Is Nature or Intelligence Responsible for Eye Design? Can the processes of biology create an eye?  Nature only has one known mechanism for creating new material or designs, that is random mutation.  Natural selection would only become part of the creative process after mutations have either accidentally created something new or accidentally modified an existing sequence that has a positive or negative impact on the ability for an organism to survive.  Since natural selection is often mistakenly thought to be

Probability Versus Natural Origins

How likely is it for chemical processes to build the molecules used by life and then change them into all the different forms we see?  Do you think that enough time, 4 billion years perhaps, makes it probable, even inevitable?  Is such a possibility based on an examination of the probabilities involved or is it just a feeling? Wouldn’t someone who wanted to prove that natural origins were probable within a 4 billion-year time span want to demonstrate it by

Eye Origins Part 1

The Stories from Evolutionism. Many people still believe that the eye could have had a natural origin. This belief has been around well before science was able to determine if it was true or not.  For over 150 years now some people have accepted the idea that a natural origin for the features in life is possible.  But over the last 50 years a growing number of scientists have been abandoning this idea as not compatible with what we know


As some materialists try to make sense out of their interpretation of reality they have debated whether our existence is indeed reality or if we are part of a simulation.  Why is there a debate?  Because the mathematical properties of the physical universe are in conflict with what their beliefs have compelled them to deny, that the universe is intelligently designed. Should we call scientists considering this idea Simulated Design Creationists? Scientific American called the idea that we live in


While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science. No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could


How would you identify a whale as a whale? Evolutionists think that a small land dwelling creature called pakicetus was a whale. The question is, what is it about the pakicetus that makes them call it a whale? If you saw a pakicetus in a line up with a blue whale, a humpback whale and a dolphin you’d laugh at how simple it was to dismiss it from the group. But Evolutionists insist that it’s a whale. So exactly what


In the article “SPARK OF GENIUS” in the December 2012 issue of Smithsonian, evolutionists claim that fire influenced our biological evolution. “…fire’s most lasting impact was how our responses to it altered our brains, helping endow us with capabilities such as long term memory and problem solving.” They suggest that: Using fire as a light led to a “profound change in how our brains regulate time.” This is because it allowed us to stay awake longer. And, “…fire altered the


To illustrate irreducible complexity can be accomplished by evolution rather than being evidence for intelligent design Talk Origins attempts to show that adding parts to a structure can create irreducible complexity; therefore evolution is responsible for all irreducibly complex structures and systems in biology. They believe this evidence makes the irreducible complexity argument silly.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html But does it seem silly to them because they miss the point or don’t understand it? Think about what is said here: “This is why


In a section called Forum, in the January 2013 issue of Scientific American a one page article called “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts,” written by a fifth grade schoolteacher, Jacob Tanenbaum, has an embarrassing number of factual, analytical and logical errors, misinformation and fallacious arguments. Besides the exaltation of science as a savior, it also exhibits a disturbing trend among materialists, that being the vilification of Bible believing Christians and the belief that they are a threat to our very


Natural Selection + Homology – Designer = Macro Evolution (Exclude mutation from this formula) Generally macro evolutionary stories have the following elements. Natural selection is used to represent the full process of evolution, homology helps create the evolutionary sequence, and then the idea that a designer wouldn’t create the feature being examined is used to give credence to natural selection and homology. Meanwhile, mutation is usually left out of the story because it falsifies, contradicts or complicates the storyline. HOMOLOGY


Consensus is supposed to represent the agreement of the experts. Yet consensus also means that there isn’t enough evidence to make a conclusion based on the evidence alone. Not all fields of knowledge rely on consensus as a means to verify a fact. Those that do however suffer from the problem that consensus, once formed, tends to snowball. It attracts careers, institutions, the media, governments and those who are driven by peer acceptance. Once the consensus becomes enforced and entrenched


In evolutionary stories you are often directed to a particular speculation that seems to be supported by science and seems to confirm the accumulation of many unseen evolutionary changes. The focus is drawn to something that looks as if it could have evolved.  But you need to think about what it is they are not looking at and what they bypass and what they assume in order to make the story sound plausible.  In most cases it is not that


“In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term.” Charles Darwin Natural selection is the star of the evolutionary process. How often is natural selection given exclusive credit for a presumed evolutionary advance in biotechnology?  Meanwhile, mutation, its silent partner with the bad reputation, the one that did all the design work, misses another opportunity for stardom.  Even Darwin was aware that natural selection wasn’t capable of causing anything without variation.  Consider the following


The argument from bad design, unnecessary design or unlikely design, i.e. “a designer wouldn’t do it that way” is very often used to prop up natural selection or homology arguments because they are scientifically weak. It is mostly used as a straw man argument against design. THE ARGUMENT FROM BAD DESIGN It really adds nothing to the understanding of how the feature in question would occur naturally. It’s heavily bogged down with subjectivity, who’s standard of perfection are we supposed


