On December 16, 2010, the `History" channel interviewed various scientists. They revealed what we long knew to be true and they now admit. A number of them now state that a chance, accidental evolution of the complex DNA molecule (the molecular blueprint in every living cell) is totally impossible. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. God has given the scientific world such irrefutable evidence of His existence in the beauty, the marvelous adaptability, and the infinite complexity of all created things, that many scientists see the absurdity and impossibility of chance evolution, "Ordo Ab Chao," Order out of Chaos. - Sad thing is, now these evolutionists push another irrational, untrue lie - that life came from aliens to our earth. Our Creator God is not an alien, He is our Maker and Sustainer even now. Thus they come up with strange ideas: (1) the UN prepares to appoint a First UFO Ambassador, (2) "Probing Odds of Alien Visitors" by USA Today. Do you think that world leaders and scientists are so intelligent that they will sense the hoax of enforcing the mark of the beast brought to them by spirits of frogs? - But the scientists aliens are given by them human sinful traits, more like devils thus fulfilling the wording of the 6th Plague in Revelation chapter 16, which says that spirits like frogs "go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." As we know and can check out, this final battle will be fought against those who honor God's holy Sabbath day, See offline the `Great Controversy', Chapter 34 (XXXIV).

Desmond Ford says,

"The problem facing the church is a very urgent one. Because we have dealt with science as an enemy, and because we have not been prepared to listen to the scientists amongst us, we have ill prepared the many thousands of our young people who go to universities and learn the sciences."

Do Bible believing Christians treat and/or think of science as an enemy?

The crux of the discussion on six day creation vs. millions of years of evolution is not the Bible vs. science, it is rather a conflict between worldviews. That means that people interprete the world either through `evolutionary glasses' or through `Biblical glasses.' We my think of the Bible as corrective lenses in this, for the Bible, our final authority, is not something we can proof or disproof, but we can recognize Creation, Corruption (Event of sin), Catastrophy (Flood), Confusion (Tower of Bable), Christ (God steps into History), Cross (Salvation), Consummation (2nd Coming, End of Sin; Paradise Lost to Paradise Restored). We all have the same evidence before us but we interprete it differently.

When we go out on field trips, our observations tend either to confirm that it takes intelligence to bring forth the vast array we observe in nature or it does not.

If we decide that observing nature supports that a Creator must have originated all we see we are saying that our observations confirm the Biblical scenario.

Therefore. the above quote seems to want to imply that evolution is based on science and therefore occupies a more neutral position while creationism is not based on science and therefore has an agenda, when in fact it is the other way around.

Example 1: When we combine a little oxygen and hydrogen gas in a test tube and introduce a spark, we have an explosion and moisture collects on the inside of the glass tube. That is straight forward laboratory science. It has been repeated in classrooms all around the world many times to eager to learn students. They all could observe that "oxygen plus hydrogen plus spark = water."

That is true science.

Example 2: When we go out on a field trip down highway 1 south of San Francisco, we see road cut areas revealing thin layers of volcanic ash in numerous places. We want to know, when were they deposited? The teacher may then draw on various dating methods to produce a range of dates when this probably occurred. But we all know, he was not there; and actually, no one was there to observe it happen and be still alive today. No written records were found in some cave which could tell us of the event and when it happened. Thus, the modern dating methods have to make a guess at some point, to come up with a date which may be close or it may be far off from reality.

That is historical science.

Now, the teacher may claim that radioactive isotopic dating methods used are based on observational science. Is that true? No, close inspection of any of these methods, shows that at some point a guess or guesses will have to be made. When scientist measure the radioactive changes they do not see that actually taking place. They measure the products of the change, which they assume took place in the past. But what if they are wrong about their assumptions?

Here are some of the assumptions they may come up with.

