We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
When we walk on earth, walk carefully for future generations look up on us.
Who is marginalizing the sciences - evolutionists or creationists?
In these links below you find some of the answers.

What all scientists should know about the latest findings on the Book of Genesis! Know this: Nothing in my hand I bring, only to the cross I cling!

Chirality
A chemical term meaning handiness and being the cause for the spiral shape of DNA (double stranded helix) is explained in Here!

Jurassic Jumble
To read about death, transport and rapid burial in the Dinosaur National Park's Jurassic Jumble, Utah, see `Answers', June 2006, p. 45 or click Here!

Biology Confronts Evolution
The linked article shows why and how biology makes evolution completely unnecessary !

Creationist Colleges With At Least One Science Major
To view the lengthy list please click Here!

The Religion of Evolution in Public Schools
The supposed scientificness of evolution actually explains creation as long as facts are presented and not mere wishful theories. For more click Here!

Comparing Students Studying a Two Model Approach of Origins
For details click Here!

The "battle" is not about `The Bible vs. Science' but about `The Bible vs. Secular Beliefs'!

Are we just computers made of meat? See Here!

The idea of natural selection began with a creationist, while the `general theory of evolution (GTE)' is based on naturalistic ideas, which attempt to explain life without God. The theory of evolution really means the development of all living things from a single cell, which itself came from non-living chemicals. This directly contradicts the Bible and has no scientific support. But many propagandists define evolution as 'change in gene frequency with time' or 'descent with modification' and use Darwin's finches and industrial melanism in the peppered moths as clinching proof of 'evolution' and disproof of creationism! An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organization devoted entirely to evolution-pushing. She approvingly cited a teacher whose pupils said after her 'definition': 'Of course species change with time! You mean that's evolution?!' - - - So, what did we learn? We learned that everything we find written in books, on the Internet, etc., came about by chance, by many letters twirling in the wind and arranging themselves into all that reading material. - - - Now, if we learned the other conclusion well, we know that intelligent people arranged all those letters into words and made them into books because God created us to be intelligent beings.

No, not really. The mechanisms of evolution are not mutation and natural selection, since they lead to loss of genetic information, not the gain of information needed, to evolve a human being out of molecules. [Mutations are not what they are purported to be; if you want to see what mutations really do, visit a cancer ward in a hospital. Mutations are destructive and are a sign that the world is under a curse.] Such use of the term `evolution' illustrates the equivocation of the word. Evolution cannot mean both, a gain and a loss of genetic information.

Of course no creationist disputes that changes occur through time, but creationists disagree that the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution occurs, i.e. changes that increase information content. [J. Sarfati, `Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation', AiG.]

Another implication for those espousing the humanistic, atheistic worldview is that mindless, evolutionistic processes created them and therefore man is merely a chemical machine. That makes the children of such parents mere machines. Yet, these humanists, of course, want to love their children and so react in irrational behavior for which they cannot account since they do not know God but their own cold, calculative world view.

In the words of John K. Reed, `First one must recognize that a worldview is an integrated entity that spans the breadth of intellectual disciplines and is held together by the glue of faith. Therefore it is true, a worldview cannot be totally destroyed; it can only be rendered foolish in the eyes of most. ... The coming generations of creationists must fight a worldview, not simply empirical data and derivative theories. ... They must fight errors of reasoning and presuppositions. Presuppositional errors can be found in three suggested cornerstones of Naturalism: a) materialism, b) positivism, c) the uniformitarian justification of history.' Accordingly Naturalism consists of: 1) Metaphysics, 2) Epistemology, 3) Materialism, 4) Positivism and 5) a uniformitarian Philosophy of History.; Christianity consists of: 1) There is a God (Theism), 2) Revelation, 3) Creation and Providence. Analysis of Naturalism demonstrates that it is formally invalid because of its deeply-buried Christian assumptions which are at odds with its anti-Christian conclusions. - On the subject of `truth and reality,' - the fundamental assumption of knowledge in general and science in particular is that there is a conjunction of human knowledge, reality, and truth. Only the biblical doctrine of creation can support this very basic requirement. God, as ultimate reality, tells us to understand Him, in part through understanding His work of creation. Thus, it stands to reason that man can understand both, created reality and its creator. - Furthermore, if man possess God's image, then man can be expected to acquire understanding of nature. Clearly, Naturalism cannot justify its use of this assumption, and the practical implications are staggering. For example, if we are not confident in the intersection of truth and reality in science, how can we justify its multimillion man research effort? No scientist claims to have exhaustive truth, but all assume that their little bit of truth will "fit" with those of other scientists, and if they do not, that the error is with the research, not the assumption of universal truth. This bold assumption makes sense in the Christian worldview alone. [John K. Reed, The Future of Creationism, in Creation, May 2005, p. 1-5.]

They may not fathom it yet but the theory of evolution is dying! For Bible believing Christians, one reason for that conclusion is quite unrelated to the obvious trends all around us. It will happen because, just before Jesus comes Satan will try to deceive the world by himself appearing as an angel of brilliant light. This won't work so well, if people have not turned back to believe in the supernatural. Therefore, Satan casts aside the theory of evolution which has thus far served him well, and takes up the opposite route, re-fanning a sort of belief, even though not one leading to God, so he can pull off his deceptions for the last day events.

Question: How can I protect myself from such satanic deceptions? Our site has much material on that, but saying it briefly, `Be rooted in the Word of God.' Sin is the transgression of the law of God. Therefore, pray to God for understanding, open up your mind to let the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth. Compare scripture with scripture and start on the walk of faith. Belief in what is written after weighing and cross referencing more difficult questions. Never cease praying while doing this and know that faith in His Word is based on logical and very ethical principles. God never tempts us to commit sin. Be sure that you discover the high moral road God sets before your eyes. To check of you are still on track click here, here or here. [Use a Concordance (Young's or Strong's) to help you study a subject out. You may obtain one from your local bookstore or even used book stores. If you have little experience in such studies, listen to `amazingfacts.org.']

The error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source is a fallacy which happens when anti-christians try to disprove Christianity by pointing out alleged parallels in pagan mythology. Another example is when someone says: 'You only believe Christianity because you were indoctrinated by your parents and culture; if you came from a Hindu family and culture you would be a Hindu', with the spoken or unspoken impression 'thus Christianity need not be preferred over Hinduism'. In neither case can anything be inferred about the truth of Christianity from reasons a Christian's belief allegedly originated.

Many evolutionist propagandists believe that they simply need to demonstrate that a creationist has a 'fundamentalist' religious belief to discredit his purely scientific claims. The double standards are glaring - the radical atheist or even Marxist beliefs of many leading evolutionists are often ignored, although these beliefs determine which scientific explanations are acceptable and which are not. [Ibid.] This shows their way of thinking is just as dependent on their upbringing as that of Christians.

As we look at the general features of the landmasses all over the world, we observe systems of valleys draining in all directions from the summits to the present sea level. These valley systems were clearly formed by water, but, contrary to the ideas of James Hutton (1726-1797), John Playfair and Charles Lyell (1797-1875), they were not formed by the existing rivers over immense periods of time. The greatest evidence of this is the many dry valleys (no longer containing any river) in the valley systems, which connect into the drainage system at just the right level. These suggest that the carving, scooping waters which produced the valley systems are no longer seen on the continents.

As the valley systems end at the level of the present seas, so in a similar way the dry and wet valleys on the sides of lakes end at the present level of the lakes.

These two points show that the whole network of valleys was formed contemporaneously, regardless of the length of the valleys. [AiG, The Observations of George Fairholme]

We can say, Geologists agree that the Grand Canyon was shaped and carved by flowing water. Scientists upholding the `Creation Model' believe the same, however, they believe that the whole process occurred in a short time, probably within days around the time of Noah's world wide Flood and was not formed slowly over millions of years.

The evidence for the biblical supported view is as follows.

Sedimentary rock may be seen exposed in many areas of the world and testify to water deposition everywhere. In this report we look at two locations in the Grand Canyon, located within the state borders of Arizona, where sedimentary layers illustrate especially strongly a large scale, short duration, Flood Model.

A) The first example is found in the so-called Tapeats Sandstone in Carbon Creek, a side canyon within the Grand Canyon gorges. This canyon illustrates especially well the phenomena of `folded' or `bent' rock layers. A closer examination shows that these relatively thin layers are continuous and show no cracks indicating that they were laid down and `folded' while still pliable. The evidence is overwhelming that the forces responsible for spreading and shaping these layers in this canyon were one event.

B) The second area which illustrates a large scale, short duration Flood Model is the contact point between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale within the Grand Canyon. Evolutionary geologists interpret this amazing feature as representing 10 million years of "missing" time and material.

Age determinations on Cardenas Basalt lavas from the Grand Canyon were carried out with `rubidium-strontium isochron on 10 samples (1,103±66 million years), potassium-argon on 14 samples (516±30 million years) and samarium-neodymium isochron in 8 samples (1,588±170 million years). [5] Which of these is correct?

