later, the new generation will emerge after the next rain to raise their young.
1 Corinthians 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
‘It sounds silly to ask whether bacteria can think. However, science has known for more than 100 years that the little guys can indeed think. Experiments in 1883 conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer showed that bacteria will swim toward good food like chicken soup and away from poisons such as mop disinfectant.
Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions. He made sure that his bacteria knew the location of chicken soup. Then he separated them from it with a mild mixture of disinfectant. He found that the little fellows would swim as fast as they could through the disinfectant to get to the soup.
This is the same type of decision-making process you and I go through every day. We often tolerate the unpleasant to arrive at the pleasant. As a result of this research, scientists today talk about bacteria actually making decisions.
These conclusions amaze most people. That’s because we have been trained to think of intelligence in an evolutionary context. The “higher” or more evolved a creature is, the smarter we expect it to be. However, if we recognize, as the Bible says, that all life is the product of an intelligent Creator, we should not be surprised to find that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Every creature has been given as much intelligence as it needs by a Creator Who truly cares for every living creature – even bacteria!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/can-bacteria-think-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-bacteria-think-2&mc_cid=78b91641ee&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s husband has slammed millions of citizens as ‘lazy’ and ‘indolent’ for not yet taking a coronavirus vaccine.
Professor Joachim Sauer criticised those Germans that remain unvaccinated as ‘not open to the successes achieved by science’, comparing the ‘irrationality’ to Creationism in the United States of America.
Chancellor Merkel has expressed concerns that coronavirus restrictions in Germany may not stop a fourth wave currently believed to be present in the country.
Germany’s health minister has said the rapid rise in coronavirus cases means it is likely that everyone in the country who is not vaccinated will have caught Covid-19 by the end of the winter, and some of those will die.
Official figures showed more than 30,000 newly confirmed cases in Germany over the past 24 hours, an increase of about 50% compared to a week ago.
“It is really, absolutely, time to take action,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday.
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!
‘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 Evidence
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.
An example of an inscribed clay tablet
Archaeological Evidence
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.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
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).
What Does this All Mean?
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.
Conclusion
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.
References
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.
‘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/
‘Evolutionary scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and several universities in the United States, Italy, and Japan have recently claimed the Earth’s axis tilted about 12 degrees in the Late Cretaceous.1 Geological research at ICR shows that the rocks identified as Cretaceous were deposited about the high water point of the Flood, on Day 150.2 While it is possible the Earth tilted significantly during the Flood year, the evidence for such an event remains extremely ambiguous.
Ever since scientists first started collecting paleomagnetic data that indicated the magnetic poles may have wandered, there has been debate whether or not the poles really moved, or just the rocks themselves moved. The rocks can move because of tectonic plate motion. In addition, the magnetic field of the Earth can also change, further complicating matters and making a unique solution more difficult. There is strong evidence that the magnetic field reversed many times during the Flood year.
Let’s step back a little first. What is paleomagnetic data? It is the remnant magnetic signal preserved in the rocks that tells scientists about the past magnetic field orientation of the Earth. It becomes locked in the rocks at the time of their formation—like a ship stuck in ice. Many rocks contain magnetite, a highly magnetic mineral. When lavas cool and/or sediments are deposited, tiny magnetite minerals can line up with the orientation of the magnetic field of the Earth like little compasses. If the magnetic field changes direction, the minerals will form or be deposited at a new orientation that reflects that change. Essentially, the rocks are able to record the Earth’s past magnetic directions like a magnetic tape recorder.