Assumption 1: The original number of unstable atoms can be known. Scientists assume how many unstable (parent) atoms existed at the beginning based on how many parent and daughter atoms are left today.
Assumption 2: The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changed at the same rate throughout time, ignoring the impact of Creation or changes during Noah's Flood.
Assumption 3: The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay. Scientists assume that no outside forces, such as flowing groundwater, contaminated the sample.

The guess they have to make is that no contamination occurred. Thus such measurements remain historical science.

Now, keep in mind that the record we see in the rock layers does not oppose a world wide flood; only the long age worldview will attack any of such observations.

Thus Creationists and evolutionists have the same data before them. They only differ in how they interprete the data.

Do creationists have a bias when they interprete these data? Yes. But so do evolutionists. Should creationists give up their bias, believing in the Biblical account? No. Creationists know that without the Bible, God's Word, we have no good reason to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility:

1. the basic realiability of memory and our senses,
   
2. the laws of logic
   
3. the uniformity in nature,
   
4. morality,
   
5. personal dignity and
   
6. freedom and so on.

Creationist Christians also know that a belief must be true in order for it to be considered genuine knowledge. But the fact that a belief may happen to be true does not mean that the person has really knowledge of it. We may have enough of arbitrary beliefs that a few of them may be true by accident. However, if that person does not have good reasons for those beliefs (even the true ones), it would be inappropriate to say they are true knowledge. In order for a belief to account as knowledge, we must have a good reason for a true belief. Therefore, it is not possible to have knowledge of something without having a reason for it. This is very important for us to remember.

Evolutionists rightly expect creationists to be non-arbitrary - to have a good reason for our beliefs. However, many evolutionists feel no need to have a reason for their own beliefs. That is a double standard. We must always look out for such double standards. Case in point: An evolutionist asks a Creationist why he believes in creation. If the response is, "I don't need a reson, Creation is true, and that is all there is to it."

The evolutionist would rightly consider such a reply to be arbitrary and without merit.

Yet, when he himself is asked for an example about the preconditions of intelligibility, some of them may say, "Oh, we don't need a reason for such things. It is enough that we act on them."

Such a response is equally arbitrary. The rational person has a reason for what he or she believes. Neither one, then, has true knowledge.

But what is being taught to students in all too many schools? They are being taught that believing in Jesus asks to believe something that a little science education will show cannot possibly be true. So many grew up putting their confidence in evolution either totally without God or in theistic evolution. Defenders of theistic evolution may assume they help people from a hopeless and unnecessary choice - that being, `People do not have to choose between millions of years of evolution and Christianity, that is between, `Is there a God or not?' - Many don't see that their conclusion suspends many over a chasm.

But there are also those who recognize that the theological modifications required by the acceptance of evolution are vast and utterly disastrous for Bible based faith among Christians. The very idea of a shaky "middle ground" that can accommodate, is postulated, it suggests a fundamental flaw in the design of such a `bridging' of things, namely, what is being used as the standard criteria for deciding what is correct and what not? If their idea that science contradicts what the Bible teaches, what final authority is then left?

Evolutionists want their pupils to accept what they are saying because they claim they `know'. They leave it unsaid, that science text books and conclusions are constantly changing. There is no hope that they ever will truly `know'. They have many levels of interpreters among all their disciplines of science, and that is where a good deal of the problem lies. They want people to perhaps reject what some scientists say about God, but accept what they say about cosmology and biology - leaving it unsaid, that they make assumptions about the "unseen" past that rely on previous assumptions, which rejects the existence of God from its very start.

Creationists believe that there can be no chasm between science and God, who, as Creator, made science. What they are really doing, is, they want to separate matters of God from matters of science - build a wall that leaves God out of efforts to explain the real world, while the Bible states that God is not only the Creator but also the foundation for all understanding, Proverbs 9:10. Theistic evolutionists relegate God into insignificance.

Some of these professors say, `Theology changes when either science or secular reason forces it to.' [Coyne, `Religion Takes Credit for Science,'] He says that Sola Scriptura must give way to Sola per scientia (Scripture through `science').

They may say, `Anyone familiar with the history of science should laugh at the idea that `science' should determine our interpretation of Scripture rather than vice versa. Unlike the shifting sands of science, the Word of God stands forever, Isaiah 40:8.

Theistic evolutionists are diluting God's Word and uplift man's wisdom. It runs rampant in Protestant educational institutions. On the other hand, the six day Creationists among these Protestants, have also great concerns, for what do they protest? They protest against the millions of years on one hand, and on the other they believe in a six day week. They pretend to worship the Creator God, but they leave out His monument to Creation. Thus they are no better in the eyes of the Creator than those who never knew Him. They want to teach Creationism, but they deconstruct the bulwark which is designed to defeat unfaithfulness. They preach a stunted gospel that cannot save, because they circumspectly leave out the Lord's holy day. They absolutely don't want to even mention what God tells the world to keep holy from Genesis to Revelation because these are really not Baptists or Lutherans, they are Babylonian Catholics by how they actually worship. Worshiping God on a day in which God created light divided from darkness, before there was any life, anyone who could worship God, ought to be enough to let them know that worshiping the Creator cannot be meaningful until after His creation was finished and pronounced `very good.'

How can you tell the difference? You can tell by applying how God tests everyone. The good news is, that we still have a little time of grace left to worship God with all our heart so He can seal us and save us in the end.

What Creationists must be able to show is how the Bible accounts for these things. They must know that the ultimate proof of creation is this: "If biblical creation were not true, we would not know anything."

If biblical creation were not true, all thoughts in our brain would be just random accidents with no rhyme or reason.

Dr. Desmond Ford does not distinguish between (1) observational science and (2) historical science.

We must also realize that evolutionists and atheists are not that of their own persuasion alone, based on biological and similar sciences, but also because of the apparent results of the archaeology of the Bible lands. They take courage from conclusions of archaeologists that the OT characters of Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon are myths. Why is that? It is that way because Satan gave them crafty lies which corrupted true chronological interdependencies, some of which we only lately discovered (since no one looked for such data) and depended on interpreting layers and pottery. Written evidence confounds current generally accepted chronology of the Bible lands. Thus atheists can depend only on their gut feeling, since they only can know anything, because Creation is true.

So we realize that all sciences, since they relate in some way to each other, are culpable on furthering the ends of untruth and it takes a gigantic shift in worldviews to try and bring things back to where they should be, which is unlikely to occur under the reign of sin. Instead, we see today the opposite occurring. The long age worldviews are planning to own this planet all by themselves.

1. the atmospheric pressure was correct
   
2. the nutrient supply was correct and creatures did not kill
   
3. the internal structure of the earth was correct
   
4. the information feeding from the cosmic radiation was correct
   
5. the magnetic fields were maintained with appropriate intensity.

Study of nature reveals that man can teach nature to be violent, by itself, however, nature is not violent. In the beginning all creatures were satisfied.

Can man come from apes? No! Man cannot come from any other creature. Why? Because a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal to it. The percentage difference between human and ape genetics is ca. 1.6% which translates into a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes, however, a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

The Number of Chromosomes Confirm Creation
Evolution taught for a long time, that you start with the simplest creature - for along time it was an amoeba - and you count their chromosomes and should have a gradual increase until it reaches man, the crown of all life. That did not materialize. Instead we learned that each creature is genetically independent of each other and unique in its function. Here follow a few data which show that there is no relationship between the number of chromosomes and the advancement of life forms.