To creationists this site supports the same conclusion reached from the features found in A). There is need to theorize that 10 million years of missing material explains anything. The knife-like edge of the contact points is the same throughout the whole length of the Grand Canyon.

For the amazing images click Here!

While we cannot now cross-examine the writers of the Gospels, they were cross examined as no other witnesses have ever been examined since the world began. They were examined and cross-examined, not only by shrewd enemies like the Jews, astute reasoners like the Greeks, and nimble-minded lawyers like the Romans, but also by fire, sword, cross, flogging, and death. The Gospels are the only historical records in the world tested by the torture of the historians and of many who believed their accounts.

Now if we accept the writings of other historians whose veracity has not been tested by the scorching fire of persecution, how much more should we rely on the writings of the evangelists, whose accounts have been thus tested?

The Man about whom the evangelists wrote would of necessity be amazingly unusual to inspire such unheard-of fidelity on the part of those who wrote about Him. But he was not only the most amazing, the most lovable, and the most powerful man in all history to the evangelists, but to modern sceptics as well.

"It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions; has not been only the highest pattern of virtue, but also the strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the discourses of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists." [William E. H. Lecky, 'History of European Morals', Vol. II, p. 8, 9; W. Lecky was an Irish historian, statesman, and philosopher who died in 1903, and a leading unbeliever of his time and country. He wrote four large volumes to prove that rationalism is the only guide a reasonable man can follow.]

These words do affirm that Christ is the heart of all history: and not only that, but that three years of His life were more powerful for good than all the lives and productions of all the moralists and philosophers in the world. These are the words of a confirmed, avowed, world-renowned sceptic, written after years spent in carefully weighing all the evidence as an impartial historian.

The Words of John Stuart Mill, an English economist and philosopher who died a few years before Lecky. He was likewise noted as a pronounced unbeliever.

"Christ is still left; a unique figure, not more unlike all His precursors than all His followers, even those who had the direct benefit of His personal teaching. It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the Gospels is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is admirable has been super-added by the tradition of His followers. . . . Who among His disciples, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character in the Gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers. . . ."

"When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer, and martyr to that mission, who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this Man as the ideal representative and guide to humanity; nor, even now, would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life." [John S. Mill, `Three Essays on Religion: Nature, the Utility of Religion, Theism", p. 253-255.]

Notice: Mr. Mill, the sceptic, specifically says that an unbeliever cannot do better than to live so that Christ would approve his life. That is perilously near to saying that sceptics should be Christians!

The words of Charles Darwin on Christianity.

During the years 1831 to 1836 Darwin circled the globe in the Beagle. He reported that in New Zealand were the darkest human conditions found on all his journey. After he returned to England, he found vigorous attacks being made against missionaries and missionary activity. Writing of those making these attacks, he made the following statements:

"They forget, or will not remember, that human sacrifices and the power of an idolatrous priesthood - a system of profligacy unparalleled in another part of the world - infanticide, a consequent of that system - bloody wars, where conquerors spared neither women nor children - that all these have been abolished; and that dishonesty, intemperance, and licentiousness have been greatly reduced by Christianity. In a voyager to forget these things is base ingratitude; for should he chance to be at the point of shipwreck on some unknown coast, he will most devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary may have reached thus far."

"The lesson of the missionary is the enchanter's wand. The house has been built, the windows framed, the fields ploughed, and even the trees grafted by the New Zealander."

"The march of improvement, consequent on the introduction of true Christianity throughout the south Seas, probably stands by itself in the records of history." [Charles Darwin, `Journal of Researches', p. 414, 425, and 505.]

Why did an avowed unbeliever write in defense of Christian missions after having expressed his belief that they would utterly fail? Because he saw in person the indisputable evidence that his theory was wrong, and he had the honesty and manhood to confess his mistake. The results of the mission in New Zealand, which excited the surprise and elicited the eulogy of Darwin, are no different from the effects of true Christian missions in every other part of the earth.

Since skeptics generally will not concede the Bible to be more than a man-made book, why have they not given us a book to take its place? Since the majority of unbelievers think that the human race is constantly progressing - growing better - why don't they prove it by producing a better book? But they have not even attempted to do this!

The words of Thomas Huxley on the Bible:

"I have always been strongly in favour of secular education, in the sense of education without theology; but I must confess that I have been no less seriously perplexed to know by what practical measures the religious feeling, which is the essential basis of conduct, was to be kept up, in the present utterly chaotic state of opinion on these matters, without the use of the Bible. The pagan moralists lack life and colour. . . .Take the bible as a whole; make the severest deductions which fair criticism can dictate; . . .and there still remains . . . a vast residuum of moral beauty and grandeur."

"And then consider. . . that, for three centuries, this Book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English history; . . . that it is written in the noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of a mere literary form; and finally, that it forbids the veriest hind who never left his village to be ignorant of the existence of other countries and other civilizations, and of a great past, stretching to the farthest limits of the oldest nations in the world." [T. Huxley, The Contemporary Review', December, 1870.]

"By the study of what other book could children be so much humanized and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between two eternities; and earns the blessings or the curses of all time, according to its effort to do good and hate evil?" [T. Huxley, 'Science and Education', p. 398.]

This is the same man Thomas Huxley who spent several years in a heated debate with Gladstone over the Bible. Huxley later entered his protest against the 'heterodox Philistine' who found in the bible 'nothing but a subject for scoffing and an occasion for the display of his conceited ignorance.' Then in another book he wrote:

"The Bible has been the Magna Charta of the poor and of the oppressed; down to modern times, no state has had a constitution in which the interests of the people are so largely taken into account, in which the duties, so much more than the privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for Israel; . . . nowhere is the fundamental truth that the welfare of the state, in the long run, depends on the uprightness of the citizen, so strongly laid down. . . . I do believe that the human race is not yet, possibly may never be, in a position to dispense with it (the Bible)." [T. Huxley, 'Essays Upon Controverted Questions', p. 39, 40.]

According to the great unbeliever, Thomas Huxley, at some point later in his life, the best way to educate children, to inculcate morals, to aid the poor and oppressed, to instruct rulers and train citizens, is by means of the Bible.

The dangers of creationism in education

Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group

Replies by CIAS

>How can one attack "the theory of evolution" - a theory? Right. We really should have the freedom to compare, debate and conclude on our own. It is a "battle" of the mind. One interpretation against another. The more plausible interpretation survives. So - What is wrong with that? - Nothing.

If evolution is a theory, even if it is a "central theory." What does it have to do with science? - Very little!<

Creationism in any of its forms, such as "intelligent design", is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.

>What are facts? Overall we may say, facts are those things we feel and see, anyone can measure them, do calculations involving them, and all those who do this should come up with the same or similar results. This is called real science, normal, operational science. But when it comes to historical events like, when did something get flooded or covered with mud, then things change. We cannot measure directly when the flood happened or when wood or stone got covered with mud. No one has seen it happen, we cannot recreate it in the laboratory. In such cases our suppositions kick in. We make assumptions and good or not so good guesses on how to interpret the evidence. If we believe the flood happened a long time ago, we interpret the consequences that way, if we decided it happened more recently, that is then how we interpret the data. - Thus we have two viewpoints which we can hear defended by its proponents to hopefully realize the limitation of each and its good points. That is well within theoretical science. Evolution is origins or historical science, not normal, operational science which gave us radios, telephones, bicycles and airplanes. Historical or origins science gave us books on history, paintings of past events which the artist never saw but imagines, statues, museums and teachers of history and evolution.

Thoughts on origins come from mostly indirectly documented Greek sources like Anaximander (ca. 611?-547? BC), who said, according to Diodorus, that man is of aquatic, fishlike mermen origins, or Empedocles (ca. 490?-430? BC), who thought life generates spontaneously. Men who dealt with `fixity of species' were the Greek Theophrastu (died ca. 287 BC) and the Roman Pliny (23-79 AD). Julian the Apostate (331-363 AD) believed that soil and climate modified species. Thus the 3rd century AD is a suspect century for theological and science sources. The German confused scholastics Albert the Great (1193 or 1206?-1280) and Heinrich von Hessen (1325-1397) appear to have thought that new plants develop from old ones. Jacob Sylvius (1478-1555) suggested that since the human body did not fit the anatomical desciptions given by Galen (130-200? AD), man's physical structure must have changed since then. Paracelsus (1493?-1541 - real name is Theophrastus Bombastus v. Hohenheim - thought that one species could change into another. Both Buteo (writing in 1559) and the Calvinistic Lambert Daneau (in Christian Physics, 1575) wrote that terrestrial animals belonged to only 30 genera before the Noachian Flood. - - Gottfried W. v. Leipniz (1646-1716) wrote in his book, Nouveaux essais that, "it is possible that somewhere and somewhen - present, past of future - the species of animals were far more subjected to changes than we observe now." Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738) agreed to that.

