Tag Archive: Science


Have you ever hugged a tree? I’m not going to suggest you should, but perhaps it’s time for some of us to give trees and plants-and their origins-a lot more thought than we have up until now…

IMG_1703

A few months ago I shared with you a discussion I heard by a panel of very learned evolutionists on the subject of photosynthesis*. In its scientific moments it was extremely educational-because life is stunningly complex and beautiful, and because truly empirical science is fascinating and enlightening. However, it also included a degree of speculation and wishful thinking, revealing more of the incredible lack of evidence evolutionists actually have for their theories which, they tell us, are conclusively proven. I decided to give it a second visit, and quickly found more gems of speculation which I would like to sample for you here.

I said last time that:

Evolutionists love to claim the moral high ground in the debate over origins by stating that their beloved theory is supported with only empirical and rigorously tested science, whereas, they insist, “ignorant”, “deluded”  and even “dangerous” creationists rely solely on faith, hope and mysticism.

I then went on to outline the explanation they have for the evolution of photosynthesis. Apparently chloroplasts, where that all-important process takes place, “were once bacteria”, and were “captured by more complex cells, something in the order of one billion to one and a half billion years ago”. Well that’s pretty darned specific, eh? What’s in a half billion years anyway? Time just flies by doesn’t it?

There’s no actual evidence of any such transition from one to the other. There’s just bacteria…and chloroplasts. Evolutionists are determined to believe in it anyway. As one of the experts on the panel says:

“…there are no fossils of this kind of thing-to date-in rocks, but it must have happened…

The casual listener, and especially the listener convinced of the theories of evolution, would enjoy the discussion convinced that he’s hearing expert scientific assurance in his view of the origin of life. I found it interesting that the genres of this particular discussion are listed on the BBC web-site as “Factual” and “History”. Since there’s no evidence for the theory of the origin of the process, shouldn’t there be more genres listed: “Speculation”; “Philosophy”; “Faith”; “Hope”; “Religion”; “Poppycock”; “Propaganda”?

Chloroplasts take electrons from water and “put them onto” Carbon Dioxide, with the help of sunlight energy, the panel tells us. They also discard oxygen as a by-product. Hey-what a weird coincidence! Plants discard oxygen which we need, and we discard carbon dioxide, which plants need…to make food…which we eat…and to discard more oxygen…which we need… and grow bigger, and reproduce… and make more oxygen…and food… Far out man!

August 2013 010

Asked by the fawning host how a series of membranes and enormous complexes of proteins extract electrons from water and “pass them down a kind of a chain”, and eventually push them onto carbon dioxide to make sugars, the expert answers that at the biochemical level the process is “enormously difficult” to understand.

“Why?” says the host.

“Well it’s not easy to get electrons out of water in the first place”. Even waves crashing upon rocks in the largest storms will not release electrons from water.

“But light can do that. Now light doesn’t normally do that: certain wavelengths-UV light-can split water, but by enlarge it requires..a…a biochemical skill which we can mimic, but with great difficulty…and plants just simply do it…”

Host: “They must have evolved to do it over a long period of time… why did they want to do it?”

Answer: “That’s always a difficult question in evolution…”

Why indeed.

I’m not here saying that what is unknown is evidence for God, as some would accuse me of saying. However, the incredible “coincidences” of nature; the inexplicably complex processes-all interlinked and interdependent; the unfathomable intricacy; the unsurpassable beauty of nature, and the sheer lack of hard evidence for the only theoretically viable alternative to Creation by an intelligent and omnipotent God, are all compelling arguments, in my book, for the notion that “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

* https://nickyfisher.com/2016/07/22/the-must-haves-of-evolution/

Advertisements

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?

11928322-blue-ocean-wave

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, at just the right distance from a just-the-right-sized star began to rain on itself.  Some “organic” chemicals got together and came alive, formed an inconceivably complex DNA molecule which then found a mate and some food.

A just-the-right-sized moon just happened to be in orbit at just the right distance to keep the oceans moving and alive without causing tsunamis every day, and a couple of billion years and countless billions of beneficial mutations later (which have never been observed) here we all are, yearning to communicate our deepest feelings and to have them satisfied.

You may think evolution is all “science”. I certainly believe in science-that is, observable testable phenomena. But when did anyone ever 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?

They didn’t, and we all have faith…

(This post was originally published in April of 2015 and has been edited a little)

SOFT DINOSAUR TISSUE

Cambodia-stegosaur_wide

Have you ever noticed how often nature programs and nature journals or books, particularly those written for children, begin their reports with the words “Millions of years ago…”?

The majority of people have heard the phrase so many times that they’re convinced it’s a proven fact that life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years.

Did you know that soft tissues have been found in fossils and bones which are supposedly millions of years old? The Institute for Creation Research has listed some of those finds, among which is the discovery of type 1 collagen, soft blood vessels, proteins, blood cells and DNA within fossilized T Rex bones. Does it make sense to you that dinosaur bones should have soft blood vessels inside them after sixty-five million years?

Of course, evolutionists have been working hard to adequately explain away the finds, and the biased mainstream media only has to ignore the finds or stack the “evidence” against them, and we can all then continue merrily on in the belief that there is no God to answer to.

http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue-list/

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissues-theyre-real/

http://www.icr.org/article/7091/

http://www.icr.org/article/mummified-dinosaur-skin-looks-young/

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:

http://www.icr.org/article/did-some-dinosaurs-really-have-feathers/

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:

http://www.icr.org/

THE THEORY

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.

http://www.icr.org/article/historic-primordial-soup-study-yields/

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33160

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/26/news-to-note-03262011

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.

THE TRUTH

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.

 http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336625708&sr=8-1

%d bloggers like this: