Tag Archive: Evolution/Creation

Researchers at the University of Greater Heybridge in Essex, United Kingdom, have been working on a project which could be set to turn the music world upside down…


Professor Scat “the cool cat” Higginbottom has been at the center of an advanced study, picking up from where the late and great Vivian Stanshall left off.  That is, the discovery that hamsters have more musical talent in their genes than Mozart and Beethoven had between them. You will surely remember, dear listener, that Stanshall spearheaded the ground-breaking research in “Snail Music”.

It all began late one December night in 1971 when Stanshall, then still working on his own masterpieces for the “Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band”, detected  a small, shrill but heavenly voice coming from the corner of his living room. To Stanshall’s amazement, it was his thirty-two year old hamster “Minks”, who, after having relieved himself copiously on the floor of his cage, was jubilantly singing “Moonlight In Vermont” with a gusto which would have sent Sinatra into a rage of envy. The University of Heybridge was poised to spearhead the study of this phenomenon.

Unfortunately neither Stanshall nor the Uni. were able to find the funding needed to conduct a thorough study of Minks’ talent, and the raver rodent was all but forgotten. However, similar discoveries made by other hamster-lovers in recent times have revived interest in these amazing creatures, and thanks to Prime Minister May’s personal interest in the humble hamster, government funding has at last been forthcoming to the tune of two million British pounds (twenty-eight trillion dollars).

Professor Higginbottom is absolutely delighted:

“I’m absolutely delighted”, he said.

So stay tuned folks, it’s only a matter of time before the newest heart throb on your favorite radio station will be…a hamster.

* Apologies to all you hamster-lovers out there who’ve read my report on this amazing research before. Please allow me to be slightly insane, or I will go completely insane… Why did I select the “Evolution/ Creation category for this post? You may well ask…



Whether you think we were designed and created, or that we evolved from non-life and then lower forms of life, you believe in miracles. Either way, it’s not something that happens every day: have you seen either one occur? A miracle is defined as it is because it’s so unnatural in terms of normal every day events and what we believe to be possible.

If we evolved, nothing-or virtually nothing-turned into billions of stars and galaxies. A huge lump of rock began to rain on itself. Some “organic” chemicals got together and came alive, formed DNA, found a mate and some food, and a couple of billion years later here we all are, yearning to communicate our deepest feelings and have them satisfied.

You may think evolution is all “science”. I certainly believe in science, that is, observable and testable phenomena. But when did anyone show you life forming from non-life, or a universe coming into existence from nothing, or a cow turning into a whale, or a mutation producing a new species?

No, we all have faith…in what we want to believe.

I’m cheating here, summarizing an article published in the June 2012 issue of “Acts and Facts”, which is a free publication of the “Institute for Creation Research”, or “ICR”.

The article, written by Frank Sherwin and Brian Thomas, was prompted by a recent fossil find in China which is said to be “another” specimen of a fossilized dinosaur complete with feathers. The implication of course is that these creatures were mid way between being dinosaurs and birds.

The animal, named “Yutyrannus huali” is said to be a “gigantic feathered dinosaur”, “the largest yet found”. Such were the headlines.

However, when you start to read below the headlines, or to listen to the information following the sensational TV announcements, you find that the “feathers” are subsequently called “feather-like structures” or something rather more technical, scientific-sounding, and impressive, such as “protofeathers”.

The article’s authors point out the major, and huge, differences between what has been found and real, actual bird feathers as we know them. For example, real bird feathers have semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, and the fossil’s filaments do not.

Further, neither dinosaur skin impressions nor original dinosaur skin has follicles similar to those that produce feathers in birds.

The Yutyrannus huali was a Chinese tyrannosaur. Somehow I just can’t picture a tyrannosaur – a “gigantic feathered dinosaur”, perching in a tree or on a cliff edge, leaping into the air, and then gliding gracefully to the ground, even if it had managed to climb the tree in a desperate search for food.

Sherwin and Thomas state that the so-called “feathers” are more logically interpreted as being fossilized fragments of partly decayed skin.

Skin contains collagen protein fibers that decay more quickly than the soluble biomaterials that surround them.  In an environment such as the Flood of Noah’s day, the dinosaurs would have begun rotting while being transported by the waters. The soluble flesh rotted first. The collagen fibers would have soon rotted too, “but the surrounding mud or wet sand quickly turned to dry rock that inhibited growth of collagen-eating microbes”.

The authors give an example of a 2005 comparison of partially decayed skin from a variety of animal carcasses with dinosaur “feathers”. The evolutionary authors of the study said that calling dinosaur fossil structures “feathers” is misleading.

Of course, Archeopteryx is the famous alleged link via theropod dinosaurs between reptiles and birds. Sherwin and Thomas point out some of the major differences between the structure of a bird and that of a theropod, saying that “no evidence supports the story that such fully formed wings (as the archaeopteryx had) with fused clavicles ‘evolved from’ the tiny., clavicle-free theropod forelimbs”. They state confidently that Archeopteryx was all bird, without a single transitional structure.

One thing that dinosaur-feather believers choose to ignore is that fossil bird prints have been found in rock layers supposedly containing some of the “earliest” dinosaurs.

The authors make the point that even if a true feathered dinosaur were to be found one day, it would not solve evolution’s huge problem of converting a reptile skeleton into that of a bird.

Dinosaurs and birds were created as distinct “kinds” at the beginning of all life as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis.

For the full article complete with pictures, and its references, follow this link:


To peruse ICR’s entire inspiring and informative web site, which includes articles on many contemporary subjects in the creation/ evolution debate, try this one:



I have two young sons who still don’t like to have their bedroom completely dark at night. We leave the shades partially open so that the street lights allow them to see around their room. If they express any fear I just remind them that I am only a few feet away in the next room. Most of us can remember feeling the same way about darkness as children: I used to have a good look under the bed and inside my closet before I went to bed, to make sure nobody was hiding in there, ready to crawl out as soon as the lights were switched off. I’ve spoken to many people who did the same thing.

On July 4th I took my family to see the fireworks at the local park. Until the fireworks began, a band played cover versions of popular songs from the sixties up to the nineties in the park’s amphitheatre, and did a great job of entertaining everyone. Between two of the songs, the vocalist made a little speech that really touched me. He noted the fact that lots of people these days are fearful about the economy here and in Europe, and people are fearful of terrorists or what might happen in the Middle East.

“Things may look dark” he said, “but it’s okay, because our Father, the Lord Almighty, is just a few feet away-in fact, not even that far…”

To my mind it takes a real man to not only think something like that, but to say it in front of a crowd of people.

And he’s right: God is with us and He’s in control. Sometimes it doesn’t seem like it, when we see what goes on in the world around us and sometimes in our own lives. The world can appear to be a very dark place depending on our circumstances and outlook.

It’s a huge mistake to think, as many people do, that God should be there to wait on us and fix all our problems while we go on in our own way, unhindered. That’s just not the way it is. Jesus said “In this world you will have trouble.” Then he said “But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). God has clearly declared that He has a master plan to put things right. He has a day and a time in store for the restoration of his “very good” creation. All we have to do is to accept his son, to turn from our own ways and embrace his instead. Jesus said:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).

When we have our eyes fixed on our God instead of the economy and what our enemies are saying, we can have confidence.  Again, Jesus said:

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25).

We are told in scripture that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is not blind hope, it’s an understanding and acceptance that God is good, and that we can therefore entrust ourselves to His care. Things don’t always go how we want them to go. Sometimes circumstances in our lives are miserable. However, in our “journey” of faith, if we know the character of God, we understand that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). Our spiritual “street light” is God himself, because “God is light; in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).


Most of us have been told for decades that the Miller experiments proved how life originated in that primordial soup (you know –Darwin’s favorite food). In the 1950s Stanley Miller, Harold Urey and a team experimented on the elements that “must have” existed in abundance on the early earth, (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen, and then later on Hydrogen Sulfide), by zapping them and their compounds with electricity. Of course, lightning had to be involved in the creation of life, as even Frankenstein himself knew, well before Miller came along (!) That’s strange: I always thought electricity and lightning destroyed life…

Miller and the boys produced some amino acids, some of the chemical building blocks of life. While many believed that they actually produced life in a test tube (when it had allegedly taken nature many millions of years), they were in fact no nearer to producing life than you would be to producing a space shuttle if you managed to extract or produce some plastics, ceramics, copper, glass, steel, and so on. Even then, the space shuttle can’t reproduce its own kind.

A few years ago, Jeffrey Bada, a biochemist in California inherited the very vials that Miller had used, and began to conduct more experiments on the residue, enthusing that he had found more amino acids in trace amounts. They in fact found a total of 23 amino acids, ten of which are found in life. Bada and a team continue to work on these experiments, in the hope of finding more clues to the origin of the first life on earth.




It struck me that for decades millions of people have been convinced by school text books and television documentaries (and not any visible evidence) that Miller had virtually given birth, “proving” that we all crawled out of the soup via fish-like, lemur-like and ape-like creatures.


I’ve reviewed Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” before, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is really seeking some truth. In Expelled, released October 2008, Stein exposes some of the strong arm tactics being employed to shut out of science, education and the media not only anyone who may believe in a Creator, but anyone interested in Intelligent Design (the search for design in nature without putting God into the equation), or even anyone who wants to question the Darwinian explanation of evolution.

I want to draw your attention to one of the most striking parts of the movie. The layman can easily miss the significance of it, and I missed most of it on my first viewing.

Towards the end of the movie, Stein interviews the great Richard Dawkins, and gives us all a fabulous glimpse into the mind of one of the world’s leading evolutionists. Dawkins begins by reading from his book “The God Delusion”, and proceeds to call the Judeo-Christian God (not Allah, of course) all the names you wouldn’t dare call Adolph Hitler or Idi Amin, even now.

Stein asks Prof. Dawkins (for all of us to see and hear) how the process of the origin of life started.

Prof. Dawkins: “Nobody knows how it started…we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life”.

Stein: “What was that?”

Prof. Dawkins: “It was the… origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”

(Wait a minute, I thought, we have just made a leap from nothing but soup to the first self-replicating molecule).

The conversation continued…

Stein: “Right. And how did that happen?”

Prof. Dawkins: “I’ve told you, we don’t know”

Stein: “So you have no idea how it started?”

Dawkins: “No, no, nor has anybody.”

Prof Dawkins then goes on to suggest that some remote and highly evolved civilization out there in space may have “designed a form of life which they then seeded onto perhaps this planet”.

So here, a man who doggedly resists Creationism and Intelligent Design, and who says that the evidence for evolution is “totally overwhelming”, is offering his speculation (and not evidence) that life on earth may have been “designed” and “seeded”. He is also admitting that apart from this neither he, nor anyone else, knows how life began.

If it had indeed been “proven” that life evolved in the soup, as hundreds of millions of people have been led to believe, then Prof. Dawkins would not be giving such answers: he would be trumpeting the results.

“Expelled” is a must see movie for the seeker. I’m told that a few atheists will give such productions a one-star rating in order to lower the overall rating as much as possible, so don’t be put off: the low cost of the movie is fantastic value, if only to see the interview.


%d bloggers like this: