167 thoughts on “Tarek Fatah An Indian Muslim, Warns About Muslim Brotherhood In The White House


  1. I live in a faraway ,non english speaking land, and my training and specialty is in Aerospace/FMS Data Management .So I can speak authoritativly on that subject, but I never assume that that ability transcends all other disciplines. I am a willing listener, a humble person.

    I take heed to what Mr . Albert Einstein once said, ‘ A wise man speaks because he has something to say , a fool because he has to say something.’

    Mr . Straight talk, I can’t answer those questions regarding the dimensions and the intricate details of Noah’ ark. I choose to accept the Bible version of events, with the right to follow my own intuition and path in life, lead of course by the Lord in his wisdom, and my own complete faith and trust in him.The world is full of mysteries, which we still cannot understand today. I merely seek the truth, not as it pleases me , but the absolute truth.It can sometimes be very grim, brutal and excruciatingly painful, but cannot be changed or altered. My headteacher once said to me,” If I say to you that your grandmother is dead and the maggots are eating her flesh, it is the truth, but very unpleasant”. As a young teenager , it was a rude awakening. I have never forgotten that.

    In 1969 , Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon, using technology and guidance systems that could’nt come close to modern mobile telephone technology. Today’s astronauts look back in amazement that they could successfully carry out that kind of undertaking.

    The Taj Mahal was built nearly 400 hundred years ago, and is still today, possibly the most symmetrically perfect building in the world. How could they achieve such perfection with the methods of that era, considered primitive by todays standards?

    How did our foreparents hundreds of years ago knew that old ,mouldy bread if strapped to an infection, helped to heal it? They could’nt identify the active ingredient, but still. We cannot explain every event in human history.

    Mr. Halsall, is it fair to expect a scientific answer to a scientific question from someone who is not trained in that particular discipline? It would be the same in your case if you are asked a question on biblical matters . But Zoe explains in detail, his understanding and interpretation of the Bible, and one should rather listen to the message , rather than try to do harm to the messenger. If you have true scientific facts on any subject matter , we would all be willing to hear.

    My intention is not to be an active participant on this forum, I don’t have the time or desire to do that. I merely made an observation about presentation, detail, and logic/argumentation etc.

    Duty calls.


  2. @Ph.D | October 11, 2011 at 9:59 AM |
    “I live in a faraway ,non english speaking land, and my training and specialty is in Aerospace/FMS Data Management .So I can speak authoritativly on that subject, but I never assume that that ability transcends all other disciplines. I am a willing listener, a humble person.”

    Start wrong must end wrong! Far away land should have different time zone!


  3. It is better to say nothing , and be thought an idiot, rather than open your mouth and confirm it.

    Out of the entire post, you pick out the first sentence , while ignoring completely , the main points of information. Where I am in mainland Europe, there is currently a six hour time difference between my location and your little perch.

    So you have perfectly described your own demise . START WRONG , MUST END WRONG ! The time you see there, 9:59 am , is the time it was received in Barbados. I submitted this at 3:59 CET.

    Is that the only thing you were able to to comprehend??? in my simple
    post? Obviouisly it would be a complete waste of time to dialogue with you about Flight Management Systems , Electronic flight bags , GPS systems and such like. My time is too valuable to get involved in simplistic kindergarden nonsense.

    Case closed.


  4. @Ph.D: “Mr. Halsall, is it fair to expect a scientific answer to a scientific question from someone who is not trained in that particular discipline?

    To answer your question honestly, no.

    But I have said many times that true Agnostics accept the possibility of many a god — but would appreciate appropriate evidence for any which can face Occam’s razor.

    Where I have problems with Mr. Zoe is he insults anyone who disagrees with him as been foolish / idiots / daemons / stupid, rather than thinking about and honestly responding to what has been argued.

    This demonstrates to me that Mr. Zoe et al does not seriously consider seriously anything from anyone else they do not agree with.

    Down that path leads to madness, IMHO….


  5. @Ph.D
    “My time is too valuable to get involved in simplistic kindergarden nonsense”.
    Like the fairy tales in the book of fables that Zoe and you want us to accept as the word of your god which started in the kindergarten called Eden with Adam & Eve as daddy and mummy and big brother kill little brother.


  6. “So you have perfectly described your own demise . START WRONG , MUST END WRONG !”

    @Ph.D, that prexactly, as my father would say, the postion of ‘annunaki’ et al BU Scoffers and Bildge Pumpers, their FEET are so firmly planted in ‘MID-AIR’ they are like a pilot flying at MIDNIGHT, whose instruments have ceased to function, don’t know RIGHT SIDE UP, from UP SIDE DOWN, such is the GPS of their navigator, the father of ALL LIES* Satan!


  7. @ Zoe:
    the father of ALL LIES* Satan!

    Which your idol created knowing full well he will turn out to be one sob!


  8. PHD
    To seek the Truth one must first have an open mind. For the same God the one in which you believe could have according to your belief and his awesome power reverse man’s abilty to think. People of faith like to chery pick or decide what GOD is capable of. For good reasoning and common sense should dictate to you and Zoe that the many talents God has given man that scientific Knoweldge would be one of them. It is distrubing how intelligent people of the Christian Faith would be so stubbornly blind.


  9. “This demonstrates to me that Mr. Zoe et al does not seriously consider seriously anything from anyone else they do not agree with.”

    Halsall, the EMPIRICAL, scientific EVIDENCE, FACTS, for Creation, as so beautifully REVEALED in the FOSSIL record, has NOT being refuted by any of the THEORIES presented by Evo Mat.

    Any intellectually honest person, could NOT fail to see the TRUTH of the Fossil record, that Creation STANDS TALL, with Evo Mat, UNDER its feet, where its belongs!

    “To say of what IS* that it IS*, or of what is NOT* that it is NOT* is TRUE.”
    Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1077b

    The RAZOR of Logic, epistemology, which reveals FACTS, and the critical, objective, rational, COHERENT method of evaluation of EVIDENCE, soundly, refutes Evolutionary naturalism!

    To reject this TRUTH, is to embrace a terrible LIE, hoax, Evo Mat!


  10. @Zoe… To your immediate above…

    Could you please define exactly what you mean by “Evo Mat”?

    You seem to attach some importance to the definition, but I find nothing in the contemporary nor historical literature.

    I’m sure I’m wrong and you are correct, but I would appreciate formal correction. With references, please.


  11. Halsall, man, don’t be foolish, stop nitt-picking, at this stage, your question is nothing more than ‘splitting-hairs’ another ‘Redherring’ distractive.

    Ge serious!


  12. @Zoe: “Halsall, man, don’t be foolish, stop nitt-picking, at this stage, your question is nothing more than ‘splitting-hairs’ another ‘Redherring’ distractive.

    OK… Then let me ask you this serious question.

    Why do you assume that your god is the one and only god?

    An honest question.


  13. To Chris:
    This person PHD is literally taking you apart, stride for stride. As a scientific master you should left hooking him with equations and things of the quantum that would make the rest of us poor slow learners heads spin. Why are you so cautious about engaging this person; is it that the from over and away thing has you afraid? I am sorely let down by you Chris. Beat up on me, get yourself in shape and then take on Mr. or Mrs. or Miss PHD.


  14. To Chris:
    Having engaged you in the past, i know thatyou are capable of taking care of yourself; yet I see some timidity when you engage this PHD. The fact that he presents himself as a trained man or woman of science should have pricked your willingness to engage but you have respectfully avoided an confrontation that would allow you to draw him or her out in order to investigate their limits or quantum of knowledge as detailed by them. He defends Zoe then deal with him from that point of view; I maybe wrong but you seem to shying away.


  15. While you are at it PHD and Zoe can you explain the story Lot beimg turned into a pillar of salt. This is another story with scientific evidence which details exactly what caued the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah and what happened to Lot .Both you guys need to Seek and find . Knock and it shall be opened unto you.


  16. “OK… Then let me ask you this serious question.”

    “Why do you assume that your god is the one and only god?”

    “An honest question.”

    Halsall, are you becoming senile? Really, man, as you already KNOW, I’ve dealt with that kind of question, here on BU over the last few years, in much DETAIL, Biblically, theologically, historically, logically, and you KNOW this, I, therefore, have NO intention of repeating myself again!


  17. Mr.Lemuel,

    I am by no means trying to engage Mr .Halsall in any intellectual battles, or for that matter anyone else.

    Mr. Halsall is qualified in either physics or mathematics, from what I can gather. I am in the Aerospace/ Aviation business as previously described.

    His discipline is one of the most difficult undertakings academically , but so are many others.
    He could teach me many things , and I the same to him.

    Also Mr. Zoe is obviously highly qualified in biblical matters, at a level most beleivers can only dream of achieving, I am myself being one of them.

    Our positions are our own personal choices, and our final destination is clearly one of two places.
    We choose our own route of flight to get there , and we can either choose a smooth landing , or crash and burn.

    My whole life has been a journey of preparation. I prepared my body through hard physical training
    sport, practiced the original Okinawan Goju ryu karate, still keeping in shape even at my well advanced age. This allows me to take care of physical challenges, but I am not an aggressive person, and have never had need to take action.

    I went to school to prepare myself academically to be able to meet my daily mental and societal needs and challenges. It has been one hell of a ride.

    Now I am in the process of preparing myself spiritually, unquestionably, the biggest and most difficult of all, but in the end the most rewarding. Being a proud Christian person is by no means a weakness employed only by the fainthearted or the poor and hopeless, but a constant test of oneself and one’s moral strengths. One can so easily be tempted by the physical beauty of the human body, the fantastically designed , eye catching products we see on a daily basis, which themselves are beautiful creations. But this calls for a far superior kind of strength to past the test. Faith and trust are the key ingredients. Not everything can be proven by mere verbal explanations, but many times we can see if we are objective thinkers, that events have and continue to take place , even unknown to us.

    If a tree falls in the Siberian wilderness, but there is no one there to witness it or hear it happen, does that mean that it did’nt occur? No it does’nt. But looking around at neighbouing millions of other trees, one can reasonably conclude , given the nature and biology of trees , that at some point in time it has occured.

    At least Mr. Halsall is agnostic, so open to discussion, but I ask that you also be open to discussion with an open mind. The more knowledge we have , the better judgements we can make on a personal level.

    Our purpose in life is to help better the lives of our fellow brothers and sisters. We have failed miserbaly. Just think for a moment how many young , African , Asian and other poor children who died suffering from hunger, terrible disease, neglect, who if had they been given the opportunity to have a good education, might well have had a cure for cancer . That is now locked in their brain., gone forever.

    Hell is not the place anyone wants to be. Think of the stench, the misery of those in pain around you, the extreme heat , and no one has the time for you, they are suffering the worse torment one can imagine

    Then think about ‘it shall be done on earth , as it is in heaven’. Yes there will be a new earth. Would’nt you all prefer , to have your love oned with you again, knowing that there will be no more sickness and hatred ,fighting. Complete peace and tranquility. We may even be able to sit on a beach and have some of our your local delicacies.

    I will be away for a few weeks. Keep up the good work Mr.Zoe.


  18. To PHd:
    You are barking up the wrong tree. My only intention here was to get a dialogue between two men or women of science; I am sure the BU family would benefit. Any one can come here and join forces with Zoe, but what do you really believe. I know what Zoe believes. For instance, I do not believe that Zoe should have attempted to give an account of what happened to the dinos. There are some things that shall remain biblical mysteries until the end of time. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about saying I do not know. I have a serious problem when people of faith lean too hard on the wisdom of man. There will be scoffers to the end; there will those like ac to the end, not knowing their head from the feet spiritually. But I believe that people of faith more than those who lean on science and its explanations have a responsibility to practice our faith, and not to shy away from it because it does not come over intellectual enough to the pseudo scientists and scoffers.


  19. @ Zoe:

    What kind of teacher are you? I don’t have any fancy designations like your advocate PhD but don’t you think that (a simple dunce) deserve some kind of consideration:

    Remember the line in the Desiderata: “Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story”.
    Zoe, please see me as one of the dull and ignorant. Please answer my question posed to you:
    “Where in the Bible (OT) can I find your assertion that over 2 millions Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years?”

    Please, please, pretty please, answer my question!


  20. Decades ago – long before “transhumanism” was even recognised as a term in the English language – social scientists and philosophers had begun looking to concepts from science fiction literature for ideas on the potential future of religion in the modern world.

    “Science fiction cultic ideas “packaged in new churches” were proposed as types for a new civil religion. “New Christianity,” “sociocracy” and “exotheology” (theology of outer space) are described by Dr. Erdmann as early forms of a “paradigm shift in religious thinking.”

    One of the foremost recent proponents of this mode of religious revisionism is Dr. William Sims Bainbridge, a sociologist of religion and senior director at the National Science Foundation’s Human-Centered Computing program. Dr. Bainbridge has proposed that social scientists become “religious engineers” to promote new “galactic religions” rooted in the ideas of modern UFO cults and “capable of motivating society.”

    This is a brief sketch of the ‘Satanically’ devised and inspired godless* Antichrist deluge, that gripping many in today’s End-Time scenario, as hinted at by some BU bloggers, who are already TRAPPED with this UTTER deception!


  21. “For since the CREATION of the world His* invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN*, been UNDERSTOOD by the things that are MADE*, even His ETERNAL power and Godhead, so that they are WITHOUT* excuse, because, although they knew God, they did NOT glorify Him as God, but became FUTILE* (empty, vain, foolish, confused!) in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts wre DARKENED. Professing to be wise, they became FOOLS.” ( Romans 1: 20-22 Emphasis added)

    Not ONCE, has God’s Word, the Bible, ever proved to be wrong, in its thousands of prophetic statements/declaration, over the course of history, from the Creation narrative account, in Genesis, confirmed by EMPIRICAL scientific EVIDENCE in the FOSSIL record; the UTTER demise of ALL paganistic, ancient civilizations, because of rampant IDOLATRY, worship of FALSE, demonic deities, I.e, Egyptian, Babylonian, et al, down to the technological age of social engineering, UFO, and a maze of other Satanically driven deceptions, which the majority of humanity are falling for, exactly as prophecied in God’s Word, the Bible.

    The PROOF, historically, scientifically, experientially, logically, legally, IS* all around us, that the One and Only Almighty God, who HAS revealed Himself, in so many ways, simply CANNOT be refuted, it can only be denied, by those, who;

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” ( Rom. 1: 22)


  22. “Again, the Catholic Church has formally stated that they accept that Evolution occurs.”

    Halsall, the Catholic Church, the most wicked, evil, religious/poliical institution, on earth, masquerading under the banner of Christendom, does NOT give any credence to the THEORY of evolution, by ascribing to this LIE, its like Satan ascribing righteousness to himself!

    I’ll get back to you a bit later on the Ten lies of evolution, which is a masterful, delusional, perversion of the facts and truth of the matter, as counter-presented by the apologists of evolution!


  23. Debunking Evolution:
    problems, errors, and lies exposed,
    in plain language for non-scientists

    “Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.”

    “Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.”

    Mutation – natural selection
    “Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution’s only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.”

    “Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.”

    “Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread (“sweep”) through a population and stay (become “fixed”). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a “classic sweep”, “in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population.” Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. “To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations”. “In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years.” Evolutionists had identified “more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome”, and they expected that “diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps.” So what did they find? “In contrast to expectation,” their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a “paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings”. Sweeps “were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity.” “Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years.” –Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

    “A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations”. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.” “The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” –Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

    Microevolution – Macroevolution
    “This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: “Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of ‘organs of extreme perfection’, such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved.”– Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin’s bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

    Gradual change versus leaps
    “There are two versions of evolution theory. The main version proposes that many tiny changes over millions of years made new creatures. It is called the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution.”

    “But “major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.” “The principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”20

    “Since the fossil record does not show tiny changes between one type of creature and another, a few evolutionists proposed a modification to evolution theory. It says that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium), not gradually. However, each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really about big leaps. It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of “geologic time” to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes beyond variation are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.”

    Fossil record
    “Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress “under construction”. That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution’s continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin’s day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution was true. In the “tree of life” that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.”

    ” This tiny fish (a little over an inch long, or 3 cm) is Haikouichthys. Its fossils have been found in the Lower Cambrian, where the first complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record. This “first fish” has a spine and spinal cord, eyes, gills, fins, scales, mouth, etc., though no jaw, like a lamprey. About 500 were found buried together.32″

    ” This is Guiyu, a fossil fish that “represents the oldest near-complete gnathostome (jawed vertebrate).”38 It measures about 15 inches long, or 37 cm. Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today’s fish. Guiyu is “a representative of modern fishes” from the Silurian, before the so-called “age of fishes” (Devonian).9 In the evolutionist’s mind, “a whole series of major branching events… must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian.” “A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown

    ” Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: “If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants.” Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many “living fossils”. Where is the evolution?

    “Fossil compound eyes from the Lower Cambrian, where the first complexcreatures suddenly appear in the fossil record, have been found in the Emu Bay Shale of South Australia. The fossils are supposedly about 515 million years old. They may be corneas that were shed during moulting. The lenses are packed tighter than Lower Cambrian trilobite eyes, “which are often assumed to be the most powerful visual organs of their time.” Notice that the lenses in the picture are different sizes. It is the same in the fossils. Each eye has “over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses”. “The arrangement and size-gradient of lenses creates a distinct [forward] ‘bright zone’… where the visual field is sampled with higher light sensitivity (due to larger ommatidia) and possibly higher accuity”. This indicates “that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light.” “The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms” today, such as the fly in this picture, “revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes”.22 When the earliest form is the most complex, there is no evolution.”
    Evolutionists tell us this dragonfly has not shown up in the fossil record for 250-300 million years! Dozens of the Ancient Greenling Damselfly live near Melbourne, Australia. “The damselfly, part of the dragonfly group Odonata, is the only living representative of the family Hemiphlebiidae. Its ancient predecessors are found solely in 250-300 million-year-old fossil records from Brazil to Russia.” –Smith, Bridie. January 5, 2010. Found: fossil-linked, listed damselfly. http://www.theage.com.au (newspaper website)

    ” This is a drawing of a supposed predecessor, Protozygoptera. With a wingspan of under 6 cm, it is the earliest damselfly-like insect ever found and “the origin of modern dragonflies”. Its fossil wing was found in rocks of the Upper Carboniferous which evolutionists think are about 300 million years old. As with many creatures, dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed. Damselflies living today look like Protozygoptera; there are no transitional intermediates and there was no evolution. –Jarzembowski, E.A., A. Nel. 2002. The earliest damselfly-like insect and the origin of modern dragonflies (Insecta: Odonatoptera: Protozygoptera). Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, Vol. 113, pp. 165-169.

    ” Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. Most people know “the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth”. Research now “shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive”. “Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated.” –Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.

    “Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird.” “The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory.” “Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found.” “Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution.” But “bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs”. “Microscopic imaging of bone structure… shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs.” “Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast”, researchers say. “Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today’s birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives”. “The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought.” “We now know that the transition into true birds — physiologically and metabolically — happened well after Archaeopteryx.” –October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news release.
    What evolutionists now know for sure is that their celebrity superstar was not a transitional creature after all. Wow! OMG. They better find a new one fast…”

    ” How about the Platypus? They could call it a transitional creature between ducks and mammals. The furry platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.”

    “As for the birds in the evolutionary tree, evolutionists just placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series The same is true for the famous horse series. Looks great, doesn’t it? But each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.”

    Halsall, this is just a brief, sound, scientific refutation, to Evolution, and the FACTS of the matter; as there WERER/ARE NO* proper, transitional, intermediates in the Fossil record, each and every one cited by evolutionists, are NOT any kind of evolutionary transition at ALL, but, all FULLY FORMED, appearing ABRUPTLY, within its own kind!


  24. @Zoe… Are you familiar with the old saying “Give a man enough rope, and he’ll hang himself?

    Halsall, that’s EXACTLY what Darwinian Evolution, and its twin brother, rabid Atheism has done to its godless* cause and agenda! With the FOSSIL record, wrapped around its neck, that’s the “Give a man enough rope, and he’ll hang himself.”


  25. @ Ms Zoe.

    Exactly which version of your holy book do you accept as gospel..

    And if you are able to dismiss other versions, are unbelievers entitled to dismiss your selection as is their wont?

    If not, why not?

    Love and kisses XX ,
    St


  26. NOTE carefully, further, Halsall and ST, in their folly and absence to offer any substance whatsoever to refute, the historic Judeo/Christian worldview, which IS* substantiated IN* and BY* scientific, historic, and tons of other valid evidence; they continue to come like morons, with more foolish, Redherring, distractive questions.

    Why would you all, continue to expose your ineptness, and intellectual shallowness, in such a public forum?


  27. @Zoe: “Why would you all, continue to expose your ineptness, and intellectual shallowness, in such a public forum?

    Because we understand the game.

    Unlike you.

    We are willing to answer questions.

    Unlike you.

    We are willing to say “we do not know”.

    Unlike you.

    We are willing to be honest.

    Unlike you….


  28. But, then again, as Einstein said, to paraphase him, “….fools have to speak, when they want to say something, unlike the wise and infomed, who speak when they have something to say.”


  29. @ Zoe:
    “….fools have to speak, when they want to say something,

    Couldn’t agrre more! This is the most apt quotation you have reproduced (cut & paste) to date! The first step on the road of recovery for an alcoholic is to confess and accept that he is one. Self criticism can be cathartic!
    Your copious mouthfuls speak for themselves.
    God speed on your journey to Damascus


  30. Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation
    Don Batten interviews Dr Carl Werner, author of Living Fossils (Evolution: the Grand Experiment vol. 2)

    Dr Werner
    Dr Werner graduated from the University of Missouri with distinction in biology (summa cum laude). He received his doctoral degree in medicine at the age of 23 and practices emergency medicine in St Louis.

    Dr Werner explained what living fossils are and why he became so interested in them, collecting photographs of these fossils over the last 14 years: “Living fossils are fossilized animals and plants that look similar to modern organisms. I became interested in living fossils as a tool to test evolution.”

    “There are basically two models of how life came about: The evolution model suggests that chemicals coalesced and formed a living single-cell almost four billion years ago and then this changed over long periods of time into all other living things. Examples of evolutionary changes include a dinosaur into a bird, or a four-legged land mammal into a whale. The other model, creation, suggests that an external supernatural being (God) created all of the various types of animals and plants at once, and these organisms have changed little over time, other than variations within a basic type.”

    Dr Werner’s use of ‘type’ is similar to the biblical use of the word ‘kind’ in Genesis. For example, an animal can change, but only within its kind, such as a wolf into a dog—not radical change such as a four-legged mammal into a whale.1

    Dr Werner continued, “Living fossils provided me a simple way to test evolution. If evolution did not occur (animals did not change significantly over time) and if all of the animals and plants were created at one time and lived together (humans, dinosaurs, oak trees, roses, cats, wolves, etc), then one should be able to find fossils of at least some modern animals and modern plants alongside dinosaurs in the rock layers. I set out to test this idea without any foreknowledge of any modern organisms in the rock layers. My results (as laid out in the book & video Living Fossils) showed that many modern animals and plants are found with dinosaurs—far more than I ever expected to find.”

    Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found [in ‘dinosaur rock’] including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc.

    Dr Werner and his wife Debbie travelled over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) and took 60,000 photographs as they filmed the television series Evolution: The Grand Experiment. (Episode 2 of this series, Living Fossils, reveals exactly what they found.) They focused on fossils found in dinosaur rock layers, and compared these fossils to modern animals and plants.

    “We looked only at fossils found in the dinosaur dig sites so that scientists who support evolution could not suggest that the fossils we looked at were not ‘old’. All of the fossils we used for comparisons were found in dinosaur rock layers (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous).”

    Many modern animals in dinosaur rock!
    I asked Carl just how many modern types of animals he had found in the dinosaur rock layers.

    “We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).

    “The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”

    Modern fish, amphibians and reptiles
    “Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.

    “Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.

    “All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”

    Modern birds
    “Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc. When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information during our TV interviews it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera.”

    Mammals
    “At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. I don’t know how close these mammals are to the modern forms because I was not able to see most of these, even after going to so many museums.”

    Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. … But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing.

    “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers;3 almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”

    Many modern plants in dinosaur rock!
    “In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.”

    Fossil sea urchin

    Living sea urchin

    Were any modern organisms not found?
    “I did not find fossils of every organism living today in the dinosaur layers, rather I found representative examples from all of the major animal phyla living today and all of the major plant divisions living today. Taking it one step further, within these bigger groups, I frequently found representatives of all of the major groups or classes within a phylum. For example, for echinoderms (starfish, sea urchins, etc.) I found fossils of all of the major types living today. Same with the insects and the crocodilians, etc. I did not find any large mammals. The largest mammal discovered in a dinosaur layer so far (live size) is 30 pounds (13 kg). Nevertheless, with so many living fossils, both plants and animals, from all of the major phyla and all of the major plant divisions, it points to stasis (lack of change), not evolution. I should also note that if you look at the serious problems with the fossil layer system (the geological column as presented by geologists today), the absence of the bigger mammals can easily be accounted for, but I will save this for a later day.”

    Evolutionary story telling ‘unsinkable’?
    I asked Dr Werner how evolutionary scientists deal with this evidence, given these remarkable findings. Dr Werner remarked, “If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

    Different names for the same animal?
    Carl related how evolutionary scientists give fossils different genus and species names from the living forms, creating the illusion of evolution: “Let me give you an example. A scientist found a fossil sea urchin in Cretaceous rock that looks nearly identical to a modern Purple Heart sea urchin, but assigned it to a completely new genus (Holaster). If you saw that creature alive in the ocean you would recognize it as a Purple Heart sea urchin (genus Spatangus). The different name suggests that sea urchins have changed over time, but this is contrived ‘evidence’ for evolution. The fossil looks the same as the living one.” (See photos right).

    Evolution disproved?
    I asked Dr Werner if his study disproved evolution.

    “It is becoming more and more difficult for the evolutionary model to stand in the face of this great number of living fossils. Adding the many other problems with evolution (fossil record, origin of first life, geological layering problems, similarities of non-related animals, etc.), you can declare with confidence that yes, the theory is finished. If a few larger mammals were found in the dinosaur layers, it should be over even for the die-hard believers of evolution, but people tend to go to their grave with the theories they learned in college. A new generation might well look at all of this and ask, ‘What were they thinking?’ ”

    Further reading
    Do fossilized plants and animals really look all that different from animals we see today?
    References
    1.Sarfati, J., Variation and natural selection versus evolution, Refuting Evolution chapter 2; creation.com/rech2 Return to text.
    2.They were a rodent-like order of mammals, named after their teeth (multiple rows of bumps, or tubercles, on their molars). Return to text.
    3.See Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L. and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004. Return to text.

    Julie I. wrote: “Thank you so much for this site! I am very blessed already. I appreciate you sharing all these helps and resources. Especially the free ones. We are grateful!” Keep the free stuff coming.

    TwitterFacebookRSSEmail News


  31. Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics
    by Dr Robert W. Carter

    Published: 11 May 2010(GMT+10)

    The evolutionary map of world migrations is startlingly close to the biblical account of a single dispersal of people from Babel. The evolutionary “Out of Africa” theory tells us there was a single dispersal of people, centered near and travelling through the Middle East, with three main mitochondrial lineages, with people traveling in small groups into previously uninhabited territory, and that all of this occurred in the recent past. Every item in that list is something directly predicted by the Tower of Babel account in the Bible. (Image http://www.mitomap.org).
    It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of the Flood), and that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that (the Tower of Babel).1 It surprises them even more to learn that much of this evidence comes from evolutionary scientists. In fact, an abundant testimony to biblical history has been uncovered by modern geneticists. It is there for anyone to see, if they know where to look!

    For our purposes, the most important places to look are in the Y chromosome (which is only found in males and which is passed on directly from father to son) and in the mitochondrial DNA (a small loop of DNA that we nearly always inherit from our mothers only; males do not pass it on to their children). These two pieces of DNA record some startling facts about our past.

    Over the last decade, a vast amount of information has been collected that allows us to answer questions that we could not even consider earlier. The tools of modern genetics allow us to specifically ask questions about history, for our genes carry a record that reflects where we came from and how we got to where we are. The tools at our disposal are powerful.

    Creation and genetics
    There are two brief passages in the Creation account we can use to draw some conclusions about human genetic history. Please note that we cannot use these verses for land animals (because we do not know how many of each kind were initially created) or any of the swimming critters (“with which the waters abounded”—Gen 1:21). These statements apply to people only:

    “And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Gen 2:7
    “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Gen 2:21–22
    These simple statements have profound implications. They put a limit on the amount of diversity we should find in people living today. The Bible clearly says the human race started out with two people only. But how different were these two people? There is an intriguing possibility that Eve was a clone of Adam. The science of cloning involves taking DNA from an organism and using it to manufacture an almost perfect copy of the original. Here, God is taking a piece of flesh, with cells, organelles, and, importantly, Adam’s DNA, and using it to manufacture a woman. Of course, she could not be a perfect clone, because she was a girl! But what if God had taken Adam’s genome and used it to manufacture Eve? All he would have had to do was to leave out Adam’s Y chromosome and double his X chromosome and, voilá, instant woman!

    I do not know if Eve was genetically identical to Adam. The only reason I bring this up is because we have two possibilities in our biblical model of human genetic history: one original genome or two. Either result is still vastly different from the most popular evolutionary models,2 but we need to discuss the range of possibilities that the Bible allows.

    Your genome is like an encyclopedia (almost literally). And, like an encyclopedia, the genome is broken down into volumes, called chromosomes, but you have two copies of each volume (with the exception of the X and Y chromosomes; women have two Xs but men have one X and one Y). Imagine comparing two duplicate volumes side by side and finding that one word in a particular sentence is spelled differently in each volume (perhaps “color” vs “colour”). Can you see that if Eve was a clone of Adam, there would have been, at most, two possible variants at any point in the genome? If Eve was not a clone, however, there would have been, at most, four possible variants at any point in the genome (because each of the original chromosomes came in four copies). This still allows for a lot of diversity overall, but it restricts the variation at any one spot to 2, 3, or 4 original readings.

    Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.

    There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions.3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.

    The Flood and genetics
    Like in the Creation story, there are only a few verses in the Flood account that help us with our model. But as seen before, these verses are profound.

    Like in the Creation story, there are only a few verses in the Flood account that help us with our model. But as seen before, these verses are profound. About 10 generations after Creation, a severe, short bottleneck occurred in the human population. From untold numbers of people, the entire world population was reduced to eight souls with only three reproducing couples.

    “So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.” Gen 7:7
    “Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth… These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” Gen 9:18–19
    We can draw many important deductions from these statements. For instance, based on Genesis 7 and 9, how many Y chromosomes were on the Ark? The answer: one. Yes, there were four men, but Noah gave his Y chromosome to each of his sons. Unless there was a mutation (entirely possible), each of the sons carried the exact same Y chromosome. We do not know how much mutation occurred prior to the flood. With the long life spans of the antediluvian patriarchs, it may be reasonable to assume little mutation had taken place, but all of Creation, including the human genome, had been cursed, so it may not be wise to conclude that there was no mutation prior to the Flood. The amount of mutation may be a moot point, however, for, if it occurred, the Flood should have wiped out most traces of it (all of it in the case of the Y chromosome).

    How many mitochondrial DNA lineages were on the Ark? The answer: three. Yes, there were four women, but the Bible does not record Noah’s wife as having any children after the Flood (in this case, girl children). And notice the claim in Gen 9:19, “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” This is a strong indication that Noah’s wife did not contribute anything else to the world’s population. With no prohibition against sibling marriage, yet,4 one or more of the daughters-in-law may have been her daughter, but this does not change the fact that, at first glance, we expect a maximum of three mitochondrial lineages in the current world population. There is a chance that there will be less, if there was very little mutation before the Flood or if several of the daughters-in-law were closely related. At most, we do not expect more than four.

    How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noah’s wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.

    Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found.5 This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.6 For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.

    The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”, “N”, and “R”, so we’ll refer to them by the same names. They would not say these came off the Ark. They claim they were derived from older lines found in Africa, but this is based on a suite of assumptions (I discussed these in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Creation7). It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.

    Let’s assume ten female generations from Eve to the ladies on the Ark. M and N are separated by about 8 mutations (a small fraction of the 16,500 letters in the mitochondrial genome). R is only 1 mutation away from N. This is an indication of the mutational load that occurred before the Flood. Given the assumption that mutations occur at equal rates in all lines, about four mutations separate M and N each from Eve (maybe four mutations in each line in ten generations). But what about R? It is very similar to N. Were N and R sisters, or perhaps more closely related to each other than they were to M? We’ll never know, but it sure is fascinating to think about.

    One more line of evidence crops up in the amount of genetic diversity that has been found within people worldwide. Essentially, much less has been found than most (i.e., evolutionists!) predicted. The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000)8 people surviving. However, the reason for this lack of diversity is twofold. First, the human race started out with only two people. Second, the human race is not that old and has not accumulated a lot of mutations, despite the high mutation rate. Third, there actually was a bottleneck event, Noah’s Flood!

    The Tower of Babel and genetics
    The Tower of Babel has been a favorite bedtime story for generations. But is it more than a fairy tale? Could it be possible that there is evidence to back up this tale of rebellion and judgment? Like the Creation and Flood accounts, there are only a couple of verses that apply to our model of genetics. But, like the others, these verses are as profound as they are simple.

    “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.” Gen 11:1
    “And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’” Gen 11:4
    It sounds like they were in a homogenous culture, but what do people in that situation do? Would you expect them to mix freely? Were language or cultural barriers present that would have prevented the sons of Shem from marrying the daughters of Japheth? Would the daughters of Ham be expected to marry freely with the sons of any of the three men? Note in Gen 11:4 that they knew about the potential for spreading out and getting separated from one another and intentionally did the opposite! However, this was against the express command of God, who had ordered them to spread out (to populate the earth). So, He took matters into His own hands.

    “’Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” Gen 11:7–8
    There are tremendous implications that come from the Babel account. First it explains the amazing cultural connectivity of ancient peoples—like pyramid building, common flood legends, and ancient, non-Christian genealogies that link people back to biblical figures (e.g., many of the royal houses of pagan northern Europe go back to Japheth, the son of Noah9).

    The dramatic rise in world population over the past several decades is a well known fact. From a biblical perspective, the current human population easily fits into the standard model of population growth using very conservative parameters.10 In fact, starting with 6 people and doubling the population every 150 years more than accounts for the current human population (a growth rate of less than 0.5% per year!). Population size would have increased quickly given the rate at which the post-Flood population reestablished agriculture, animal husbandry, industry and civilization. So we must ask the question, “Why are there so few people in the world today?” The answer is that the world is young and we have not been here many thousands of years.

    When did the dispersion occur? Our best clue about the timing of the event comes from Genesis 10:25. In referencing the 5th generation descendent of Shem, a man named Peleg, it says, “in his days the earth was divided.” To what is this referring? Many people believe this is referring to a division of the landmasses (plate tectonics). This may be true, but it would require a huge amount of geologic activity after the Flood, and this would have occurred in historical times with no record of the events. The interpretation I favor is that this passage is referring to the division of people at Babel. Just a few verses after the Peleg reference, the section is summed up with another reference to the division at Babel. This fits both the context and the science. In context, Peleg was closely associated with Babel.

