Friday, December 04, 2009

Hide The Decline

What I've noticed is that the same tactics used to "hide the decline" are used to support claims that evolution is true. Enhancing favorable data, making data that does not support your claim dissipate, intimating the those who disagree and preventing them from publishing. All the same tactics.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Origin Of Species Anniversary Today

This is it! The 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

For most of the month we have been posting quotes from scientists who are not believers in creation. Today is the last day. Evolution is the great myth of our time. A myth that retards science, but more importantly a myth that turns people away from their creator... away from God. That's the purpose of the myth of evolution. It's to provide an explanation of life without the need for God. But you can't make God go away by ignoring Him or making believe He does not exist.

Reality does not go away just because you declare you don't believe in it. What you believe makes no difference.

"Science positively demands creation." - Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), page 94.

We've been looking at a lot of quotes about science, and how evolution does not even stand up as being scientific. But the answer ultimately is not in science. God has given us the answer. If we turn to God first, and pay attention to what God's word plainly says, we'll avoid the misdirections, false starts and blind alleys that myths like evolution lead science into.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... That was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today." - Michael Ruse, "Saving Darwin From The Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000)

Thank you for joining me in this "celebration" of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 23, 2009

One Day To Go - Origin's Anniversary - #20

Only one day to go to the anniversary day of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Here's another quote:

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint." - H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Evolution Equals Anti-Knowledge - #19

"So that is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge." - Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption." - Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pages 235-236.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Doctor's Visits Show Evolution Does Not Work - #18

"The majority of evolutionary movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [ i.e., that do not evolve into anything else]... The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival." - John B.S. Haldane [English geneticist], quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, page 91.

I've been going to see a doctor almost every week for the past three months. What they are finding is that I'm a perfect example of evolution not working. It turns out that I'm filled with genetic mutations. Some bones are out of place or twisted, some parts are just missing, and some have weird shapes. On the outside I look fine, but over the years I've noticed that whenever a doctor looks at my insides they have trouble hiding an expression of surprise. Some of these mutations my brothers and sisters have, some I alone have. But what's universal is that not one is beneficial. I would have thought that with all these mutations that, if evolution was true, at least one would be beneficial and I would "evolve" into something better. But no.

Have you ever wondered why we don't try to put more people into the situation of those lived near Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Or the people who live near Chernobyl? They were exposed to lots of radiation, and that means lots of mutations. You'd think that would be a good thing. That they'd have some beneficial mutations that would advance the human race. But even evolutionists know that it's not true. While they support evolution with their mouths, they know the reality and would never subject people to the conditions that should advance evolution (if it were true).

Labels: ,

Friday, November 20, 2009

A Common Evolution Switch-A-Roo - #17

When talking to an evolutionists, watch out for the big switch-a-roo. They like to talk about "evolution" (or natural selection) on the micro-evolution scale. This is something that is true and which can be observed. For example, it is why we have many different types of dogs - from German Shepherds to poodles. Life does change. But the type of life never changes. We have many types of dogs, but they are still dogs. They have not changed into something else.

But then, while still using the term "evolution" the conversation switches to be about one type of life changing into another type of life. It is assumed that if dogs can change such that there are many types of dogs, then one type of life can change to become another type of life -- something that has never been observed.

"The facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to another]." - Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940).

Labels: , ,

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Fundamental Truths About Evolution - #16

Evolution is not providing answers. Evolution is not proven. It is not a theory nor even a hypothesis. It is just an idea with no supporting facts to sustain it.

"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." - B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), page 12.

"All in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as it was before Darwin advanced his thesis. Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained. Darwinism is not so much a theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated." - G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pages 232-233.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Absence Of Evidence Supporting Evolution - #15

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." - Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, 1982, page 140

"Everybody knows fossils are fickel; bones will sing any song you want to hear." - J. Shreeve, Argument Over A Woman, Discover 11 no. 8 (1990): Page 58

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

More Quotes From Those Who Do Not Believe In Creation - #14

"I feel that the effect of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge." - Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), page 358.