It was John Woodward (1665-1728), a professor of medicin, who attempted to use new discoveries to explain the Genesis Flood. Later scholars such as J.J. Scheuchzer (1672-1733), Wm. Whiston (1667-1752), and Alexander Catcott modified and expanded the Flood theory.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

>Scientific knowledge allows measuring devices, test tubes, wire, electronic boards, engines, batteries, chemicals, balances, telescopes, light bulbs and the like. Things which were made using normal operational science which all can agree to. Since evolution is a presupposition, why is there such an uproar? What is wrong about discussing its advantages and drawbacks? What is wrong with comparing two areas of human reasoning to see which carries the day? That is all within increasing our knowledge, within "scientific" debate.<

A. Draft resolution

1. The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

>Gathering knowledge and interpreting knowledge, is that a threat to the worlds political systems? Well, no. Hitler was a threat, so was Stalin and Mao tse Tung. So are warring factions which use violence to further their ambitions without provocation. Creationism is the most peace loving endeavor we have. It does not promote euthanasia or final solutions. It does not uphold the principle of the survival of the fittest in our schools, work places or politics. It just believes that we were made in the image of our loving Creator who made also the earth for us all to dwell on, stars and planets, the sea and its life forms, birds and animals, trees and flowers and so on. What is dangerous about that? We believe that O2 + H + energy makes H2O, and 4 + 4 = 8.

You may say, `Oh really'?

What about 4 B.C + 4 A.D? Is that 8 years in between?

No. There are 7 years in between: 4BC-3BC-2BC-1BC-1AD-2AD-3AD-4AD.

So we see historical science may not always be like normal science.<

2. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

>Creationism and any other form of learned endeavor can grow and mature in America because we believe in freedom of intellectual pursuits and religion. Scientific discoveries are constantly being made here because we have not closed our minds to the world around us. We are free to theorize and calculate, build and take apart.<

3. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their theories are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

>The prime target of evolutionists is our schools where they want to indoctrinate our sons and daughters with old theories which do not stand up to truth, science or logic.<

4. Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

>Creationists question only origin and historical science, not normal operational science which they use all the time to built and make useful things just like anyone else can.<

5. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

>When it comes to explaining our world, Creationists use logic, inspection, historical records, making inferences and use science as often as possible. They are aware of the difference between presuppositions and facts and say so. We believe and can proof many times, evolutionistic oriented research is being mislead in many areas of reasoning, logic and plain facts.<

6. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children's minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs and ideals and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an "all things are equal" attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.

>The confusion results when some do not allow long held belief systems to be scrutinized in open forums where they have to come up with bonified reasons for their views and be questioned by others who hold divergent views. That is science in session. Sad to note that evolutionists not infrequently hide behind artificially erected rhetoric, trumped up charges and name calling.<

7. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The "intelligent design" theory, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence and not natural selection. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.

>Evolutionists are afraid of God. They have never sought Him or humbled themselves before Him and know they have never asked for forgiveness of sin. That is why they are scared. But God loves all of us. All we need to do is let Him speak to us through His messengers, preachers, Bible believing Christian literature, and the Bible itself. That is not hard to do. It is fun, informative, and rewarding.<

8. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

>Instead they want us to read Darwin and his contemporary like minded authors who never heard of DNA and RNA, never saw through an electron microscope, never saw the images of the Hubble Space Telescope, and on it goes. Why should we pay attention to his outdated theories? He didn't know much at all.<

9. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from well-known scientists, most of whom are not biologists. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

>Who ever wrote this, reacted without much forethought, reasoning, study or knowledge. His was an unstudied gut reaction and we can safely ignor it.<

10. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

>Strong, well functioning societies are built on truth, truth and nothing but the truth. Evolution gave us ideas, theories, assumptions, guesses, wildly jumping estimates, rescinded and yet defended ideas, lies, deceptions and contributes nothing to medicine, mathematics, physics, chemistry or electronics.<

11. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

>Well, thank you. It would have been nice to read this before all the ranting and complaining. It seems that some evolutonists do not really understand science and its limits. Ok, we gladly excuse you for this one time. --- By the way, creationism has nothing to do with Al Qaida, Islam or politics. God's kingdom is not of this world. We work in this world for the benefit of all of humanity. Which evolutionist has ever gone out to feed the hungry, heal the sick or make peace? Christians (creationists are usually Christians) do this all the time and world wide. Unfortunally we note evolutionists do support abortion with its accompanying sordid procedures. Is it because the fittest have to survive?<

12. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

>This is not true and reminds one of scare tactics. The evolutionistic oriented Hitler and Stalin did extreme things like that. - - Biblical Christianity is meek and humble, false Christians may have unchristian motives but they are not part of us or God's church. Biblical Christians know that God gives us the air we breathe, water and food. We protect those resources that we all can survive a little longer.<

13. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognizes that the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis".

>Well .... no comment.<

14. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

>The only crucial thing is truth. Truth in intellectual endeavors, science and behavior. `Science' and `evolution' are not synonyms, they contradict each other. Dogs are always dogs, fish are always fish. No in betweens or out betweens. A wife never needs to worry that her child will be a human being. Sin has brought decay and pollution, true faith in God has never done so.<

15. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist theories, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

>Christianity can only be taught by believing Christians, just like evolutionists like to see their theory only being taught by those who think like they do.<

16. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain "why things are" but to understand how they work.

>That is what Creationists believe. They believe in real science.<

17. Investigation of the creationists' growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council's parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

> But we notice evolutionists believe lots of things. They believe that their dog and cat won't interbreed on their own and therefore don't worry but that the dog will deliver a dog and the cat a cat. They believe in creation when they do so, but call it by the wrong name. Their reasoning does not appear to be a good model for scientific reasoning.<

18. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to:

>No need to support evolutionists often strange reasoning. Just relax and give the Creationists a chance to say their side of the story. Thank you.<

18.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

>Ok. But not blindly following the leader.<

18.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

>Epistemology? Darwin? Dawkins? We hope not!<

18.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

>Science yes, Evolution No.<

18.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection and in general resist presentation of creationist theories in any discipline other than religion;

>Creationists and many undecided people really would not want to see any more of these false assertions and representation about nature as loudly published by the evolutionary minded crowd. They want equal time, they want God talk, faith, morals and science.<

18.5. promote the teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

>We promote the teaching of evolution alongside with creationism so students can compare the two.<

19. The Assembly welcomes the fact that, in June 2006, 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

>.......... Well, the rest would be rehash<

1) Edward D. Cope and Othniel C. Marsh. See D.R. Wallace, `The Bonehunter's Revenge: Dinosaurs, Greed, and the Greatest Scientific Feud of the Gilded Age', Ny, 1999, Houghton Mifflin Co.
2) The Piltdown Man.
3) Paul Kammerer, The Case of the Midwife Toad', Koestler, 1972. W. Broad & N. Wase, `Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science', 1982, NY, Simon & Schuster.
4) Trofin D. Lysenko. See A. Kohn, `False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicin', 1988, NY, Barnes & Noble Books.
5) William Summerlin. See K. Chang, `On scientific fakery and the systems to catch it' in the New York Times, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2002, pp., 1,4.
6) The case of "Archaeoraptor". See L.M.Simmons, `Archaeoraptor fossil trail' in National Geographic, 2000/2002, 198(4): 128-132.
7) Viswat Jit Gupta. See J. Talent, `The case of the perpatetic fossils' in Nature, 338:613-615.
8) Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten. Most of his famous finds were found to be frauds, i.e.:
a) A crucial skull fragment of a `Neanderthal' in L. Harding, `History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud' in The Guardian, Feb. 19, 2005.
b) the Binshof-Speyer woman,
c) the Paderborn-Sand man, and more.

Wow 1 Wow 2 Wow 3

The world's fastest growing bacteria - it will match the size of the earth in less than 24 hours. Here is how:

Volume / Size of one bacteria = r x r x pi x height / 0.1 x 0.1 x 3.14159 x 0.5 = 0.0157079 cubic microns
One bacteria would double every 8 minutes so that there are now 2 bacteria where there was one. > 0.0157079 x 2 = 0.0314158 cubic microns.
In 80 minutes there would be: 1024 bacteria which would occupy a volume of: 0.0157079 x 1024 = 16.084889 cubic microns.
1 cubic millimeter contains = 1000 x 1000 x 1000 cubic microns = 1 billion cubic microns.
In 6 hours there would be 3838437195776 individual bacteria which occupy a volume of: 3838437195776 x 0.0157079 = 602937.86 cubic microns
Are we getting any closer to fill 1 cubic centimeter with bacteria? - No, not yet.

Lightening works differently than we would imagine at first glance. And God knew it long before the science of the 20th century described it (Job 38:25).[01]

Before lightening appears to our eyes, many hidden processes have to be developed. First, by different charging mechanisms, the thunderclouds are charged. As the result of this process, a huge electrical potential is established between the thunderclouds and the ground. Usually this potential is as high as 5-10 million volts. This voltage is enough for the breakdown in the air.