    How large was the population at the time? We would expect rapid population growth, but we cannot know exactly. There are 16 named sons born to the three brothers, Shem, Ham and Japheth. If we assume about the same number of daughters, Noah had on the order of 30 grandchildren. At that rate of growth, there would have been about 150 children in Salah’s generation, about 750 in Eber’s generation, and about 3,750 in Peleg’s generation. Of course, these generations overlap, etc., so let’s say there were between 1,000 and 10,000 people alive at the time of Babel. This fits nicely with the available data. It is a high rate of growth, but wars and disease had yet to start taking their toll.

    There is one more verse in this section that we need to discuss:

    “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Gen 10:32
    At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history.

    Do you see the implication in this simple verse? At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called “Sort According to Father.” He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations.

    We already saw that Y chromosomes have little variation among them. We now add the fact that this little bit of variation is almost always geographically specific. That is, after the nations were separated according to Y chromosome, mutations occurred in the various lines. Since the lines were sent to specific geographical areas, the mutations are geographically specific. The current distribution of Y chromosome lines is a tremendous confirmation of the biblical model.

    Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) adds another confirmation. We have already learned that there are three main lineages of mtDNA. We now add the fact that these three lineages are more or less randomly distributed across the world. Also, the various mutations within each of the three main families of mtDNA are geographically specific as well.11 In other words, as the three mixed mitochondrial lines were carried along with the Y chromosome dispersal, each line in each area began to pick up new mutations, just like we would predict.

    After the Flood
    The last remaining significant reference in the Bible that will help us build our model of human genetic history is called The Table of Nations. It is found in Genesis chapters 9 and 10. The Table of Nations is a record of the post-Babel tribes, who they descended from, and where they went. If the Bible is an accurate source of history, one might expect to be able to find a significant amount of evidence for the Table of Nations in genetic data. The truth is not that simple, however, and it is important to keep several things in mind. First, the account was written by a person in the Middle East and from a Middle Eastern perspective. It is incomplete in that there are huge sections of the world that are not discussed (sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Europe, Most of Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Oceania). It also reflects a snapshot in time. It was written after the dispersion began, but not necessarily before the dispersion was complete. Indeed, much has changed in the intervening years. People groups have migrated, cultures have gone extinct, languages have changed, separate cultures have merged, etc. The history of man has been full of ebb and flow as people mixed or fought, resisted invasion or were conquered. The history of man since Babel is very complicated. Modern genetics can answer some of the big questions, but answers to many of the smaller details may elude us forever.

    This is an important topic for the creation model. The world does not look at the Bible in a favorable light. In fact, it disparages it, sometimes with open hostility. Attacks are often centered on the claim that the Bible is not reliable on historical grounds, and if the history of the Bible is inaccurate, what about the theology? Think about what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Many people today see no history in the Bible; therefore, the spiritual implications are meaningless to them. What would happen for evangelism if the history of the Bible turns out to be true after all?

    Related articles
    The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos
    Genetics: no friend of evolution
    The genetics of skin colour in people—something fishy?
    Professor of genetics says ‘No!’ to evolution
    Genetics and God’s natural selection
    One Blood: Chapter 3—Genetics and the human family
    Genetics and Biblical demographic events
    Corals, genes and creation
    Is there enough time in the Bible to account for all the human genetic diversity?
    Notes and References
    1.See Nelson, J.W., Genetics and Biblical demographic events, Journal of Creation [formerly TJ] 17(1):21–23, 2003; http://creation.com/genetics-and-biblical-demographic-events Return to text.
    2.The most common version of the Out of Africa Theory has people living in Africa (as Homo erectus) for about a million years. Several tens of thousands of years ago (the data varies from author to author), a sudden bottleneck event reduced the population to 10,000 people or less. Modern humans came out of this bottleneck, our population grew and diversified a little, and then we left Africa and colonized the rest of the world. Return to text.
    3.Criswell D., ABO Blood and Human Origins, Acts & Facts 37(2):10, 2008; ; as well as Sarfati, J., Blood types and their origin (Countering the Critics), Journal of Creation (then called CEN Technical Journal) 11(1):31–32, 1997. Return to text.
    4.Prohibitions against marrying close relatives were first given in Lev. 18 and 20, about 2,500 years after Creation. Indeed, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob each married close relatives from their own family. Return to text.
    5.Jobling, M.A., Tyler-Smith, C., The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age, Nature Reviews 4:598–612, 2003. Return to text.
    6.Garrigan, D. and Hammer, M.F., Reconstructing human origins in the genomic era, Nature Reviews 7:669–680, 2006. Return to text.
    7.Carter, R.W., The Neutral Model of evolution and recent African origins, Journal of Creation 23(1):70–77, 2009. Return to text.
    8.Harpending, H.C., et al., The genetic structure of ancient populations, Current Anthropology 34:483, 1993. Return to text.
    9.A five part series on this subject was printed in the Journal of Creation (then called CEN Technical Journal) in the early 1990s. See Cooper, W.R., The early history of man: Part 1. The table of nations. CEN Tech J 4:67–92, 1990. Return to text.
    10.Batten, D., Where are all the people? Creation 23(3):52–55, 2001; creation.com/where-are-all-the-people. You can do your own simulation in a spreadsheet program using the formula N = Noekt, where No = the starting population size (6), k = growth rate per year (experiment with different rates and see what happens), and t = time (in years). Return to text.
    11.Torroni, A., et al., Harvesting the fruit of the human mtDNA tree, TRENDS in Genetics 22(6):339–345, 2006. Return to text.
    (Available in Romanian)


  32. Genetics: no friend of evolution
    A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.
    by Lane Lester

    Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

    To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

    Environment
    This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.

    Recombination
    This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

    For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

    Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galápagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today’s finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2

    Mutation

    In a fallen world, predators like this tiger, by culling the more defective animals, may serve to slow genetic deterioration by screening out the effects of mutation.

    Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000–100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.

    Photo by Ken Ham

    The ‘naked rooster’ mutation—no feathers are produced. Such mutational defects may rarely be ‘beneficial’ (e.g. if a breeder were to select this type to prevent having to pluck pre-roasting?) but never add anything new. There is no mutation which shows how feathers or anything similar arose.

    Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.

    Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly—exactly as predicted by the creation model.

    Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

    Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

    Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favourite example of natural section is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled [Ed. note: see Goodbye, peppered moths for more information].

    As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.

    Creation
    The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator’s command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

    Related articles
    Corals, genes and creation
    References
    1.Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, John Murray, London 1902, p. 278. Darwin did see natural selection acting on this and other causes of variation as an important factor in giraffe neck evolution, but not many are aware of his reliance on inheritance of acquired characteristics. Return to text.
    2.The different species of Galápagos finches have been observed interbreeding at times, clear evidence that they belong to the same created kind. Return to text.
    3.Dan L. Lindsley and E.H. Grell, Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 627, 1967. Return to text.
    (Available in Finnish and Polish)

    The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ with over 7,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based. Keep refuting the skeptics.