The following quote is not specifically about evolution. It predates Darwinism. But it points out an important truth about Darwinism:

"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing." - Johann van Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 16, 2009

No Evidence Supporting Evolution - #13

I'm losing track of who I've quoted, please excuse me if I repeat myself. There are so many good quotes there is no reason to repeat them. Here are two more from scientists who do not believe in creation:

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology." - Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." - Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), page 147.

That's right I'm not perfect and may repeat a quotation, but God is perfect and we have is perfect Word. He tells us, in very plain language, that He created us. Not only that, He created us in His image. That means we are accountable to God and He has the right to judge us. And he has the right to pour out His wrath on us.

By the way, when we say we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ (his having paid the penalty we owe for breaking God's law), what or who have we been saved from?

We have been saved from God. We have been saved from judgment which will find us guilty (because we have broken God's law) and thus condemn us to God's eternal wrath as our just punishment. This is what those who believe in evolution are trying to avoid... and even avoid thinking about. But it can not be avoided.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Why Can't The Earth Have Been Created By God? - #12

Going in just a slightly different direction than we have been:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." - Scott Todd, "A View From Kansas ON That Evoution Debate," - Nature 401 no. 6752 (1999): 443

In other words the facts do not matter. Truth does not matter. The only thing that matters is that we prevent God from being recognized as our creator.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Evolution Or Accountable To God - #11

Continuing with yesterday's theme of asking why, when there is no evidence to support it, do intelligent people cling to Darwinism? The reason is because they want to. Here are some quotes from the early days when Darwinism was first being introduced:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do." - Aldous Huxley

That plainly states the reason for evolution. It allows us to do what we want to do.

On the other hand God tells use that he created us in his image. Since He created us He owns us. He has the right to tell us what to do. But it is also important to know we were not created in any haphazard way. We are created in God's image, and that means we are a form of a representative of God to all the universe. Since we represent God, and God has made it clear how we are to do this (the Ten Commandments for example), if we misrepresent God we can expect God will deliver justice. That means we are under God's wrath (God's punishment) for our breaking His laws.

Evolutionists don't want to face this fact. Evolution is a convenient excuse to avoid even having to think about this. But believing in a fantasy will not save anyone from reality. The reality is that we have broken God's laws and we face the just penalty for having done so.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 13, 2009

Why Do Some People So Strongly Support Evolution? - #10

The following quote is from Charles Singer, from his book "A Short History Of Science In The Nineteenth Century:

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."

Those who hold to evolution and those who understand creation to be true both have the same evidence. We all have the same fossils, the same layers of sediment, the same data. Both sides believe in science as a tool for revealing reality. The difference comes in the underlying world views that each side has. A world view can cause people to totally ignore reality when reality does not match the way they think the world should be. Here is where we get to the problem. Evolutionists need evolution to be true, because otherwise the only other option is that God created everything. That is unacceptable, because if God created everything they are accountable to God. And they don't want to be accountable to God.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 12, 2009

After 150 Years Evolution Is Facing A Crisis - #9

Because of both the lack of evidence supporting evolution, and the rapidly growing evidence supporting creation, Darwinian evolution is in a crisis. It has become a dogma that is mainly supported through suppression of dissenting voices. Here are some dissenting voices, scientists who are not creationists:

"The evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution." - Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution as Viewed by One Genetist," in American Scientist, Vol 409, January 1952, page 84.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions... Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." - L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study In Probabilities (1985)

My source for these quotes is the Evolution Handbook. A 992 page paperback that is full of facts about evolution that most people are not aware of. See yesterday's post to get a copy of this book at a discount.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Nothing Can Turn Into Something - #8

"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else." -- G.K. Chesterton

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely of imagination." - Dr. Fleishman, quoted from "F. Meldau, Why We Believe In Creation, Not Evolution, page 10.