One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Evolutionist will shy away from the topic of the origin of life when in mixed company and attempt to claim it’s a non issue. In spite of this denial it is part of most evolutionary storylines. Evolution was never accepted because scientific data demanded it. Its


“This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.” W.R. Thompson “…inquiring minds, even when misled, could not help making some discoveries.” Isaac


How do you know what you know? Most of us have specialized knowledge in one or two areas, our profession and our hobbies, learned from education and or experience. Some professions like an historian or a theoretical physicist or paleontologist don’t get their information from first hand knowledge, but very often from someone else’s work, or from ideas that can only be “proven” by an agreement among peers. For that matter, all of us know very little about everything that


If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it’s not a duck, it’s probably another case of convergent evolution Generally, the assumed transitions in the evolutionary story do not require a scientific explanation. Evolution is assumed to be responsible for every feature of every organism that ever existed. The key to defining an evolutionary ancestral relationship is usually similarity of structure. The differences are assumed to be the result of evolution. Quite often however things may


What is Bible prophecy? The Hebrew word for prophecy simply means inspired communication. It could be delivered by speech, by song or in writing. The Greek word has the same meaning, but includes the idea of poetry. In the Bible the word prophecy is always used to indicate divinely inspired communication. The ministry of a prophet was to deliver a message from God. A false prophet would therefore be someone who was pretending to declare divine messages. The current idea


Darwinist’s answer to irreducible complexity There is a story that goes something like this, After a lecture on the cosmos, an old woman approached the lecturer and said, “I’m sorry but your wrong about the earth orbiting the sun and the sun being part of a galaxy, the earth is actually sitting on the back of a giant turtle” The lecturer then asked, “Well, what’s the turtle standing on” “Another turtle.” She said. “And what’s that turtle standing on” “It’s


An alleged Bible contradiction that actually proves the Bible internally consistent. Why present alleged contradictions in the Bible as amazing evidence for the Bible’s accuracy? For one, proof of the Bibles accuracy comes from the fact that it stands up to the critic’s accusations. Let’s say you are examining a bulletproof vest. How do you test the claim that it’s bulletproof? You shoot at it. The critics provide endless ammunition to test the Bible for accuracy. They shoot lots of


This is a list of a few of the supposed scientific errors and problems in the Bible that its critics have claimed they have found.   Are bats called birds? And these are they which you shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle,…And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (Leviticus 11:13-19) A similar list can be found in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. The problem


Specified complexity exists in only two places, life and things designed by life. This fact is supported by many observations and experiments that started centuries ago and continue in top science labs today. Complexity is a relative term. Technically, by definition something becomes complex as soon as it has more than two parts. But complexity for us is based on two things, the amount of data there is to consider and also our familiarity with what we are considering. The


One of the things that sets the Bible apart from all other collections of writings is prophecy. The Bible often tells a story that took place in real time. Kings and sojourners wrote of their lives and their journeys as they related to God, but always, in every account is the promise of things to come. Prophecy is central to the message of the Bible. Prophecy is a strong evidence of the divine origin and inspiration of the books in


“Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible becomes probable and the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” –Former Evolutionist George Wald. The infinite improbability drive is a fictional space ship engine invented by fiction writer Douglas Adams. It enabled a ship to go to any point in the universe in only a few seconds. The ship would reach its destination


This is a list of some of the mistaken ideas that are used in evolutionary thinking.   1. Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships. When used as evidence for evolution it becomes circular reasoning. Similarities can have two origins, design or ancestry. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Another problem is that


“Why should a rat run, a bat fly and a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with the structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor. An engineer starting from scratch could design a better limb in each case.”  Former Evolutionist Steven J. Gould   One of the arguments that evolutionists often put forth is that there are many poorly designed systems in life. This, they claim is evidence of evolution. Why? 


What kind of scientific experiment would you do to determine if something were created by intelligence or formed through natural processes?  Would testing something chemically prove it was designed?  Only if you knew that the chemicals were unable to produce that combination or arrangement without intelligence. You would not only have to set up experiments to test the natural properties of the chemicals involved but you would have to be reasonably sure that the chemicals would not normally produce the


Was the Bible written by men who were inspired by God or was it written by men who were telling tall tales, motivational stories, or trying to deceive in order to gain something for themselves? Were the authors of the books of the Bible who they claim to be? Because if they were not then we have a problem, how did men who were either delusional or deceptive write a book that, apart from authorship, contains evidences of divine origins?


This is one of the most amazing prophecies in the Bible. It predicted the very day that Jesus was declared to be “Messiah the King.” There are two basic interpretations, both agree that it predicts the time of Jesus’ first coming, the Futurist interpretation states that the prophecy is yet to be completed, but the Fulfilled interpretation believes that it was completely fulfilled within a few years of Jesus’ life on earth. Aspects of both interpretations will be examined, but

« Older Entries