    TwitterFacebookRSSEmail News

    © Creation Ministries International in Australia/Canada/NZ/Singapore/South Africa/UK-Europe/USA
    Creation home | Store Specials | Q&A | Articles | Magazines | Get Involved About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Subscribe to RSS | Site Map |


  33. You can take a ‘evolutionists’ scientist to the EVIDENCE, but you can’t make him THINK HONESTLY!

    Why is he unable to think critically, honestly, and objectively?

    Well, it must always be remembered, that, they Evolutionists, as Lewontin said, have a PRIORI commitment, to material, that is, Evolutionary explanations, of ALL things, in other words, Evolutionary Materialism, comes FIRST, THEN, the pseudo-science comes IN, no matter how unscientific the methodologies are, that MUST be fabricated, created, in order to justify this HOAX, LIE, of evolution; because, as Lewontin said, “…we MUST NOT allow a Divine FOOT in the door….”

    These HATERS of Almighty God, and His incredible Created and sustained Universe, and ALL life forms on earth, are vicious LIARS, and DENIERS of TRUTH, facts and evidence, scientific FRAUDS to the max!


  34. Dinosaurs, humans and the fossil record
    by Daniel Anderson

    Published: 10 April 2007 (GMT+10)
    Photo Smithsonian Institute, Wikipedia.org

    Laonastes aenigmamus or Laotian rock rat
    According to the Bible, God created land animals and human beings on the sixth day about 6,000 years ago. This means that dinosaurs, Adam and Eve coexisted in the Garden of Eden at the very beginning of creation. However, evolutionists often mock and ridicule the biblical account because of an absence of evidence in the fossil record. In other words, because human and dinosaur bones have never been discovered together in the same sedimentary strata, they could not have lived contemporaneously. However, three specific examples illustrate the error of this logic, and provide positive evidence for the credibility of the biblical account.

    Coelacanth
    Paleontologists believed that coelacanths went extinct about 65 million years ago. However, in 1938, fishermen off the coast of South Africa found them alive and well. By evolutionary logic, coelacanths have coexisted with a multitude of other sea creatures for the last 65 million years; yet, the fossil record is silent. In addition, coelacanths and humans continue to coexist even though their fossil bones have never been discovered together.

    Tuatara
    Native to New Zealand, this beakhead lizard supposedly went extinct about 135 million years ago. For the last 135 million years on the evolutionary timeline, not a single Tuatara fossil has ever been discovered.1 Therefore, for the last 135 million years the Tuatara has coexisted with a number of other animals, yet the fossil record bears no record. Tuataras and humans continue to coexist even though their fossil bones have never been discovered together.

    Rock rat
    the rock rat has coexisted with many other creatures without the fossil record bearing witness.

    Just recently, scientists were shocked to discover that the Laotian rock rat was alive and well in the jungles of Laos. Based on the fossil record, this type of rodent was believed to have gone extinct about 11 million years ago.2 Once again, the rock rat has coexisted with many other creatures without the fossil record bearing witness. In addition, this small rodent lives with humans today, yet their fossil bones have never been discovered next to human bones.

    Conclusion
    These are just a few examples of creature coexistence not being documented by the fossil record. Although human and dinosaur fossils have never been discovered together, this in no way refutes the biblical account. Fossilization is a rare event in which vertebrates such as dinosaurs and humans comprise less than 0.0125% of the entire fossil record.3 In the case of the coelacanth, tuatara, and rock rat, observational evidence demonstrates that creatures can easily coexist without leaving a record of such coexistence in the fossil record.

    1.Sodera, V., One Small Speck to Man. p. 36. Return to Text.
    2.Retired professor captures a ‘living fossil’—Laotian rock rat once believed to have gone extinct. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060614090123.htm. 14 June 2006. See also: The ‘Lazarus effect’: Rodent ‘Resurrection’! Creation 29(2):52–55, 2007. Return to Text.
    3.Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, p. 70, 1994. Return to Text.


  35. To Zoe:
    Here i join with you; it often is hard on the ears when these scientists profoundly state that the dinos ruled the earth, when man has always had dominion of the earth. Such logic would question why lions, bears and elephants much stronger than man are not ruling the earth right now. In their exuberance, they forgot that it takes more than size and might to rule and develop anything. Yet they forget to mention that these dinos, especially the raptors, they so love to endow with basic intelligence, did not have the mental faculties to rule or develop this earth; only man has.


  36. Zoe or Zodiac, You need to give it a rest. The truth is creation and evolution has no axe to grind and continues to live in harmony despite and in spite of what anyone thinks.Scientifically or Spiritually.


  37. Christianity does’nt have a violent stream? Is you crazy? What about the crusades and the inquisition?. Who committed genocide on European Jews? Which Christian Religious organiztion sanctified African slavery.?

    All of the major wars in this modern world involved Christians as the main combatants. I am not holding brief for Islam since some of the practioners of that faith is no better. But please, cease this amnesiac accounting of Christianity as some egalitarian historical movement.

    Whether it is Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Judaism, the proactioners share one common trait. They are all vehemently anti black, and interpret their doctrines to mean white or non black is superior and black is inferior. The christian bible advises that the truth shall set one free. It is quite clear that truth has evaded the ken of many.


  38. @Annunaki, This is for you, maybe, you’ll just find out, whose ‘Son’ you really are!

    Who are the ‘Sons of God’
    Angels, demons, giants, and aliens:
    Jim Staley reveals what the Bible says

    “Sons of God”? Giants? Nephilim?

    They are among the strangest mysteries of the Old Testament. Now, hear Jim Staley explain in a comprehensive new teaching what these odd beings really were – and are.

    They’ve been interpeted as “nobles” and “sons of Seth,” but for the true answer we may need to look in another dimension entirely.

    From Genesis to Revelation and from Mt. Olympus to Area 51, Jim shows that there is, indeed, “something out there.”

    He draws on his deep knowledge of Scripture and Hebrew terminology, along with extra-biblical sources such as first century authors Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, as well as the Book of Enoch and a variety of archeological sources.

    But seeking the answers is not simply a matter of satisfying our curiosity. Jim explains that understanding these mysterious beings will help us understand critical questions such as the plan of Satan, and how men are to fall away so quickly in the Last Days as Jesus prophecied.

    This new lesson by Jim Staley pulls together and shows a connection between Greek mythology, the La Azazel goat of Yom Kippur, fallen angels, roaming evil spirits and aliens. Not only is this teaching “on the edge of your seat” fascinating, it is very scripturally based and supported by innumerable facts of history.


  39. @Zoe…

    Can you please tell us all how the atomic element Carbon manifested? Atomic number 6, if I’m not mistaken.

    Is Carbon talked about in the bible?

    Is it not generally accepted that we are all based on Carbon?


  40. @ Zoe:
    Eureka !! So you have finally found out about “those who came to Earth from the Sky” to bring advanced technology to the genetically modified primitive “ape” man.

    Please pass that bit of info onto your advocate PhD. It would help to explain his fascination with his chosen field of study.
    Don’t you think that the kind of research PhD undertakes would be considered by OT standards as ‘flying in the face of God”.
    Be careful PhD! Don’t be like that boy Icarus and fly to close to your god! Sorry I mean the Sun!


  41. @millertheanunnaki et al…

    Just for the record, I, personally, do not believe there has to be a “bringing” to our earth to manifest sentience from what we already had.