This is the tenth day of quotes from non-Christian (non-creationist) scientists who are pointing out that evolution cannot be true. There are plenty more... many more than I'll be able to include here. Where am I finding all these quotes? From an excellent book called the Evolution Handbook. It is a 992 page paperback book that provides thousands of scientific facts disproving every basic area of evolutionary theory. The book as a cover price of $10.95. That's a bargain! But we made a bulk purchase and can make copies available for $7.00, including shipping within the U.S. Just send $7.00 to: Mission to America, P.O. Box 974, Tualatin, OR 97062. Be sure to include a note that says you'd like a copy of the Evolution Handbook.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Let's Check The Encyclopedia - #7

Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 18 (15th Edition, 1974) page said. This was writen by S. Toulmin in the section called "Science, Philosophy of,"

"It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law."

One of the problems of Darwinism is that it does not explain where the "natural laws" came from. Why does everything conform to a very precise set of natural laws that just "happen" to be perfect for life to exist on earth? The Bible tells us that God is upholding the universe--that God is the source of the "natural laws."

Here is another quote:

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge." -- Albert Fleishman, zoologist

Labels: ,

Monday, November 09, 2009

150 Years of Darwinism and Evolution - #6

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence... one can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other." -- J. Bonner, American Scientist 49, 1961, Page 240

Norman Macbeth writing in "Darwin Retried (1971) Page 77 said: "When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 08, 2009

It's The Year Of Darwin #5

We're celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That anniversary is coming up on November 24th.

To celebrate we are publishing quotes from scientists who do not believe in creation. That's right, these are scientists who DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATION. But as is true with many scientists, they are having trouble accepting evolution.

Today's quote is from Michael Denton, writing in his book: "Evolution, A Theory In Crisis" (1985) Page 327.

"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research--paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology--has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more 'aggressive advocates' would have us believe."

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Continuing the Celebration Of Origin of Species #4

Louis Agassiz, a Harvard University Professor said, "The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."

Pierre P. Grasse, in "The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977 - page 202) wrote:

"Present day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations."

"Through the use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 06, 2009

Continuing the Celebration Of Origin of Species #3

The first quote today comes from H. Lipson. It is from an article published in the Physics Bulletin 31, 1980, page 138. The article has the title: A Physicist Looks At Evolution"

"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."

The next quote is from P.P. Grasse, Evolution Of Living Organisms (1977) page 31:

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Believers In Evolution Speak About Evolution #2

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of "Origin..." here are two more quotes from scientists who are not creationists:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." - Ambrose Flemming, president of the British Association for Advancement of Science

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolutionary theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries.. have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions." - the Director of a large graduate biology department.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Believers In Evolution Speak About Evolution #1

This month is the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". This year is also Darwin's 200th birthday. In celebration I'll be posting quotes from people who support evolution.

Today's first quote is from L. Harrison Matthews, from the Introduction to the 1977 edition of Origin of Species, page xxii.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."

R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, page 63 wrote:

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Ardipithecus ramidus - The New Myth Of Science

For the past month the "big news" in science has been Ardipithecus ramidus, the latest fossil find in mankind's evolutionary background. Evolutionists are a-glow with satisfaction! There's "more" "hard" evidence that proves evolution is true.

But what did they actually find 15 years ago?

A lot of crushed bones. How do you put a crushed skull together the right way when you don't know how the originally looked? You take a guess at what you think is the right way, put the skull together, then compare it with what you want the skull to look like. When the skull looks like an early hominin, you declare that it is now correct. In this case it only took ten attempts to get the skull looking they way they wanted it to look.

What's next? Declare that the skull looks like any early hominin and announce you've discovered one of the earliest hominins and the "find of the century."

By the way, don't assume a complete skull was assembled from the collection of crushed bone. What they have is a partial skull assembled from fragments.

The pelvis helps determine whether the original creature walked upright or like a monkey. In this case it took 15 tries to get the pelvis looking like it walked upright. Then, of course, you announce that the scientific evidence shows it walked upright.

What kind of science is this?

By the way, another announcement this week took revealed that Archaeopteryx, a supposed early link between dinosaurs and birds, has been determined to be fully a... dinosaur. A scientific, microscopic examination showed that this long heralded fossil is not a link between birds and dinosaurs.