This latest study, published in Nature Communications, argues changes in the Earth’s tilt is the sole cause of the shift in magnetic orientation in the limestone rocks in Italy.1 This particular limestone has a magnetic signal due to bacterially formed magnetite, resulting in measurable magnetization directions.1
Co-author Sarah Slotznick, a geobiologist at Dartmouth College explains, “These Italian sedimentary rocks turn out to be special and very reliable because the magnetic minerals are actually fossils of bacteria that formed chains of the mineral magnetite.”3
But can we sort out the cause of the changes in magnetic orientation? And are they only caused by a change in the Earth’s tilt? It is highly unlikely we can know for certain. A change in the tilt of the Earth is only one solution. A shift in Earth’s internal magnetic field can give the same global result without tilting outer rocks of the Earth at all. Measuring the paleomagnetic signal in rocks gives us an answer, but it doesn’t tell us the path taken to arrive at that answer.
We encountered this same issue in a paper we published on Pangaea vs. Rodinia.4 We couldn’t determine if the Earth’s surface physically rotated 110 degrees (the tilt) early in the Flood, or if the internal magnetic field of the Earth simply shifted by 110 degrees. Either result gives the same signal in the rocks. Rocks do not record the root cause. In our paper, we concluded it was most likely that the magnetic field shifted direction, not the tilt of the Earth.3 However, we had other independent data (plant fossils that do not grow at high latitudes) to support our conclusion.3
The authors of the present study offered no other kind of data (like fossils) to support their conclusion that the Earth tilted 12 degrees. Paleomagnetic data is too ambiguous without some other type of independent check. Did the Earth tilt during the catastrophic upheaval of the global Flood? Do these rocks in Italy show a tilt occurred? Maybe. Only God knows what actually happened. But we have the Words of Jesus recoded in our Bible. We can be sure there was a global Flood just 4400 years ago that completely changed the surface of our planet, leaving a discernable record in the rocks.2
ELEPHANTS LOSE TUSKS “BY EVOLUTION” claim media reports. During the civil war in Mozambique (1977-1992) ivory poachers killed elephants and sold the tusks to finance their war. During this time the population of elephants declined drastically. The elephant population is now making a comeback, but with a change – more female elephants are lacking tusks. Before the war about 18.5% of females were tuskless, but 33% of females born since the war do not have tusks. A group of scientists led by Shane Campbell-Staton and Robert Pringle of Princeton University studied the elephant population of Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, using records from an elephant conservation organisation and videos taken in the park from before the war. They found tuskless mother elephants had equal numbers of daughters with and without tusks, and had twice as many daughters as sons. They then analysed genomes of the elephants in the park and found the tuskless females carried mutations in two genes named MEP1a and AMELX. The AMELX gene is on the X chromosome, and mutations of it in humans are known to cause defective tooth growth in females and are lethal to males. This pattern of inheritance, known as X-linked dominant, male-lethal, would explain the skewed sex ratio of the tuskless mother’s offspring and the number of tuskless daughters. Putting these genetic and population studies together, the research team, along with all the reports in the news sources, claim the increase in tuskless females is a case of rapid evolution. The research team entitled their research paper “Ivory poaching and the rapid evolution of tusklessness in African elephants”. They summarised their findings as: “This study provides evidence for rapid, poaching-mediated selection for the loss of a prominent anatomical trait in a keystone species”. References and Links: Science (AAAS) News 21 October 2021, Nature News 21 October 2021, ABC News 22 October 2021, and Science 22 October 2021, doi: 10.1126/science.abe7389.ED. COM. The summary is correct, but the headlines are all wrong. This is a classic case of selection, but nothing has evolved. Poachers selectively killed elephants with tusks which allowed the already existing tuskless elephants with the tuskless gene to survive, and increase in numbers. But that did not make them evolve. This is unnatural selection at work, but it is no different from legitimate farmers using selective breeding to increase the number of animals that have a desirable trait, such as hornlessness, in farm animals. However, in this case, the increased trait is a defect, since tusks help elephants to push over branches and trees and dig holes as they forage for food and minerals, so loss of them is a negative. Overall, this study is a good reminder that the world has changed, but it has not evolved. It has gone from good to bad to worse – the opposite of evolution, but exactly what the Bible tells us.
whatyareckon 