On the subject of 6 day Creation vs biilions of years of Evolution, consider these statements illustrating man's wisdom:
"Dating methods, in my view, provide strong evidence for rejecting this face-value chronological reading of Genesis chapters 4-11." {William A. Dembski, "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science", p. 49. Dr. Dembski is on the faculty of SW Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas.}
Another contemporary Christian philosopher/theologian, Dr. William Lane Craig, stated the following to a question:
"Why not receive God's transforming grace yourself and then be better than the Young Earthers? You know that I don't hold their views about the age of the universe. Neither do most evangelical Christians, despite the high profile of their movement in churches." {Dr. Craig is on the faculty of Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in California; http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6787. For the occasion or event of this citation see http://www.youtube.com/?v=_IQoLg7w_4.}
These ideas, from outside the Bible, rather than plain Bible reading, determines their worldview. [Source: Ken Ham, `It's and Attack on the Son', answersupdate, Vol. 17, Issue 11m November 2010, p. 1,2.]

More than 90 record-high temperatures were recorded in the Midwest and Great Lakes yesterday.

And perhaps an even better record came for the residents of Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota - for only the third time in recorded history there was no snow measured during the month of March. (Records date back to 1859).

Rochester, Minnesota, shattered its old record high of 71 degrees when the temperature soared to 83 degrees yesterday. Chicago also recorded a record high temperature for April 1 of 83.

Other record high temperatures recorded:

Cleveland, Ohio – 83
Toledo, Ohio – 80
Detroit, Michigan – 80
Grand Rapids, Michigan – 82
Indianapolis, Indiana – 82
Milwaukee, Wisconsin – 82
Green Bay, Wisconsin – 75
Duluth, Minnesota – 62

The good weather may not last for everyone though. A cold front is moving across the region today that should bring an end to the record high temperatures across the region.

On the evolution of the first walking sea-to-land animal apparently from the Paleozoic era.

01-09-2010 See the source article.

Scientists led by University of Warsaw paleobiologist Grzegorz Niedwiedzki uncovered the fossilized footprints of a four-legged animal in southeastern Poland. Important features of the well-preserved prints are the impressions of digits (meaning the creature had feet) and a "diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures."

Why a finned creature would be thought to have a gait is, of course, a by-faith element of evolutionary thinking, which postulates that fish-like creatures were the first land-walkers. For that reason, evolutionists previously hailed fossils such as `Tiktaalik' - a fish-like creature - as representative of the water-to-land transition and a key "missing link." (Read an example of the evolutionary enthusiasm in Meet your ancestor the fish that crawled.)

But the discovery presents a major problem for the evolutionary status of `Tiktaalik' and similar fossils, which supposedly date back to around 370 to, at most, 380 million years ago. If `Tiktaalik' represents the earliest adaptation of sea life for land walking, then how was Niedwiedzki's finding - which he calls "an animal with four limbs, unique for true tetrapods" - walking across Poland almost ten million years earlier? [See also the `California Bone Bed.']

Facing up to the find, other paleontologists have been forced to retract previous praise for `Tiktaalik' as "the" missing link, instead considering it an evolutionary dead end. "We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods, [but now w]e have to rethink the whole thing," explained Cambridge's Jennifer Clack. Young-earth creationists rejected the assumptions that underlie the millions-of-years-dates given to the fossils mentioned; in our view, both `Tiktaalik' and the fossil footprints are from the past 4,500 years or so. Nonetheless, this is one such case where even accepting evolutionary assumptions dethrones an iconic "missing link." It confirms that such ideas can never get any better just because they want them to.

What can we learn from such talk? It is Mike Matthews who said it so well, `how God intentionally raises difficult questions, even unanswerable questions, Job 5:9; Rom. 11:33-36. Why? He does not ask such questions to frustrate us but to learn to place our trust in Him "who does great things, and unsearchable, marvelous things without numbers." Prov. 25:2. God wants us to find wisdom and understanding, but sometimes we must dig and investigate to find it.

The Creator stands ready to unlock a treasure house of insights into His glorious person and work. But the key is God's Word. If we trust His Word and build our worldview on it, any new discovery can be a stepping stone to greater understanding. But if we distrust His Word, those same discoveries become stumbling stones.' [500]

A brief survey of Dr. Werner Gitt's April 2, 2009 article and `Answers in Genesis'.