The belief that evolution is true depends on ignorance. They are counting on you not knowing the facts. Trust the one book that has never changed, and has never been shown to be false -- even after thousands of years of efforts to do so. Trust the word of an eye-witness. Trust the word of the one who was there when everything was created. Trust God's word.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Welcome To The Year Of Darwin!

2009 will be proclaimed the Year of Darwin. It is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book: "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

By the way, search for a copy of this book. It is available from many sources. Few, if any, use the full and correct title for the book. It is usually just called "Origin of Species."

So get ready for the onslaught of misinformation, half-truths, and dogma. Yes, there is some truth in what Darwin wrote. Natural selection is true. Natural selection takes existing traits (existing information) and favors those traits that best ensure survival. But what Darwin did, and what evolutionists today try to do, is extend the truth of natural selection into an explanation of the origin of life. That is where Darwin totally fails. A dog never evolves to become a cat. We have many kinds of dogs, beagles, poodles, german shepherds and boxers. But they are ALL dogs and a dog has never become anything but a dog.

Darwinian evolution says that life started from non-life (this was scientifically shown to be untrue by Pasteur two years after Darwin's book came out); then simple life evolved into more and more complex forms of life until mankind appeared. This is the fairy tale of Darwinism.

Throughout the year we'll let you know about resources that will help counter the false information that is used to promote Darwinism. To start I'm recommending an excellent book for the scientific minded, "The Design Revolution" by William Dembski. If you want a positive book presenting science supporting intelligent design, this is the book for you. It is available from using the link below:

832165: The Design RevolutionThe Design Revolution
By William A. Dembski / Inter-varsity Press

Is it science? Is it religion? What exactly is the Design Revolution?

Today scientists, mathematicians and philosophers in the intelligent design movement are challenging a certain view of science---one that limits its investigations and procedures to purely law-like and mechanical explanations. They charge that there is no scientific reason to exclude the consideration of intelligence, agency and purpose from truly scientific research. In fact, they say, the practice of science often does already include these factors!

As the intelligent design movement has gained momentum, questions have naturally arisen to challenge its provocative claims. In this book William A. Dembski rises to the occasion clearly and concisely answering the most vexing questions posed to the intelligent design program. Writing with nonexperts in mind, Dembski responds to more than sixty questions asked by experts and nonexperts alike who have attended his many public lectures, as well as objections raised in written reviews.

The Design Revolution has begun. Its success depends on how well it answers the questions of its detractors. Read this book and you'll have a good idea of the prospects and challenges facing this revolution in scientific thinking.

William A. Dembski (Ph.D., Mathematics, University of Chicago; Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Illinois at Chicago) is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is also a fellow at the Discovery Institute. He has previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University, and he has been a National Science Foundation doctoral and postdoctoral fellow. Dembski has written numerous scholarly articles and is the author of the critically acclaimed The Design Inference, Intelligent Design, and No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Freedom In the U.S. Vs Freedom In China

Who has the greater freedom of speach? Someone living in China or someone living in the U.S.?

Obviously it is the person in the America, right? We have much greater freedom here... or do we?

There is a Chinese paleontologist who travels around the world giving lectures in which he states that recent fossil finds in China are not consistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. He says this because he has observed that the major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time. Darwin's therory predicts that they should evolve gradually from a common ancestor. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

I don't claim the Chinese, in general, have more freedom of speach than American's do, but it is ironic that in China a professor can speak openly about Darwin being wrong. That's not allowed in America. To do anything that questions evolution can result in lose of tenure or even the lose of your job.

What for a movie called "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" that is coming out in April.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Creation vs Evolution Debate (Comments)

A person who calls himself TVL left a comment on a June 2006 post about Creation vs. Evolution Debate vidos. In my response I said that I would post photographs of ancient art that shows humans and dinosaurs together. All it would take is one piece of art, from 1000 years ago, showing a dinosaur and that would be proof that humans and dinosaurs lived together. But there is much more than just one, there are hundreds.

The art does not even have to show people and dinosaurs together, because:

1. Obviuosly there was a person there, because the person made the art.

2. If the art shows an accurate representation of a dinosaur (which it does), there is no other way for the artist to know what a dinosaur looked like unless he saw one, live and in-person. Ancient people did not dig bones out of the ground and try to assemble them into skeltons.

There is not just one or two paintings and carvings showing dinosaurs, there are thousands from many different cultures around they world. They show many different types of dinosaurs, and they show them correctly. That's something we have not always been able to do. For example, for many decades the brontosaurous was considered the largest dinosaur. But, scientists had the wrong head on this dinosaur. That mistake was recently corrected. However, ancient art unearthed nearly 100 years ago shows this dinosaur with the correct head.

What is shown in this post are two ica stones from Peru. The one above shows two people fighting with a dinosaur. The one in front of the dinosaur is attacking it with a spear. There is also a person behindthe dinosaur attacking it with an ax. This carving was made about 1000 years ago and buried as a part of a funeral.

Here is a second ica stone, also about 1000 years old, that clearly shows a different type of dinosaur.

In addition to ica stones, there is other art such as: a carving of a dinosaur in a Cambodian temple; Native America rock petrogliphs showing dinosaurs; tapistries showing dinosaurs; there is even a book from 16th century Europe, that catalogs all the animals existing at the time in Europe... and the catalog includes dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs are even mentioned about 40 times in the Bible.

To see ancient art showing dinosaurs visit:
This web site does not show very good web design skills, but it does have very good pictures.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Secret Emails - Following The Evidence Where It Leads

Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
ISU’s tenure process and official explanation in the Gonzalez case exposed as a sham.

Iowa State University faculty plotted to deny tenure to a distinguished astronomer, as revealed in private emails written by faculty and administrators at ISU.

Discovery Institute is making public a record of secret emails exchanged among faculty at Iowa State University about noted ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.

The emails demonstrate that a campaign was organized and conducted against Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design (ID) of the universe, expressed in his 2004 book The Privileged Planet. In spite of his distinguished publishing career, Gonzalez was denied tenure by ISU in the spring of 2007.

Faculty involved in the tenure decision were well aware of Gonzalez’s support for ID. More than one year before his tenure evaluation was scheduled, one ISU professor wrote an e-mail that left no doubt that Gonzalez’s tenure application would never receive a fair evaluation. "He will be up for tenure next year," wrote the professor. "And if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department.

Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design "disqualifies him from serving as a science educator."
Read the rest of the story here.

Intelligent Design Was the Issue After All: ISU’s official explanation in Gonzalez case exposed as a sham
Internal documents show Gonzalez was denied fair tenure process by hostile colleagues who plotted behind his back, suppressed evidence, and then misled the public.

This executive summary outlines the following and includes ISU faculty quotes from e-mails siezed in a public records request last spring.

A. The Campaign to Vilify Dr. Gonzalez and Induce Him to Leave ISU.
B. The Use of Intelligent Design as a Negative Factor in Tenure Deliberations.
C. The Effort to Evade the Law by Suppressing Evidence that Could Be Used in Court to Prove a Hostile Work Environment.
D. Private admissions that Dr. Gonzalez was denied academic freedom or otherwise mistreated.
E. The Cover-Up: Department Chair Eli Rosenberg’s Effort to Mislead the Public.
F. The Rejection of the Recommendations of the Outside Reviewers.
Read the rest of the story here.
Click here to download the summary as a PDF document.

How Eli Rosenberg, Chair of ISU’s Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Concealed Viewpoint Discrimination When Explaining Tenure Denial
Tenure votes at the earliest levels are made by a faculty member’s department, and they typically set the tone for whether that faculty member will ultimately receive tenure. Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was ... read the rest of the story here.

Secret ISU Faculty E-mails Express Disregard for Academic Freedom
Public document requests under Iowa's Open Records Act have obtained revealing correspondence of key faculty members within ISU's Department of Physics and Astronomy. Various e-mails show that ... read the rest of the story here.