    IMHO, there is no need for extraterrestrials; no need for gods, to achieve what we have.

    But then, I might be wrong….


  42. You guys could go on forever and you would never agree. So what’s the point .it is like the blind leading the blind. Maybe you might eventually fall into a ditch. Good luck digging ourselves out.


  43. @ Zoe:
    Eureka !! So you have finally found out about “those who came to Earth from the Sky” to bring advanced technology to the genetically modified primitive “ape” man.

    @Naki, Man, you’re far up Satan’s spine of ‘spiritual’ deception many like you are classic vessels fit for his kind of masterful LIES and deception, via this so-called ‘….advanced technology to genetically modified primitive ‘ape’ man.”

    All coming to pass exactly as spoken in God’s Word, the Bible.

    “For the mystety of LAWLESSNESS IS* already at work…..And then the LAWLESS one will be revealed, who the LORD will consume with the BREATH of His mouth and DESTROY with the BRIGHTNESS of His coming. The coming of the LAWLESS one is according to the working of SATAN withn all power, of SIGNS, and LYING WONDERS* ( so-called advanced technology, etc, etc) and with all UNRIGHTEOUS DECEPTION* among those who PERISH, because they did NOT receive the love of the TRUTH, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them (Annanukai, et al) strong DELUSION*, that they should believe the LIE ( Satan’s technological, UFO, LIES, etc) that they ALL may be condemned who did NOT believe the TRUTH (God’s Word) but had pleasure in UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.” (2 Thess. 2: 7a- 12 Emphasis added).

    So it be!


  44. @ Zoe:
    “who the LORD will consume with the BREATH of His mouth and DESTROY with the BRIGHTNESS of His coming.”

    Sounds like the landing of a spacecraft to me at Denver‘s specially-designed Airport in Colorado.

    I will follow ac’s advice and say “Amen” to you!

    But CH has raised an interesting point on which I will get to him in another thread.


  45. “Sounds like the landing of a spacecraft to me at Denver‘s specially-designed Airport in Colorado.”

    @nnuki, Man, what you described above, is like childs ‘play’ compared to the GLORIOUS RADIANCE* of the APPEARING of the LORD OF LORDS, and KING OF KINGS, THE LORD* JESUS* CHRIST* as EVERY EYE* all people across the earth will SEE* HIM, instantly, as He comes, no effort at all will be necessary to DESTROY Satan and his emissaries, just the ABSOLUTE* radiance, BRIGHTNESS of His Glory, and the bearth of His mouth, is enough to render Satan and ALL Antichrist evil forces, PUFF!


  46. @Halsall, You keep asking questions that have already been dealth with here on BU, one way or the other; see the below link!

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-6-introducing-the-cosmological-desiUD’s Gil Dodgen has recently observed:

    In the case of cosmic ID the situation is even worse. The evidence for design of the laws of physics with the ultimate goal of producing a life-permitting universe is so obvious that detractors have been reduced to proposing an infinitude of in-principle undetectable alternate universes. If this is the case, nothing is impossible and everything is inevitable.

    It is plainly time for us to take back up the ID Foundations series (series to date: 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5), and to now focus on cosmological signs of design (at an introductory* level).
    While the rhetorical fireworks and worldview agendas-tinged culture clashes that so often crop up at UD and elsewhere have clustered on design inferences regarding the origin of life and the origin of body plans, modern design theory actually began with cosmological inferences to design on signs of highly specific, functionally complex organisation of the laws and circumstances of our observed cosmos that set it up at an operating point conducive to C-chemistry, cell based life.

    Then agnostic British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle​ (holder of a Nobel-equivalent prize) has pride of place:

    From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16. Emphasis added.]

    Hoyle added:

    I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [[“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]

    Canadian astrophysicist (and Old Earth Creationist) Hugh Ross aptly explains:

    As you tune your radio, there are certain frequencies where the circuit has just the right resonance and you lock onto a station. The internal structure of an atomic nucleus is something like that, with specific energy or resonance levels. If two nuclear fragments collide with a resulting energy that just matches a resonance level, they will tend to stick and form a stable nucleus. Behold! Cosmic alchemy will occur! In the carbon atom, the resonance just happens to match the combined energy of the beryllium atom and a colliding helium nucleus. Without it, there would be relatively few carbon atoms. Similarly, the internal details of the oxygen nucleus play a critical role. Oxygen can be formed by combining helium and carbon nuclei, but the corresponding resonance level in the oxygen nucleus is half a percent too low for the combination to stay together easily. Had the resonance level in the carbon been 4 percent lower, there would be essentially no carbon. Had that level in the oxygen been only half a percent higher, virtually all the carbon would have been converted to oxygen. Without that carbon abundance, neither you nor I would be here. [[Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress Publishing Group, 1996), pg. 32. HT: IDEA.]

    Why all the fuss about this?

    It can be boiled down to one pivotal word that gives a slice of the cake with all the ingredients in it: water . . .

    gn-inference/


  47. “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16. Emphasis added.]”

    Halsall, you must try using a little ‘commom sense’ once in a while, if you can, its amazing what it can teach you!


  48. Why Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Not Creating the Universe
    by Rich Deem
    IntroductionThe Grand Design?
    Stephen Hawking’s latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book’s conclusion is exactly the opposite – that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

    Rich Deem
    Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, “There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world�no Gods required” a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

    What new theory?In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a “new theory” called M-theory (where “M” stands for “membrane,” or just “m,” or “murky” or “missing”1 depending upon one’s particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as “superstring” theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from “strings” to “membranes,” although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which “predict” just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

    M-theory: science or faith?Stephen HawkingThe nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

    Whence the laws of physics?Stephen Hawking says that the laws of physics guarantee that the universe can be created from nothing. The question he never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from “nothing,” it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that laws of physics that allow such events to occur would actually exist. Why wouldn’t a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence.

    Conclusion So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of “stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith.”3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, “Who created God?” Maybe they already have the answer to that question – Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

    ¿Por qué Stephen Hawking está equivocado sobre que Dios no creó el universo?

    ——————————————————————————–


  49. As a scientist I’m certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can’t explain the universe without God
    By Professor John Lennox

    Last updated at 10:47 AM on 3rd September 2010

    Comments (611) Add to My Stories Share
    According to Stephen Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being

    There’s no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.

    According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’

    Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

    For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

    It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

    But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

    But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

    What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.
    More…Archbishop of Canterbury hits back after Stephen Hawking insists God did NOT create the Universe

    That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own – but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

    Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.
    More…Archbishop of Canterbury hits back after Stephen Hawking insists God did NOT create the Universe

    To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

    Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

    Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

    Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

    For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

    The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

    One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

    Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.

    He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

    Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

    This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

    We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion ‘letters’?

    It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don’t like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

    That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle’s view of the ‘eternal universe’ without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

    But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

    Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

    Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

    Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.

    The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

    Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

    It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

    Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

    God’s Undertaker: Has science Buried God? by John Lennox is out now (Lion Hudson, £8.99).


  50. Hey, You’ve performed an admirable job. I am going to absolutely stumbleupon it along with for me personally suggest so that you can my buddies. More than likely are going to took advantage of this excellent website.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.