In an article heavy on genetic information and how it could or could not explain evolution or creation highlights the problem students, teachers and researchers face when occupying themselves with this subject. It is vast and no one has all the dots arranged in such a way that no mistakes could be involved. All living organisms, from a smallest cell to a complex one, contain no unnecessary structures in their biological makeup. What were once thought to be unnecessary appendages, are now seen as having a purpose. What distinguishes inanimate from living systems? Matter and energy, though necessary, cannot distinguish between them. It always comes down to the genetic information each cell contains, which contains the required coded information necessary for life and replication. When ants suck up juices, when bees suck up honey, those are information carrying processes or they are not. But it takes more than genetic information to account for life and all its forms.

The building block of life, as far as we know, is made up of only some 20 amino acids. [10]

These amino acid chains are only two millionths of one millimeter thick and just barely visible under an electron microscope, but since they can be seen they exist. Human DNA contains a tremendous amount of `information.' When the DNA in a cell divides, each daughter cell contains the same genetic information. This replication has been compared to 280 typists copying the whole Bible sequentially, each of them from the previous one, with, at most, one single letter transposed wrongly in the entire copying process. That is complex.

The question, `Where did life come from,' is intricately linked to `Where did this genetic information come from.' Soon enough it was found, that, in order to explain the existence of life, the origin of genetic information had to be understood and explained. What critical scientists say, shows that evolution is fundamentally unable to answer these questions of origin.

Here are some quotes:

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829), a French zoologist and philosopher: "Life is nothing but a physical phenomenon. All life features originate in mechanical, physical, and chemical processes which are based on the properties of organic matter itself." [30]

Reinhold W. Kaplan (active in the 1970's), a German microbiologist: "Life is effected by the different parts of a system which work together in a certain way. . . . Life can be completely explained in terms of the properties of these parts and their inevitable interactions. . . . The origin of life can be explained in terms of hypotheses describing fully the sequence of events since the origin of protobionts, and the fact that all these events could be deduced from physical, chemical, and other laws which are valid for material systems."

Manfred Eigen (died 1927), a Nobel laureate from the University at Göttingen. Looking at the subject from the molecular biology of his day standpoint, he came up with an unwarranted postulate that natural laws controlled the origin of life. In his publication on the self-organization of matter [E1], he uses an elaborate array of formulas, but does not rise above the level of statistical information, thus making his work useless today since it does not answer any question on origins but only shows his materialistic ideas.

Franz M. Wuketits (1955-??). He assumes evolution is true and thus wants to explain origin backwards. He wrote: "The fundamental truth of biological evolution is accepted beforehand, yes, we assume in advance that the principle of evolution is universally valid, that it is just as valid in the preorganic domain as in the organic, and that it can be extended to the spheres of psychology, sociology, and culture. If we accept that the evolutionary view also holds for the human and cognition, then evolutionary ideas can also be applied to the analyses of those phenomena which are usually regarded as belonging to theoretical science. As a result this view then becomes relatively more important in the evaluation of the progress of scientific research. We thus arrive at an evolutionary theory of science, a theory of human knowledge which relates to an evolutionary establishment of itself." [80]

Obviously, his views expressed here are not based on facts. Since he follows a reverse arrangement, he has not contributed to answer or even touch on the question, `How did life originate?' This is an example which helps us to recognize how scientists, who put themselves under such mental restraints and support it without critical analysis, degrade themselves to mere slaves of a materialistic philosophy. Scientists like anyone else must know that truth is first, not pre-existing folly. The religious nature of evolutionary thinking is revealed by their continual attempts to imprison sciences into their confines of what they call the `self-organization of matter.' Wuketits projects evolutionary thinking with such a religious fervor, in the process accusing everybody of fable mongering who claims to be scientific and speaks of creation or of design in nature [90]. He is trying to ban any thoughts of `finality' and `final and purposeful causes' from science and from the domain of all serious schools of thought.