The method by which this breakdown occurs is very interesting. First, a path has to be prepared for the lightening, the great voltage ionized the air producing a channel, with highly ionized particles, called a plasma channel. This "channel" then begins to extent toward the ground.

The website of NASA's GHCC Lightening Team described it the following way: "As it grows, it creates an ionized path depositing charge along the channel ..."[02] Also Lars Wahlin in his book about atmospheric electrostatics puts it this way: "It appears that lightening is triggered by faint pilot streamers (Schonland, 1938) which provide the initial ionized path from cloud to ground by weak corona discharges."

As it comes near the ground other plasma channels start to grow from the ground upwards to the mean, descending streamer. When the first ascending side streamer meets the mean streamer, a complex plasma path is established. This is the time when the visible stroke of the lightning appears with bright light and thunder as the electric currents with high energy run through the channel.

[01] `Creation Matters', July, August 2004, p. 4.
[02] L. Wahlin, `Atmospheric (unreadable)', 1986.

Our sonnige Sun
What a hot day it was today. Even while visiting Germany I thought I was down south so hot it was. Since stars obtain energy by means of nuclear fusion 4,000,000 tons of its mass are lost every second and converted into huge amounts of energy. That sounds like a lot but it is not much at all compared to its total mass of 1,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Since fusion combines 4 hydrogen atoms into 1 helium nucleus - Hmass=1.008, Hemass=4.0039: 4x1.008=4.032-4.0039 = -0.0281 Atomic Mass Units. -0.0281 x (1.66x10^-27 kg) = 4.2 x 10^-12 joules of energy are released according to the fusion reaction formula:
4 ¹H --> ⁴He + 2e⁺ + 2v_e, Where e⁺ is a positron or antielectron, and v_e is an electron-neutrino.
Scientific evidence supports the biblical age of the sun, ca. 6000 years old. Why? Because if it were true that our earth started its development billions of years ago, the sun would have been much fainter in the past, because, as a star uses up its mass by energy production it becomes smaller and hotter. If life on earth started 3.8 billion years ago, the sun would be about 25% brighter today than it was at that time. This implies, that at the start of life, the earth's average temperature would have been -3°C. But paleontologists claim that the earth was warmer in the past. So someone comes up with the idea that then there was 1000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. - You go and figure! [0020]

Water on Mars?
How can scientists ignore the abundant evidence for a global Flood on earth, yet believe so much about so little on Mars? [Gary Bates, `Water, water, where are you? - Confusion reigns on Mars' in Creation, Jun 2005, p. 26.]

Is evolution a theory like orbital motion of stellar bodies are, as the existence, structure and dynamics of atoms are, as electricity and the existence of electrons are? Are the theories of these areas of acquired knowledge all verifiable through rigorous testing to the same degree? If we can measure the sizes of planets and their orbits, factoids about atoms and electrons, can we also measure the evolution from good to better to best of skeletal parts, organs and senses? Of course not. Biological inferences are not of the same category as the studies done in physical and chemical sciences. The concept "that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction - success for some, death without offspring for others - and that this natural culling (choosing between several things which must first be in existence) leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants" is a theoretical supposition. The article puts evolutionary concepts in a lump sum category completely avoiding to even mention macro and micro biological changes. [However AiG has advised people not to use the micro-/macro-evolution distinction , because the main issue is not the size of the change but the direction. All observed change involves sorting and loss of genetic , while `goo-to-you' evolution requires an increase in information.[0100]] The article in essence uses creationist concepts found in the Book of Genesis to try and support with it Darwinian Evolution, for we read:

According to the author, Darwinian evolution includes the concepts of anagenesis, gradual speciation, the `principle of divergence', biogeography, paleontology, embryology, morphology, clustering of closely allied species, the vertical column of geological strata, similarity of larval stages, tiered resemblances, homology and acquired resistance of microbes. Evolutionists consider ideas on how close whales are related to or descended from:

carnivorous Eocene mammals, such as mesonychids
even-toed herbivores such as artiodactyls, antelopes and hippos

To the reader informed about creation/evolution issues it becomes evident that `according to their kind' is the briefest, most concise and accurate way to describe relational aspects of the plant and animal world all around us. According to evolution, there is supposed to be some kind of a brain driving natural selection. They call it time. Billions and millions of time quirks. Not enough time to make out of a one celled ameba an opera singer or the likes of Darwin himself. - Nay, a thousand quintillion, quadrillion, trillion, billion years would not be enough time to produce what we see today. In effect then, according to Dr. Menton, `natural selection' represents nothing more than `differential reproduction'.

It is completely impossible that the simplest form of DNA can arrange itself into much larger DNA chains which are perfectly functional by blind chance.

We don't even want to get into certain aspects of `How evolution touches you.'

"Here is a list of creation scientists and their contribution to science:

01) Nicholas Steno (1631-1686), creationist father of geological strata.
02) Abraham Gottlieb Werner (1750-1817). His followers considered most geological strata to have a water based origin.
03) Louis Pasteur discovered that many diseases were caused by germs and showed that life comes only from life,
04) Gregor Mendel (active 1865) discovered genetics,
05) Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) developed the modern classification system,
06) Copernicus, astronomy
07) Kepler (1571-1630), astronomy
08) Galileo (astronomy) and
09) Newton (ca. 1642-1727), astronomy & other sciences
10) Joseph Lister, famous London surgeon (1827-1912)
11) Lord Kelvin
12) Robert Boyle, turned chemistry into science (1627-1691)
13) Robert Hooke (1635-1703)
14) Michael Faraday, Electrician (1791-1867)

These were young-earth creationists. When it comes to the biblical account of creation, miracles and so on, scientific laws do not cause or forbid anything any more than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline.

It was J. Robert Oppenheimer, not a Christian himself, who wrote:

"Christianity was needed to give birth to modern science." [0500]

Francis Bacon said:

"Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences." [0600]

Leonardo da Vinci understood that if you begin rationalistically with mathematics, all you have is particulars and therefore you are left with mechanics. Understanding this, he hung on to his pursuit of the universal. [0700]

Lastly, let us point out a few more important facts, Steven Gould's NOMA (`non overlapping magisteria') distinction teaches that science deals with facts of the real world, while religion deals with ethics, values, morals, and what it means to be human, and therefore Gould claims religion is just in one's head, which seems to dull the senses of many Christians more than an overt declaration that Christianity is false. Using `theistic evolutionists' to spread atheistic evolution is reminiscent of Lenin's tactic of cultivating 'useful idiots' in the West, who were too gullible to realize that they were undermining their own foundations.

Christians should not fall for this. Christ is the Lord of the universe, and the Bible is accurate on everything it touches, not just faith and morality, but history, science and geography also. So Christians should not give up any part of the 'real world' to those with a materialistic agenda for the universe requires a cause that is equal to or greater than itself.

Atheists are prodded that they must believe that nature is all there is. The scare tactic they use to promote methodological naturalism is reasoning like:

'It is simply not possible to solve a scientific question if one is willing to invoke a supernatural answer, because supernatural answers foreclose further scientific inquiry. As we have already noted, a person who accounts for the motion of the planets by asserting that angels propel them is simply not going to be able to account for Kepler's laws of planetary motion in any kind of fruitful way.'[750]

Important Distinctions

This fails to note the distinction between

1) normal (operational) science, and
2) origins or historical science.

Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of

A) causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause within temporal processes [800]) and
B) analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past).

Apparently the evolutionists defender at the 2005 Kansas hearings, Pedro Irigonegaray, has never heard of the above distinction.

And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science. That is so because the Christian faith is supernatural, but it is never irrational.

Darwin often used pseudo-theological arguments against design rather than direct arguments for evolution. But this form of argument presupposes the 'two-model approach,' i.e., that creation and evolution are the only alternatives, so evidence against creation is evidence for evolution. Ironically, many evolutionists scream loudly if creationists use this same form of logic to conclude that evidence against evolution is support for creation!

The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through silly assertions such as the following by Levitt (as quoted by Lerner):

'… evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.'

However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no-one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.

To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that made the computer in the first place. Lerner's anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyze a computer's workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup."
[Excerpts from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's paper.]

Additional Pieces of Information

[00A] More and more evolutionary scientists hold a view which teaches the `Cambrian Big Bang' according to which 50% up to perhaps 85% of all Phyla made their first appearances with no ancestors during that evolutionary geological column.

