This is from the Creation Magazine 45 (2) 2023. However, the LIES will continue to be told in the classroom!!
Genesis 7:11
“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened..”
‘One of the biggest headlines in planetary exploration in recent years was the confirmation that at one time Mars had water. Further exploration and study reveals evidence that there was once quite a lot of moving water on the surface of Mars.
With two rovers having sent back pictures and information from the surface, plus an orbiter exploring the surface, evidence of water action began to mount. At first, small features that looked like they were formed by moving water were discovered. Soon, it looked like that there was widespread water action in the southern hemisphere. Besides erosion, there is widespread evidence of the type of rocks that form underwater. Now, similar evidence suggests widespread water action in the northern lowlands as well. One of the most dramatic features could be the Mars version of the Grand Canyon. Called Valles Marineris, it is 2,000 miles long, 400 miles wide and five miles deep. It is so big, it can be seen from Earth with a good telescope. It would take catastrophic amounts of water to form such a canyon.
While the Bible doesn’t say anything about the flood that would suggest Mars was involved, some creation geologists say that it may have been. One thing is certain. This water action did not take place billions of years ago as those who believe in evolution say.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/did-noahs-flood-affect-mars-too-2/
It seems that the world (whatever that word might mean to you) has pretty much taken over every possible area of thinking. For instance, many people today accept evolution as a fact and that we must be told quite often that it is true. Well here is an article that just might dispel that.
‘Take the word “evolutionary” out of most science articles. It serves no purpose but to twist data and mislead readers.
What has Darwin done for you lately? Probably very little, and possibly a lot of harm. Science writers and researchers have a bad habit of inserting “evolutionary” into their writing. It’s not history; it’s evolutionary history. She’s not a biologist; she’s an evolutionary biologist. It’s not paleontology, it’s evolutionary paleontology. Enough already! Show some actual value that evolution has contributed to the writing, or else delete the word.
New evolutionary insights into the early development of songbirds (Science Daily). People want insights, but why “evolutionary insights”? The sophoxymoronic phrase is a contradiction in terms. If it’s evolutionary, it’s not insight. If it’s insight, it’s not evolutionary, otherwise it would be blind and unguided insight, which is not insight at all. The work was done by “evolutionary biologists.” Why not just biologists? They talked about germline restricted chromosomes (GRCs) in birds, which are important for preventing “somatic cells from possible negative effects.” So why must they desire to speculate about the “evolutionary history” of GRCs? The moment they insert the useless word, the perhapsimaybecouldness index rises as the scientific value falls.
Divers of the past: Plesiosaur research reveals rapid increase of blood cell size (Phys.org). Plesiosaurs appear in the fossil record as capable swimmers and hunters in a variety of forms, without ancestors. Looking for an evolutionary tale to spin, German researchers from Duisburg-Essen University analyzed thin sections of bone from plesiosaurs and think they found slight increases in blood cell size over time. They say,
From an evolutionary perspective, this change is obviously still useful. Today`s whales, seals and penguins also have unusually large red blood cells, but their close relatives on land and in freshwater do not. “This supports our assumption that this is a significant adaption of warm-blooded marine life,” says Kai Caspar.
From a “biological perspective” is adequate. Better, “from a design perspective.” Evolution had nothing to do with it. The data are too ambiguous, for one thing, and Caspar did not rule out other, more plausible reasons for the inferred cell diameters than the Stuff Happens Law. He certainly did not trace chance mutations that might have gotten selected blindly. That would clearly be difficult or impossible. The word “evolutionary,” therefore, serves no purpose. It’s distracting and misleading.’ https://crev.info/2019/12/evolutionary-a-useless-adjective/
And Bill Nye thinks the Bible and the Genesis account of Creation is crazy?!!!!!!
 | 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 