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 17, 2007

Most Science Studies Appear To Be Tainted

About a year ago I was writing in this blog about the fact that we can not always trust what science says just because it is science. People put blind faith in "science", never questioning what they read or what they see on TV or what they are taught. The problem is science is done by people (scientists are people), and people are not perfect.

Last Friday's issue (September 14, 2007) of the Wall Street Journal had an article called "Most Science Studies Appear To Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis." The opening paragraph states:

"We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong."

Two paragraphs later the article explains:

"These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis."

I'm not saying that all science is bad. I love science. I have an engineering degree and science is the foundation of engineering. There is a lot of good science being done and a lot of problems also. But as flawed as it may be, we need to trust science just to live our everyday lives. But when it comes to something as important as what happens to you after you die, don't blindly trust science, ask questions about what you are hearing and reading.

When someone says a fossil is 65 millions years old, find out why they said that. What evidence do they have and how reliable is that evidence? (The methods for dating fossils are full of holes.)

When someone claims to have found a missing link, find out why they claim that. What is the basis of their claim and how well does is stand up to the test of time? (Many "missing links" have been found, none have stood the test of time.)

When someone says evolution is true, ask "Why do you say that?" Then look at the evidence they claim. There has been no scientific evidence that supports evolution. There is over $250,000 in "prize" money available to anyone who can present evidence proving evolution. The money goes unclaimed.


Saturday, July 07, 2007

Links Between Past and Present?

Newsweek likes to regularly publish information that supports evolution as true. The July 9, 2007 issue includes a sidebar, not related to the article it is with in any way I can see, that provides three transitional forms that have been found in the fossil record. Or are they?

First, a good general rule of thumb is that whenever it is announced that a fossil missing link has been found, give it ten or so years for all the facts to come out. It took 40 years from when Piltdown man was "found" until it was shown to be a fraud. Originally the Coelacanth (a fish) was thought to be a transitional form having "fins" used for moving on the watery bottom, until a living coelacanth was discovered (Latimeria chalumnae) and it turned out the fins were used solely for swimming. Time after time, every transitional fossil has turned out to not be what it was originally proclaimed to be.

Let's look at the three transitional fossil in the Newsweek article. To keep this post relatively short, I'll provide a link to explanations describing what has actually been found (no science-based transitional fossils):

Tiktaalik Roseae: This is the latest transitional fossil find. Calling this a transitional fossil has many problems, even at this early stage. What really bothers me is, not only does this fossil not have the characteristics needed for a transitional form, in trying to fit it into an evolutionary sequence of fossils the fossils in that sequence have had their size and position in the sequence distorted. If scientists are going to present "evidence," at the least it should not include intentional distortions.

Archaeopteryx: The first thing I notice about this fossil was its history. Discovered in 1861, it came from an amateur collector and local doctor Carl Haberlein, who had received from another person it in lieu of payment for medical treatment. On the other hand, when human fossils are discovered in layers dated to the same age as dinosaurs, professional paleontologists refuse to work on recovering them, so amateurs recover the bones... the "scientific community" calls the discoveries invalid because they were not excavated by professions. So archaeopteryx was excavated by an unknown person who could not pay his medical bills, and it is enshrined as a transitional fossil. My problem is not with amateurs, it is with the double standard.

Is Archaeopteryx a transition from reptile to bird? No, it is not. In 1984 at the International Archaeopteryx Conference scientists agreed that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, not a transitional form. Only a small minority of scientists continue to push for it as a transition form. Why then do publications such as Newsweek still promote Archaeopteryx as a transitional form? Because, even though it is not factually true, it provides compelling evidence for evolution. Evidence based on... nothing.

Pakicetus: A few skull fragments were discovered in Pakistan. They appeared to be from a wolf-like creature that allegedly had an inner ear like a whale’s. Thus these fragments were announced as a transitional form showing a land animal that had become an aquatic ancestor of today's whales. In 2001 research published in Nature showed that Pakicetus was a true land animal, not aquatic. So the theory was reversed and Pakicetus was declared a land animal that is a descendant of whales... although that means the animal we see living today is older than the extinct animal that followed it. Isn't that backwards???