The Ptolemaic View
"There is no evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is an absolute reference frame, any more than modern astronomers' saying 'sunset' and 'sunrise' suggests that they believe this. Rather, both the Bible and such modern astronomers treat the earth as a reference frame for convenience, which is physically valid. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible teaches creation in six consecutive ordinary days about 6,000 years ago, no death of `nephesh' animals before Adam's sin, and a globe-covering Flood.
There are plenty of repeatable observations consistent with the idea that the Earth moves in elliptical orbits, in the equally valid reference frame of the solar system's center of mass. But we still have yet to see a single example of a change that increases the genetic information content of a descendant organism, although such changes should be plentiful if evolution were true.
Galileo's theories opposed not the Bible but the Ptolemaic astronomical framework, and his main opposition came from the scientific establishment. The church made the mistake of wedding their theology to this view. This is documented in the articles under Who were Galileio's real opponents and What should Christian's learn from the Roman Catholic church's reaction. Darwin's theories were explicitly designed to undermine the idea of a divine designer. But like Galileo, his main opposition came from the scientists!

Additional Thoughts and Well to Remember Points

The Definition of Science

Many attempts to define 'science' are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as 'what scientists do'! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if 'contemporary scientists' accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, 'scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.' But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it's 'untestable'.

It ought to be self evident that without a chronology which has the earmarks of being true to history, the interpretation of ancient texts cannot lead to an all encompassing, reliable account of ancient events. Furthermore, it ought to be understood, that today's mainstream publications presenting the history of the ancient world of the Bible Lands does not yet possess the indicators of reliability in bringing together personalities and events as they really interacted.

While in areas of scientific endeavors Accuracy, Precision and Statistical (Random) Uncertainty are important to take into consideration, in matters of history - at this time we may be more interested in another criteria - that is, Systematic Errors, a buzz word we like to explore for its usefulness in matters of chronology and ancient history.

In physics, Systematic Errors are uncertain and errors in one's measurement, caused by anything that is not statistical uncertainty. This includes instrumental effects, not-taking things into account (will the change in barometric air pressure impact this measurement?) and gross (stupid) errors. [1400]

Anybody who has owned a 1981 Honda Civic knows that the rearview mirror breaks off at about 40,000 miles. All of them did that because Honda's quality system had ensured it. A mistake had been institutionalized. Government is infamously rife with this problem, but corporations and even the smallest businesses are not immune from the blow to reputation "built in" to the imperfection of design. [1500]

While in ancient studies we cannot claim to be able to use instruments of the degree of finesse, physicists can use - instead we rely on transliterated texts in often dead languages to try and understand how names were pronounced, events, times were worded, and a host of vocabulary details are being used to compare and interpret, hoping to find the truth. But we find these interpretations being erected around less than a handful of so-called pillars supporting the chronological edifice of the ancient times we discuss, which were considered truth columns and which we have shown to be in error.

In addition then we find that besides Systematic Errors, there hangs also something like `Institutional Neglect to Self Correct' in the air. We see the same phenomena exposed in the evolution vs. creation ideological conflicts. Evolutionists seem to like to take, the for them advantageous outcome of the Scopes Trial, as the indicator for all times that creationism has lost the debate. While the loosing persons involved in the Scopes Trial were not able to represent their cause well, that has changed today. Creationists have had time to analyze all the factors and areas of sciences and studies to get a handle on the basic and specific areas which are critical pillars for evolutionists and inspect them if they really can carry the weight they are understood to support. Creationists find that the structures established by evolutionists are wanting - just like the structures conventional history has established are wanting. There are relationships at work here between these two areas of teachings which have flooded the campuses of nearly all schools for lack of enough trained minds to stem the tide in the beginning of this avalanche. Thus institutionalized, Systematic Errors became the underpinning of today's intelligencia. All conventional educators have to do today, is brand the nay sayers, as not understanding the issues when they themselves do not understand them. This is a confrontation of the minds and the minority views will have a tough going to turn things in their favor. They may be ridiculed, joked about, belittled, threatened or ignored - but those who look for truth can now find it much easier than ever before.

"Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes[3000] comprising 580,000 bases.[3100] Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes.

More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.[3200]

Yet even this 'simple' organism has far too much information than can be expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide only 49 amino acid residues long.[3300] This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simplest cell above needs at least 256 proteins. And Yockey's estimate generously presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a huge assumption, as shown by many creationist writers.[3400][3500][3600][3700][3800]

Scientists are currently discovering that "We have to get rid of the idea that mammals - and humans in particular - are the pinnacle of evolutiom."

As a rule, adaptation of species at the most merely recombines genetic information that is already there. No new species are created. Natural selection, the thinning out of a gene-pools resulting in adaptation utilizes information already coded into species and rapid diversification is a biblical concept already known since very ancient times and is described in the Book of Genesis. A specie would have to evolve a trait which didn't exist before to be of interest to study with evolution in mind. Many supposed changes thought of as evolutionary steps are rather changes or shifts in populations. Bird `intelligence' is known for a very long time and is also talked about in biblical books. Bird flight demands a very developed brain. [3900]
At the Berkeley Celebration (2-8-05) the Hawaiian Spider was given the most prominent position of providing evidence for evolution. After spinning their peculiar(?) snare its victims get stuck in its trap.

001. AiG, www.answersingenesis.org
002. AiG, Creation: Ju-Aug, 2004, p. 15, Andrew Rigg; `Young Galaxies too old for the big bang'.; Paula Weston, `Miniature Camels of the Night: Kangaroo Rats'; Russell Grigg, How a missionary family gave rise to the top name in `ape man' research: `Missing the Mark (on Louis Leakey); Tas Walker, Amazing Australian Plesiosaur Preservation, `Deluge Disaster'; Jonathan D. Sarfati, `An Awesome Mind'; David Catchpoole, `Catching a Kinkajou'; Don Batten, Why would anyone want to insert millions of years into the Bible? `Soft Gap Sophistry'; Gary Bates, Seti Project: Coming in from the cold of space: `Fantasy Fuels Funding'; D. Catchpoole, `Worm Evolution in Pollution'; The birth of a `Zenkey, Zonkey, Zebra Donkey' in Japan;
003. AiG, Creation: Dec-Feb 04/05. Don Batten, `Separation of Faith and Reality'; `Planetary Evolutionary Core Theory Collapses'; `More Martian Meteorite Doubts'; Image of a `budgerigar' - victim of a genetic mutation of uncontrolled growth of feathers; Tas Walker, `Dinosaur Fairytales'; `The Things that Are Not', Microscopic images of Diatoms, flies, halos, RBC's; Andrew Rigg, `Galaxy Games', Images of the huge spiral galaxy NGC 4319, blazars, deep-field view, Hubble Space Telescope; Carl Wieland, `Taming Your Caveman Children'; Steven DeVowe, `The Amazing Motorized Germ', On the smallest motorist rotor, Answering `Science' magazine; Paula Weston, `Kea: Clever, Clownish & Carnivorous', So too the Panda Bear; Kevin May: Streamlined sharks and tunas - A Puzzle for Evolution; `Elite Swimmers'; Interview of Dr. Dudley Eirich, Genetic Engineering Research Backs Genesis: `Manipulating Life'; Tas Walker, Siccar Point a rocky outcropping near Cockburnspath, 60 km (40 miles) east of Edinburgh, Scotland is regarded as the birthplace of long-age geology; `Unmasking a Long-Age Icon', with great images of the site; Carl Wieland, `Walking Monkey Business in Israel', the brain damaged monkey.
004. AiG, : Mar-May 05. Titles such as: `Caring for Creation' which explains about the important benefits of the `Dung Beatle' so well known from Egyptian iconography (scarabs, etc.); The Pakicetus `Not At All Like A Whale'; How 33 leading scientists determined that the `Blast of The Big Bang' has fizzled out.; The blubber in `A Fatty Tail' and submarines - `swiiish'.; The Triumphal Crystals from Scotland to Northern Ireland and Noah's Flood with great images. This important article presents the geological marvels of the giant, lava formed basaltic stone columns spread out over an area from around Belfast, Ireland along the Atlantic coast to above the Scottish Skye Islands, explaining the Flood origin of these features on a plateau up to 330 feet above the ocean. Tourist attractions like `The Organs', `The Harp' and `The Chimney Tops' are shown and explained. The formation of 4 to 8 sided columns is presented as well as the nature of the `orange layer' consisting of a soft, brown coal called lignite - vegetation altered chemically by heat in an oxygen free environment. The presence of leaves, bark and pollen indicates its rapid formation. The species of trees trapped in this layer include: cedar, pine and spruce - species which do not grow in peat bogs. Also shown is the `Fingal's Cave' on the tiny island of Staff, near Mull and Iona Islands. Instead of presenting the true origin of these rocky columns visitors centers revert to presenting the lying legend of Finn Gall.; The `Tiny Pterosaur's Untimely End' was sudden, preserving its tissues, but what caused its demise? The Answers are in Genesis.; Extraterrestrial Aliens, UFOs, Flying Saucers, Fliegende Untertassen, Faces on Mars, Magazines and Hollywood and Belief in Evolution.; Anthropomorphism (form of man) and Theophanies, `Does God Have Body Parts?', the transcendency of God and heavenly beings; `Darwin's Impact: The Blood Stained Legacy of Evolution'.; Rockified Fossils, Looong Aageees .... or Shorter Ages with the right mix of ingredients?; The design of whales `tubercle bumps' in a Wind Tunnel - What a lift! Explains how the bumps at the front of a flipper break up the flow of the water and forces it into the fluted valleys between. How that generates vortices which keep the flow `attached' to the top surface of the flipper/ wing increasing lift and resisting stalling.
005. AiG, : Jan 06. The Tsunami Tragedy from a geologist's viewpoint; A macabre article on Eugenics ... death of the defenseless - The legacy of Darwin's cousin Francis Galton; Showing the image of George Hunter; Do bacteria really survive millions of years? Read Sleeping Beauty Bacteria; Exploring the Universe with NASA engineer Michael Tigges.; The shock of the collapse of the Twelve Apostles in Australia.; Too Dry For A Fly; The Father of Lies and Evolution.; Bird lovers read The Super-Senses of the South American Oilbirds, Steatornis caripensis.; From chimp to man, see The strange case of the Humanzee.; Or check this out, How did dinosaurs grow so big? and how did Noah fit them into the ark?; `A Missionary to Atheists'; Recent observations undermine the idea of a `big bang' and show that our earth is, after all, the center of the universe, See In the middle of action.

Answers Magazine, Vol.2, No. 1, Jan-Mar 2007: Carl Kerby, "That's Entertainment ... Or Is It?" - The Appeal of the Media - Evolution is Everywhere; While Evolution is everywhere, so is God.; More Peaks at Darwin's beaks, Image: A finch with a large beak; Crash Landing - On the hybridization of a butterfly (Heliconius heurippa), Actually the hybridization is still within the butterfly kind.; For the Birds - On the supposed 100 million year old `Gansus'. This specimen does appear to be a fully developed bird, not an in between stage. It was apparently called `intermediate' because of the layer scheme it was found in, not because of its skeletal evidence.; Bearing out creation showing that Grizzly and Polar bears, being of the bear kind, can mate with each other.; Pluto in the doghouse - Is it now a dwarf planet? Illustartes how scientists must re-evaluate every so often. If they would re-evaluate the starting assumptions, then they too could become true scientists.; The Language of Inconsistency - How a scientist can deny his faith.; Image of a rock shape some regard as the remains of Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat.; Planned Parenthood - A commentary on its history and philosophy.; Stem Cells - Does their origin matter? - Shows that alternatives are the way to go.; Jerry Bergman, `Darwin taught male superiority'; Becky Steltzer, `Inferior or Equal?'; Paul Taylor, `William Wilberforce' - A leader for biblical equality.; Ken Ham, `Interracial Marriage - Its the inside that matters.; Culture and Church in Crisis.; Pam Sheppard, `Purity ... A Priceless Commitment'; Dale Mason, `Escape from Darkness'; A. Charles Ware, `Trading Truth for Tolerance?'; Dr. Jason Lisle Ph.D., `Fractals'; Bodie Hodge, `Should we look to the animals for answers?' Animal sexuality, what kind of a guide is that for humans?; Brian Edwards, `When God's Plan Hurts'; Buddy Davis, `Sea Bear of the Frozen North'; Dr. david Menton, Ph. D., `The Placenta' - A selfless servant.; Andrew A. Snelling, `The Origin of Oil'.; Behind the Scene: Culture in Crisis.; If everything is Right, Why is everything Wrong?.;

For the meaning of "equivocation" and "bait-and-switch" tactics see here.

(A Reply to Richard Cohen's `Intellectual honesty devolves', San Jose Mercury, April 13, 2005 which they did not want to publish - Well, yes, it was a bit long but so was Richard's.)

What does the other side of the coin look like of views which a recent Washington Post columnist expressed and which were reprinted in the California San Jose Mercury? Apparently the San Jose Mercury editorial staff thought the Washington Post article was worth publishing. I would like to respond to the points made but first things first. It was the physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967), not a Christian himself, who wrote, "Christianity was needed to give birth to modern science." [4000] And it was Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), renowned foundational thinker, who said, "Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences." [4100] And it was Francis Bacon who gave a fairly straight forward definition of science:

observation -> induction -> hypothesis -> test hypothesis by experiment -> proof/disproof -> knowledge.

Deciding questions each scientist chooses, which regularly occurs subconsciously, are these: Can a subject under scrutiny be observed how it operates, can it be re-tested repeatedly with the same results and thus be verified? As an example, each time a teacher will add one part of oxygen to two parts of hydrogen in an open ended test tube, puts on his face shield and lights the gas mixture - an audible noise and a tiny amount of moisture testify to the fact that water was made. Such experiments can be repeated over and over with the same results and they belong to normal, observable, operational science.

The other class of science happened in the distant past. We cannot repeat it, no one has observed it occurring and therefore science dealing with such parameters is historical or origins science.

What category would the changes occurring in (Galapagos) finches belong to? Do changes in beak shapes and sizes illustrate evolution? Do new species evolve or do same species adapt to new environmental conditions and since they can crossbreed we know they are all finches? Here comes our philosophical training or lack of it into play. Scientists often do not realize that they make philosophical decisions when addressing such origin topics. As a consequence our world view begins to operate. The concept that "small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction - success for some, death without offspring for others - and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants" is a theoretical supposition. All observed change involves sorting and loss of genetic information. However, evolution requires an increase in such information. Examples of obvious changes among living organisms can be observed among creatures which normally live in sunlight but some of them ended up in dark caves and as a result had to adapt or perish to their new environment. Such changes resulted in loss of some functions and fine tuning in others - adaptation, not evolution is demonstrated. Most genetic changes are a trade off or detriment, not an ever increasing array of beneficial characteristics among organisms.

The Difference between Adaptation and Evolution.

Adaptation is the result of the processes of mutation and natural selection leading to a loss of genetic information - but results in an organism more suited for a particular environment. Evolution requires the gain of genetic information to go from molecules to man. Adaptation and Evolution are not the same thing. Bacteria are not evolving, they are not turning into multicellular creatures even over millions of years, they are a fine example of adapting to new conditions.[4150]

We live in exciting times. When evolution first originated in the days of Darwin, little was known about genetics, DNA sequencing and how these operate. Often their chemical knowledge was rudimentary. Telescopes and microscopes and even higher powered optical devices reveal to us the marvels of the small and large. Once I observed a monkey in a zoo holding a mirror. Every so often he would look at his reflected image and then feel behind the mirror to get a hold of the monkey starring at him. In disgust for not finding his opposite he eventually would lose interest and do something else. But as humans, when we look at things, logic comes into play and we draw lessons and may postulate sayings explaining our experiences and discoveries. We may conclude that it is impossible that DNA and an opera singer could evolve out of a soup of gooey slime in a mostly hostile environment of random encounters among molecules. So, we conclude, a designer exists behind that mirror. On the other hand, a few may conclude that mere chance brought these molecules together - only the rotational left handed ones for amino acids and the rotational right handed sugars for DNA mind you - and nature is all there is. Wow, nature is all there is! What philosophical consequences arise out of such a thought? And again, what philosophical consequences arise out of the designer concept? Do we see the friendly designer in his workshop make such beautiful things we see all around us? Or do we merely see the thorns and not the roses?

It was ancient paganism which taught the idea of the sun circling the earth. Ancient people were for the most part steeped in paganism. Also in biblical times these ideas often colored the thoughts of those starting to put faith in the Creator God. They did not necessarily fully comprehend Him on day one of their life of faith just like today we learn daily on how to walk with God, if we so choose to live. But eventually some recognized that the earth hung on nothing in space (Job 26:7). Ancient pagans were basically non-creationistic in their thinking. They stood by when Noah built the Ark and just laughed (Genesis 6:5). It was the creationist Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543), the theologically trained Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and mathematician Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who set the pace for astronomy of more modern times. Galileo questioned the conclusions of the pagan Greek and Roman thinkers on the subject of astronomy. He realized that mathematically determinable order exists among heavenly bodies. Order which was based on laws which today we call natural laws but which are not essentially different from laws governing social behavior (`Cause and Effect') which are summarized in the Ten Commandments.

It is therefore important to realize that both, creationists and evolutionary minded scientist operate from a philosophical perspective. No one is excluded from pre-formed ideas and cognitive bias. It may be helpful to realize how to distinguish those who know this and those who don't. Knowing on how much we owe to prevailing mind sets of those before us, we, hopefully, can discern a little better on what is objectively possible or impossible. One does not have to place his faith in evolution or know evolution to study chemistry, physics or medicine. Louis Pasteur [4200], Gregor Mendel (a monk) and Carolus Linnaeus [4300] are fine examples of short age creationists who became famous in life sciences. The debate is not about science vs religion. It is between two different belief systems, both of which use the same evidence and the same observable science.

