Creation-Evolution Headlines: More Soft Tissue Found in Old Fossils

•April 1, 2011 • Comments Off on Creation-Evolution Headlines: More Soft Tissue Found in Old Fossils
More Soft Tissue Found in Old Fossils

“Watch out for the suggestive wording in articles like this.  The
first article used the phrase “building blocks” twice.  That phrase is
commonly used by evolutionists seeking to make the origin of life
sound as easy as A-B-C. The end of the article also talked about
using the techniques to infer the long-term status of buried wastes, a
red herring that sidesteps the damaging implications of finding
still-intact soft tissue in rock alleged to be millions of years old.
   Over and over, articles like these promise readers that
discoveries are helping scientists “understand” the world.  If they
truly understood, they would admit that the evidence only makes sense
if these fossils are recent.  The millions of years are not in the
fossils in the rocks, remember, but in the rocks in evolutionists’


Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin

•February 23, 2011 • Comments Off on Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin

“Olson’s revelations are even more shocking, and, in a way, delightful
– for those who believe that the Bible, not Darwin, tells where man
came from.  Olson essentially said that Darwinists should pack up and
go home, because the factors that they have counted on to explain
human complexity are minor players.  Then he said that most mutations
are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual
person.  For the coup-de-grace, he said that there seems to be a
“Platonic ideal” of the human makeup (wild-type referring to natural)
from which we all “fall short.”  This is the opposite of Darwinian
evolutionary ascent from slime; it is descent with modification
downward from an initial ideal state.  Biblical creationists will
shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam!”

Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified

•January 4, 2011 • Comments Off on Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified

“Bozorgmehr did not refer to intelligent design, and did not cite any
ID sources, but arrived at the same conclusions about the natural
limits to biological change that creationists and ID advocates have
been preaching for decades.  This indicates that common sense and
honest evaluation of the facts falsifies Darwinism without reliance on
religious or creationist sources.  (Where ever did anyone get the idea
that informational codes could arise, or have any meaning, apart from
intelligent design?)”

Creation-Evolution Headlines: Fruit Flies Not Evolving

•October 4, 2010 • Comments Off on Creation-Evolution Headlines: Fruit Flies Not Evolving
Link: (via

A long-running experiment trying to get fruit flies to evolve has
failed. A research team forced selection on the flies to explore the
limits of natural selection. Only minor changes were detected after
600 generations. The research team was disappointed and surprised;
there was even less evolution in these sexual organisms than in
similar experiments with microbes, like bacteria and yeast. And all
this was under ideal lab conditions. Success is even less likely in
the wild.

Did a Global Flood Move Rocks Across Continents?

•September 14, 2010 • Comments Off on Did a Global Flood Move Rocks Across Continents?

Did a Global Flood Move Rocks Across Continents?

Geologists were baffled. Something moved rocks up to 3,000 miles
across whole continents. They found evidence in Asia and also in
America. How on earth could that happen? Their list of explanations
omitted one possibility: the transporting power of water. Maybe it’s
because it would have implied a global flood like the world had never

Evolution News & Views: Eric Hoffer’s Skepticism About Darwinism

•September 1, 2010 • Comments Off on Evolution News & Views: Eric Hoffer’s Skepticism About Darwinism

Richard Dawkins wrote in his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth that

the evidence for evolution grows by the day, and has never been stronger. At the same time, paradoxically, ill-informed opposition is also stronger than I can remember.

What he says about the evidence for evolution growing is the opposite of the truth. In reality it is getting weaker. The key to understanding this is Hoffer's comment about nature's "minute dovetailing and mathematical precision." The more we study life at the molecular level, the more precise that dovetailing turns out to be. It has reached the point where it is impossible to believe that it arose by the natural selection of random variants.

In the 19th century, German contemporaries of Darwin such as Max Schultz and Ernst Haeckel thought that a cell was a "simple lump of protoplasm." That was pure fiction, invented by the materialists of the day to make Darwinian evolution seem more plausible. Everything we have learned in the 150 years since then has shown that, far from being "undifferentiated protoplasm," the cell exceeds in complexity a modern hi-tech factory.

Before the Human Genome Project we thought we knew what a gene was–a well defined nucleotide sequence. Now its complexity is seen to be so great that the old concept of the gene will probably have to be abandoned. (See "What Is a Gene?" Nature, 2006.) As the research grows, the minute dovetailing is shown to be more and more precise at every level. It is pure deception to pretend that we know how it happened.

Contrary to Dawkins, the alleged evidence for evolution becomes less plausible with every passing day.

De Facto Intelligent Design in Biology – Telic Thoughts

•June 29, 2010 • Comments Off on De Facto Intelligent Design in Biology – Telic Thoughts

This is as much a philosophical as a technological advance. The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it.