Solid anatomical data now shows the Pakicetus is not an ancestor of the whale.

To find out what really happened pick up your Bible and read Genesis chapter one. Evolution and Darwinism keeps producing evidence that isn't evidence and theories that keep changing. Yet nothing that has been found has contradicted the Biblical account, and the scientific evidence that the Bible is true continues to grow. All of the land animals, including dinosaurs were created on day six of creation. About 1,400 years later there was a catastrophic world-wide flood that buried billions of dead things in rock layers around the world... the fossils we see today.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 29, 2007

Investigating Evolution

Dr. Carl Werner did what I urge everyone who believes in evolution should do...

Don't believe evolution just because you've been told it is true.

Don't believe evolution just because everyone else believes it.

Ask questions. Investigate.

Dr. Werner was educated in and committed to evolution. A college friend challenged him to prove evolution was true. He took up the challenge and spent 18 years studying geology, dinosaurs and extinction. But, although he wasn't sure what the problem was, he sensed that something was wrong.

So Dr. Werner and his wife decided to go and see the evidence for themselves. They interviewed scientists. Visited fossil dig sites. Over a ten year period they traveled to 60 museums in seven countries. They compiled hundreds of hours of video, 60 thousand photographs and 1,000 pages of transcribed interviews.

The result was that he failed. He could not prove evolution was true.

You can read about Dr. Werner's investigations into evolution in a new book: Evolution: The Grand Experiment.


Sunday, June 24, 2007

Transitional Fossils

The following is from on a continuing discussion about evolution arising from a post dated July 1, 2006.

The comment concerned trasitional fossils.

I could not find information about transitions between trilobite species found in Pennsylvania or Lake Tureana mollusc species. Are you saying trilobites are the ancestors of molluscs?

However, the bottom line of this comment seems to be that, since many scientists believe in the accuracy of various dating methods, then they must be true. There is a huge problem with this. Historically the majority of scientists believed in whatever was the currently accepted scientific "facts" at that time. Why do new scientific textbooks need to be written periodically? Because the scientific facts keep changing. We keep learning and the majority is continually revealed to be wrong. What was accepted as fact 100 years ago, is no longer true today.

At one time the majority of scientists believed the world was flat. They were shown to be wrong.

At one time the majority of scientists believed that letting out blood with leaches was needed to heal saicknesses caused by having too much blood. They were shown to be wrong.

The key question is, what is true? No what does the majority believe?

Yes, what the majority believes is worth investigating. But majority does not equal truth.

Labels: ,

Humans and Chimps are Genetically Similar

The following is from on a continuing discussion about evolution arising from a post dated July 1, 2006.

Another comment showing there are scientific fields producing evidence for evolution was: Genetics: The DNA of different species can show a trail of common ancestry, in fact, humans and chimps contain 98 % of the same DNA.

This is a myth that has been around a long time.

There has been some research done in this area. The correct statistic is 96% similarity.

First recognize that there has been no chimp genone project. So there is no direct comparison. There was a study of chimp genes that was limited to 97 selected genes. It was determined that looking at these selected genes, there was a 96% similarly to the genetic information found somewhere in human genes. This was determined using a crude technique known as DNA hybridization. It involves combining single strands of DNA from a human and a chimp to observe similarities.

What is not discussed are the genetic differences. DNA contains a huge amount of information, equal to about a thousand 500 page books. If we accept the 96% similarity number as true, a 4% difference is equivalent to 40 large books or 12 million words arranged meaningfully.

The science of population genetics show that human-like animals can produce no more than 1,700 mutations per 20 year generation. It is genetically impossible for humans and chimps to have a common ancestor, even if we allow 10,000,000 years.

On the other hand, similarities can also come from a common designer. For example, a car maker uses the same parts in different models. A 1961 Ford and a 2006 Taurus have four wheels, a steering wheel, windshield wipers, bumpers and many other similar components. No one would say the Taurus naturally evolved from the older car... they had a common designer. If there is a design that performs a function well, it makes sense to use that same design in multiple organisms.

By the way, there is a 75% genetic similarity between a nematode worm and human DNA. There is also a 50% genetic similarity between a banana and human DNA. The same genes, in different objects, can have different functions.

A good web site with information on the subjects we've been discussing is: Darwinism Watch

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Convergent Evolution / Homology

The following is from on a continuing discussion about evolution arising from a post dated July 1, 2006.

The comment showing there are scientific fields producing evidence for evolution was: "Comparative Anatomy: This shows the same skeletal elements in the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats, showing that all have some common ancestry. This is only one small example in this field."

You may be speaking about "convergent evolution" or about the theory of "homology." Both need to be discussed together.

Convergent evolution is when species without a close common ancestor have different looking structures which perform similar functions. The wings of a fly and the wings of a bird would be an example of this. Thus if living things have parts that function the same, but have different structures, it is a proof for evolution.

Homology states that, if there is the possibility of close common ancestor, similarities in structure are due to common ancestory. Similar looking structures evolved to accomplished very different tasks. Thus, if living things have parts that function differently, but have the same structures, it is proof for evolution. This is the option I believe you are talking about.

If we look at the complete picture, what we have is: that if things look the same, it is evidence for evolution. And if things look different, it is evidence for evolution. The problem is that the assumption that evolution is true underlies the conclusions.

If the initial assumption that evolution is true is removed (as should be done for a true scientific investigation) there is a third theory. That biological structures are similar because they were created by a common designer.

So which of these three, or combination of them, has evidence to support it?

If convergent evolution is true, then we should find lots of living things (and fossils of living things) with intermediate stages showing the evolution of stuctures as the environment forces them to change.

If homology is true, then we should find lots of living things (and fossils of living things) with intermediate stages leading back to a common ancestor.

If a common designer made all things, we should see similar structures in various living things. There would be no evidence of intermediate structures. If two living things performed similar functions, but were radically different (flies and birds) we could expect to see different structures. Again there would be no evidence of intermediate structures.

When we look at reality, what do we see? Stasis. We see living things with no evidence of the required change. We do see natural selection. For example, there is evidence that all dogs came from a common ancestor, a wolf. But dogs always create more dogs, nothing else. And the structure of dogs shows no sign of the changes required for convergent evolutiuon or homology. The observable evidence, what we can see and measure (reality), favors a common creator. Comparative anatomy provides evidence for a common creator, not for evolution.

Labels: , ,

Embryos Have Similar Characteristics?

The following is from on a continuing discussion about evolution arising from a post dated July 1, 2006.

The comment providing evidence for evolution is: "Comparative Embryology: In the developing embryos of very different species of organisms, we see the same structures developing. For example, the embryo of a human is almost identical to that of a chicken or a pig. Developing “arm” buds of each species are indistinguishable, but could develop into an arm, wing, or flipper depending on the certain genetic sequence. Evolution explains why a developing human embryo would possess a tail or gill pouches."

Are you talking about the theory of ontology recapitulates philology? This theory states that embryos go through a genetic sequence that was preserved from their evolutionary heritage. Thus embryos show features from earlier parts of their evolutionary genealogy.

This theory was created 1866 by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. To support his theory he published a set of embryo drawings that showed the similarities among embryos. When I checked my son's high school biology book in the year 2000, these drawings were in that book. The problem is that Haeckel faked the drawings. His evidence was completely made up. A few years after he published his drawings he was charged with fraud and convicted by a university court. For over 125 years this fraudulent "evidence" for evolution has continued to be included in textbooks.

We now very accurately know what embyos look like, and it is nothing like what is shown in Haeckel's drawings. Why do they continue to be included in textbooks? Because, I've heard debaters say, these drawings provide strong "evidence" for evolution, even though they are not true. In other words, if it looks good, even it it is not true, use it anyway. That's not science. These are people who are desperate for evidence they can not find.

Labels: ,