May 2005: Amateur image analysts rendition of the surface of Titan; Predicting a baseball's path; The Lion's mane; Polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background; New Ideas about Old Sharks, info on teeth; Science and Religious Fundamentalism in the 1920's (Scopes Trial); 1970 Image of the Koster Site in Illionois; Image of a `Spriggina' from the Ediacaran beds of South Australia; The image of Janos Bolyai and his non-Eucledian geometry; A 10 foot sword from Yazilikaya; The entrance to the Shanidar Cave in the Baradost Mountains of northeastern Kurdistan, Iraq;

While we support `Creationism' we also believe that evolution and its consequences are a result of nominal Christianity's disobedience in keeping God's Law over many centuries. By desecrating God's Holy Day, the one He said to `Remember', they in effect deny the Creator God from appointing a Day of His Choosing to keep holy for all time to come. Unless Protestantism corrects this desecration and begins to Keep God's Day holy, their efforts at convincing the world of `Creationism' very likely will have the feared effect of evolutionists, that nominal, disobedient Christianity will resort to enforce their Man Made Rules of the Situation. While Creationists uphold Genesis chapters 1-11, they, at the same time, follow Rome's lead in denying the eternal Creator's Mark, His Seal, His Sign of Authority over Creation, His Holy Sabbath. God will never bless such blatant disregard of His Published Law. Like Israel of Old, Christianity, and with it Protestantism, accomplished a partial Reformation but stopped short of being wholly obedient to the Word of God.

Honoring God on one account but disobeying on another, poisons the well and is not acceptable worship of the Creator God and requires repentance and correction (Matthew 19:17).

Many Christians see a converging of the Signs of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in the Clouds of Heaven to End the Reign of Sin in this World. They point to the preaching of the gospel in every part of the world via modern electronic media and the printed and spoken word, economic trouble already there and those signs of difficulties which may still intensify in the future. And they point to James 5:1-6:

"Go to now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. You have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, cries out: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord Sabaoth[5000]. You have lived in pleasure on earth, and been wanton; you have nourished your hearts, is in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and killed the just; and he does not resist you."

The spread of false evolutionary philosophy over the world, 2.Peter 3:3-7.

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, `Where is the promise of His Coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

The Spread of Modern Paganism over the earth, 1.Timothy 4:1-3.

"Now the Spirit distinctly says, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron..." "Do not go to (spiritualistic) mediums or fortunetellers, for you will be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God."

The worship of idols, false gods and the pagan system of treating the dead as if they were alive also affects some Christian churches still today. The idea that people have something immortal inside them comes from paganism for God says, that all must die the sleep death from which there is a resurrection. All God's faithful people will arrive in heaven at the same time. There is no one who gets there before their neighbors. God led Israel out of Egypt to take them away from these erroneous teachings. Why then are they still taught today? The Bible calls such things the doctrines of devils for it gives devils an opportunity to impersonate a deceased person (Samuel and Saul), mimicking his voice and some general characteristics and teach anti-biblical concepts in the process. Those among you who have been in regions of the world where devil worship is practiced know the truth of these words.

An evolutionary Biologist of Leiden University let it out how misinformed or lying his kind really are, saying: "All arguments of creationists and intelligent designers have been debunked by facts in science, one by one. That the Minister has been won over by [a] crafty creationist to have that debate again, I consider a disgrace. There should be a clear separation between church and state." Just the opposite is true, creationists are debunking evolution's evidences at a quickly increasing rate, so much so, that the heads of evolutionists are spinning. (We recall that `University' means united in diversity.)

See also The Intelligent Design Movement, or this one Can Science Refute Design?, or The Tyranny of Tolerance and Creation Compromises.

Molecular biologist Professor Ronald Plasterk is an opponent to Intelligent Design (ID) and is actively voicing his opinion through media columns. However, he flatly refused van der Hoeven's invitation to join in the debate: 'Intelligent Design does not play any role in biology. Just imagine, it could be that a couple of Indian fakirs might turn up, saying that gravity does not exist. Should we invite the Dutch physicists from the universities to the Ministry of Education to talk about that idea?'
Of course, this comparison is quite false on a logical basis: Gravity can be Tested in the Present—by experimental science—whereas Plasterk's evolutionary belief about the vanished past is not open to such direct testing or observation.
God Bless Maria van der Hoeven.

Technical Journal Articles (P.O.Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Qld. 4110, Australia)

Vol. 19(1), 2005: Perspectives: - `No joy for junkies' - On `junk' DNA.; `Rocks in the making' - On Mono Lake Tuffa formation; Jonah and the 1-1.2 meter high skull and ca. 5 meter long Leedsichthys problematicus, the problem fish - A likely species of the biblical Jonah swallowed by the fish story.; `Flat leaves - a curly problem' shows flatness requires highly coordinated changes in growth rate.; `Beautiful black and blue butterflies' and how it led to be able to make a `super-black' color.; `The Messinian salinity crisis questioned'; `Green power: God's solar power plants amaze chemists' - Translated into German Here!; `Ripples of galaxies - another blow to the big bang'; `Scandalous first dates for Neandertals' - on the misleading work of the German anthropologist Reiner Protsch von Zieten.; `New discoveries makes habitable worlds even less likely'; `Haldanes dilemma has not been solved';
Papers: `A creationist cosmology in a galactocentric universe'; `Dark matter and a cosmological constant in a creationist cosmology'; `Did a jaw muscle protein mutation lead to increased cranial capacity in man?' and `The Milky Way Galaxy - young at heart?'; - Very well illustrated.
TJ, June 2005 - `Jonah and Leedsichthys problematicus'; `Flat leaves - a curly problem'; `Green Power: God's Solar Plants Amaze Scientists'; `Ripples of Galaxies'; `Haldane's dilemma exposed at last'; `Carmeli cosmology'; `Fraudulant Neanderthal Dates'; `Fossil evidence for alleged apemen - Part 1: the genus homo/ Part 2: non-Homo himidis' (technical); `The evolution of an idea'; `The fog of fiction blankets the landscape of facts'; `The science of good questions'; `Mitochondrial Eve and biblical Eve are looking good: criticism of young age is premature'; `Record high red-shift galaxy is probably spurious'; `Can recombination produce new genetic information?'; `A creationist cosmology in a galactocentric universe' (technical); `Dark matter and a cosmological constant in creationist cosmology?' (technical); `Did a jaw-muscle protein mutation lead to increased cranial capacity in man?' (technical); `The Milky Way Galaxy: Young at heart' (technical); `Are `defective' knee joints evidence for Darwinism?'; `Cost theory and the cost of a substitution - a clarification' (technical);
TJ, Fall 2005 - `Startling plant discovery presents problems for evolution' discusses a recent Nature article on the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, p. 3.; `Quasar riddle for big bang astronomy', `Upper Paleolithic blues: consequences of recent dating fiasco on human evolutionary prehistory', `Kuiper Belt woes for accretion disk models', `Hominid fever: yet another alleged early human ancestor unearthed', `World record enzymes', discusses `orotidine 5'-monophosphate decarboxylase; `A new candidate for Leviathan' Sarcosuchus imperator, `The astronomical theory of the Ice Age becomes more complicated', `Mutations, selection and the quest for meatier livestock', `Evidence for dinosaur nest construction is extremely rare', `Scripture and general revelation', `Inheritance of biological information - part i: the nature of inheritance and of information', part ii: redefining the information challenge', `Preaching to his own choire', `Western culture and the age of the earth', discusses Lord Kelvin (Sir W. Thomson), `Young biosphere, old universe?', `Conservation ethics based on evolution?', mentions the ambiguous or illogical conclusions of E.O. Wilson (`The Future of Life'), Australia's gastric brooding frog (Rheobatrachus silus), the swallow tail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus), `Seeing the wood, not the forests', `The right conclusion from the wrong interpretation', `The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny', `A tail of many monsters', `Can evolution produce new organs or structures?', `The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question', `The paradoxical urinary concentrating mechanism', `Noah's Ark hidden in ancient Chinese characters', `Parkie: a new pseudoplesiosaur washed up on the Nova Scotia coast - Plesiosaur or basking shark?', `Strategic stratigraphy: reclaiming the rock record!';
TJ Winter 2005 - `Distant Galaxies with Old Stars - another unpleasant surprise for big bang supporters', The article shows that this new research seems to support that galaxies started fully formed and did not grow in size by accumulating mass over time as the uniformitarian view would state.; `Chimp Genome Sequence very Different' from humans. The article takes issue with the interpretation found in `Nature' magazine's 437, 2005 article on the same subject.; `First light from extra solar planets' explains how other star's Jupiter mass and size planets are detected, tends to defeat the idea that planets are the result of accumulation of clouds of gas and dust.; `The Late Ordovician striated pavement of North Africa - not directly caused by glaciation'. The four main pre-Pleistocene `ice-ages': the oldest 1) the early Proterozoic, 2) the late Proterozoic, 3) the late Ordovician and 4) the Permo-"Carboniferous. Discussion involves explaining the `tillite', which are striated or grooved bedrock surfaces as one near Adelaide, Australia, the Gravelly Mountains of SW Montana, featuring striations in two directions, and the supposed Ordovician striations in outcrops scattered across most of the Sahara Desert and NW Africa. The `ice-age contrary feature' is: the grooves and striations are strikingly parallel towards the north over most of the area. The problem with such unidirectional flow indicators is that modern and past Pleistocene ice sheets show different directions, even up to 180°, within short distances. Uniform flow directions are most indicative of mass movement..."; Did `Dino' breathe like birds' - shows how `Nature' magazine uses the tertiary inferences (third class theories) of `pneumatizations' of bones try to make guesses into facts.; `The Bible and hermeneutics'; `Inheritance of Biological Information Part III' - control of information, transfer and change.; `Steven Hawkins- the closed mind of a dogmatic atheist'; Featuring a book which shows how evolutionary developmental biology (Evo Devo) refutes Neo-Darwinism but supports creation.; `Debunking the molecules - to - man - myth.- talks about the sophisticated supracoideous `pulley system' of bird wings and much more.; `Answering 5 objections to creationist `dinosaur soft tissue' age arguments.' - A must read article..; `The Fall - Hugh Ross's errors on plant death in the Bible.'; `Baraminology and the Bible'.; `Unfossilized Alaskan dinosaur bones?'; `Dinosaur eggs and the post-Flood boundary' - argues against post-Flood catastrophism.; `Flood transported quartzites - east of the Rocky Mounains'.; The image of H.G. Wells, eugenistic evolutionist.;

Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)

June 2005; Michael J. Oard & Peter Klevberg, Deposits Remaining from the Genesis Flood: Rim Gravels in Arizona, CRSQ, p. 1-(6,7)-17; B&W images of Mogollon Rim, Oak Creek Canyon, Robber's Roost gravel, AZ highway 18, ca. 8 miles NE of US Highway 66. Coarse gravel, Matrix supported Rim Gravel, granitoid clast, quartzite rock with abundant percussion marks; Jerry Bergman, The evolution of Teeth: A Major Problem for NeoDarwinism; Douglas B. Sharp, `Red Rock Canyon and the Valley of Fire'; B&W images of: Bonanza King Formation as seen from Turtlehead Mtn. near Calico Basin.; Limestone-Sandstone Sequence as seen from Calico Basin; Out of order sequence at the Spring Mtns; Calico Hills Canyon; Alternating white and red banding in Jurassic sandstone at Calico Hills Canyon; Brecciated limestone (reflects faulting); Vertical limestone bedding on the White Rock Trail; Contact of limestone and sandstone at the White Rock parking lot; Erosion features in the sandstone at the Valley of Fire State Park; Cambrian limestones of the Muddy Mtns; Hoodoos at the Valley of Fire State Park; John K. Reed, `The Geology of the Timbered Hills Group in Oklahoma'; Images: includes a number of cross sectional views, maps and comparative tables.
Sept 2005; Carl R. Froede, The Tertiary Stratigraphy Surrounding Americus, Georgia: Evidence in Support of the Young Earth Flood framework in CRSQ, p. 85-90.; Images show sandstones of the Nanafalia Formation; roadside channel infilled by the Altamaha Formation; the north-west wall of the Guy-Pierce Coal Mine showing the lower thick Nanafalia & narrow Tuscahoma formations and the upper Clairborne Group; John R. Doughty, CO2 Gas Well Efluent Analysis, p. 93-101.; Jerry Bergman, Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome, p. 104-114; Jeffrey G. Schragin, The Bible, Epidemiology and Edenomics, p. 115-125; See also, `Revisiting Precambrian Geology', `Are there organelles in bacteria?', `Cataclysm Recorded in a Recent Geomorphic Event: The Gros-Ventre Slide in Wyoming'.
Mar 2006; Patrick H. Young, Body Mass Estimates and Encephalization Quotients: A Fresh Look at the Australopithecines and Homo habilis', gives the formula for calculating brain mass and deriving the encephalization quotient [5100]; Sub titles include: Determination of hominid body weight; Carl R. Froede, `Neogene Sand-to-Pebble Size Siliclastic Sediments on the Florida Peninsula: Sedimentary Evidence in Support of the Genesis Flood', Sub titles: Pliocene Sediments, `Citronelle Formation' of the western Florida Penhandle, the `Miccosukee Formation' of the eastern panhandle, the `Cypress Formation' around Jacksonville, the `Long Key Formation' south of Miami, Tectonism and the Suwanne Strait, Sea Level Changes and Siliclastic Deposition; Images: Quartzite pebbles from the Independent Sand Mine in Lake County, from the Clermont East Sand Mine, from the Haines Mine of the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk Cty, from the Ortona Sand Mine in Glades Cty, `Middle Flood Initiated Sediment Erosion, Transport, and Deposition; David Woetzel, `The Fiery Flying Serpent'; Mark H. Armitage & George F. Howe, Lichens in Cross-Section Evidence for Design and Against Macroevolution' Talks about the following species: Xanthoparmelia sp., Pleiopsidium chlorophana, Candelilaria sp., Caloplaca sp.; includes appropriate B&W micro photographs with explanations.; Notes includes: Volcanic ash from Mt. Pinatubo, Philipines; Diatomes from the Eocine of Chile; `Spur and Groove Coral Reef Morphology' from the Florida Keys area; `Devonian Fish and Tetrapods Support Creation - Not Evolution'.

May/June 2005: `Herbivores and Plant Volatiles Part 1- Tobacco and Tomato Pants'; - This article describes and shows the tobacco hornworm (has 7 diagonal slashes)`Manduca sexta' and the tomato hornworm (has 8 V-shaped markings on each side)`Manduca quinquemaculata'. Both attack either plant including eggplant, potato, pepper, horsenettle, jimpson weed, nightshade, and others of the Solanaceae family. The adult stage is a moth. Article subheadings: Hornworms, Plant volatiles, Plant defenses, Native tobacco plants, Timing of emission of volatiles, Stored or freshly produced?, Plant communication with volatiles, Evolutionary speculations, Another origin option, Conclusion. [For a genuine Christian it is a non-brainer that smoking is defiling our God given body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, with anything but wholesome food and fluids. The Bible condemns abusing our health in any way.]; Article: `The Future of Creationism', Explains and analyzes the clash between worldviews, Sub titles: The Worldview of Naturalism, Defeating Naturalism, Some formal flaws of naturalism, Conclusion.; Article: `Speaking if Education'; Article: Media reports differ on Kansas; Kansas debate reverberates in Holland.; Glossary: Epimers = molecules that differ only in the spatial arrangement of atoms around a single carbon atom; Green Leaf Volatiles = Compounds, generally comprised of six carbon aldehydes, alcohols, and esters, which are emitted by plants.; Indole = An aromatic, heterocyclic, organic compound with a formula C8H7N.; Jasmone = Cisjasmone, with a chemical formula C11H16O having a floral-green, jasnine-like odor.; Methyl Jasmonate = One of the main odor components of jasmine.; Parasitoid: Insect species whose larvae develop as parasites on other insect species.; Terpenes = Compounds consisting of five carbon units (isoprene units) joined together in a regular pattern, usually head to tail.
Jul/Aug 2005: `What are Creationism and Evolutionism? The Problem of Definitions.; Can Science Consider Supernatural Explanations? Speaking of Science. Sub-titles: How otters keep warm, Do you belong in a zoo?, Darwin's finches evolve - back and forth, Do Emperor Penguins know the meaning of true love?; Biline article: All by design - Leaping Lizards.;
Mar/Apr 2006: `Herbivores and Plant Volatiles- Part 3: Egg Parasitoids, An Introduction'; This article describes the "destruction" of beet armyworm herbivores by wasp parasitoids, Cortesa marginiventris. Also discussed is a major enemy of the field elm, Ulmus minor, a beetle called, Xanthogaleruca luteola; the wasp Oomyzus gallerucae; mentions the green stink bug, Nezara viridula, and one of its enemies a small wasp, Trisolcus basalis; the pinesaw fly, Diprion pini laying eggs on the Scottish pine, Pinus sylvestris and a small wasp egg parasitoid, Chrysonotomyia ruform.;
Jerry Bergman presents, `A Half Century of Indoctrination: A 1942 Evolution and Eugenics Survey.' - An eye opener survey in which the author of the survey (Riddle, et. al, 1942) stressed that it was critically important for both "social and political" reasons to teach "the genetic inequality of human beings" in biological science classes.' - This survey was mailed in the winter of 1939 / 1940 to teachers at nearly 16,000 schools throughout the United States. The 59-item questionnaire was designed to evaluate the state of biology instruction in the United States. A major concern of the authors was to determine the amount of both evolution and eugenics which was typically being taught in the nation's high schools. Of the 16,000 questionnaires sent, 3,186 usable responses were obtained: 2900 from public, 99 from parochial, and 184 from private schools (pp. 7-8). Some of the data are shown below.