A considerable number of scientists, speaking out on cosmological questions and on questions of origin, support evolutionary views. So much so, that Hubert P. Jockey laments about that fact in the literature he surveyed, writing: "Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated. . . . it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs." [100]

The doctrine of evolution is definitely not a useful scientific `guiding light' (Leitmotiv). Karl Popper described it once as a metaphysical research program, even though he himself supported evolution.

Sadly, today we have so many `Jesus' books which misrepresent Biblical accounts and intends to such a degree that they hurt the Christian faith and make it look like Christians are gullible. But Richard Dawkins does the same with his easily detectable errors about the way genetic information originates. This is described and explained in an article you find here. In this article Dawkin's representations are fully discusses so you, the reader, can see what feeblmindedness is ascribed to you. We leave it up to you to read the entire, linked article for yourself.

Scientists Supporting Creation Have Said:

While evolutionary scientists are many, creation supporting scientists are on the increase. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), British astrophysicist, wrote: "But the interesting quark transformations are almost immediately over and done with, to be followed by a little rather simple nuclear physics, to be followed by what? By a dull-as-ditchwater expansion which degrades itself adiabatically until it is incapable of doing anything at all. The notion that galaxies form, to be followed by an active astronomical history, is an illusion. Nothing forms, the thing is as dead as a door-nail. . . . The punch line is that, even though outward speeds are maintained in a free explosion, internal motions are not. Internal motions die away adiabatically, and the expanding system becomes inert, which is exactly why the big-bang cosmologies lead to a universe that is dead-and-done-with almost from its beginning." [120]

These views correspond with the findings of Hermann Schneider, a nuclear physicist of Heidelberg, who has critically evaluated the big bang theory from a physical viewpoint. He concludes [S5]: "In the evolution model the natural laws have to describe the origin of all things in the macro and the micro cosmos, as well as their operation. But this overtaxes the laws of nature." [We ought to realize that a big bang cannot take place until the necessary matter exists which can let it occur. In other words, you cannot have a `big bang' unless you have something that can go bang. In the evolutionary world view, only a miracle (without a miracle Maker) can account for the substanzes required. Therefore, when Christians evoke a miracle, they stand not alone.]

Fred Hoyle makes the following remarks about the much-quoted primeval soup in which life supposedly developed according to evolutionary expectations [H4, p 526]:

"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The "others" are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles."

In his book `Synthetische Artbildung,' (The Synthetic Formation of Kinds), Professor Dr. Heribert Nilsson, a botanist at Lund University in Sweden, describes evolutionary doctrine as an obstacle which prevents the development of an exact biology:

"The final result of all my researches and discussions is that the theory of evolution should be discarded in its entirety, because it always leads to extreme contradictions and confusing consequences when tested against the empirical results of research on the formation of different kinds of living forms and related fields. This assertion would agitate many people. Moreover: my next conclusion is that, far from being a benign natural-philosophical school of thought, the theory of evolution is a severe obstacle for biological research. As many examples show, it actually prevents the drawing of logical conclusions from even one set of experimental material. Because everything must be bent to fit this speculative theory, an exact biology cannot develop."

Professor Dr. Bruno Vollmert of Karlsruhe, an expert in the field of macro-molecular chemistry, has shown that all experiments purporting to support evolution miss the crux of the matter [V1]:

"All hitherto published experiments about the poly-condensation of nucleotides or amino acids are irrelevant to the problem of evolution at the molecular level, because they were based on simple monomers, and not on "primeval soups" derived from Miller experiments. But poly-condensation experiments with primeval soups or the dissolved mix of substances of them are just as superfluous as attempts to construct perpetual motion machines."

A French Nobel laureate, A. Lwoff [L2], pointed out that every organism can only function in terms of the complex net of available information:

"An organism is a system of interdependent structures and functions. It consists of cells, and the cells are made of molecules which have to cooperate smoothly. Every molecule must know what the others are doing. It must be able to receive messages and act on them."

When considering the source of this information, we can now formulate the following theorem which is based on research of many thousands of man-years:

Theorem 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. [Dr. Werner Gitt, `In the Beginning was Information'.]

Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender.

This was also the conclusion of the seventh "International Conference on the Origins of Life" held together with the fourth congress of the "International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL)" in Mainz, Germany. At such occasions, scientists from all over the world exchange their latest results. In his review of the congress, Klaus Dose [D3] writes: "A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today." Not even the physical building blocks required for the storage of the information can construct themselves: "The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides or even of polynucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard."

As early as 1864, when Louis Pasteur addressed the Sorbonne University in Paris, he predicted that the theory of the spontaneous generation of living cells would never recover from the fatal blow delivered by his experiments. In this regard, Klaus Dose makes an equally important statement: "The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base."

Bibliography and Notes

[10] Alanine (Ala: GCA GCC GCG GCU), Arginine (Arg: AGA AGG CGA CGC CGG CGU), Asparagine (Asn: AAC AAU), Aspartic acid (Asp: GAC GAU), Cysteine (Cys: UGC UGU), Glutamine (Gln: CAA CAG), Glutamic acid (Glu: GAA GAG), Glycine (Gly: GGA GGC GGG GGU), Histidine (His: CAC CAU), Isoleucine (Ile: AUA AUC AUU), Leucine (Leu: CUA CUC CUG CUU UUA UUG), Lysine (Lys: AAA AAG), Methionine (Met: AUG), Phenylalinine (Phe: UUC UUU), Proline (Pro: CCA CCC CCG CCG), Serine (Ser: AGC AGU UCA UCC UCG UCU), Threonine (Thr: ACA ACC ACG ACU), Tryptophan (Try: UGG), Tyrosine (Tyr: UAC UAU), Valine (Val: GUA GUC GUG GUU); Where the international abbrevition is given first followed by the genetic triplet codes which are contained in the respective acid. For the entire article click here.]

[30] Philosophie Zoologique, Paris, 1809, Vol. 1.

[80] F.M Wuketits, W8, p. 11-12.

[90] One evidence of design, God's thumb print, is hard to disregard and that are Fibonacci's sequence of digits, the numbers which form spirals (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34 etc.). They form spirals in living things as well as in the physical world like breaking waves. That disparages ideas that mere multiplication and division of cells cause it.

100] Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 91, 1981, p. 13.

[120] `New Scientist,' The Big Bang in Astronomy, H4, p. 523-524.

He writes in his BIO 112 course notes, "There is nothing `theoretical' about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin's original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea. It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory." [Larry McCloskey, LSU]

One stands aghast at such false and misleading assertions. They are typical of those who rehash someone's poor concepts of what real science is and what constitutes evidence. And such ideas come from the school where I was partly educated before such teachers taught their nefarious ideas in its halls.
But what is he saying? There is nothing theoretical about evolution with `theoretical' in quotation marks? Doesn't he know that evolution has no evidence whatsoever in even a single instance which would explain how evolution took place in nature? Doesn't he know that their text books, change evidence and long held views every year, because things don't pan out? There has never been an instance where different life forms evolved into another. They all occur fully developed in the fossil record - after their kind. Those types of life still living today, look the same in their fossilized form. Evolutionists hardly do research worthy of its name. They have never yet proven anything. They only make claims, which upon scrutiny, evaporate into nothingness. No data have yet been found which proof evolution, whereas many data researched support creation. Evolution cannot make sense of anything. That is why these teachers sound so much like they are drunk with the wine of their false Darwinian religion. You can study biology, physics and medicine without knowing anything about evolution for it contributes nothing concrete to any science.

Another teacher wrote this in his BIOL 111: "As a species humans have only been around about 200,000 years and have low within-species genetic variation. . . The genes encoding various globin proteins evolved from one common ancestral globin gene, which duplicated and diverged about 450-500 million years ago." [Lee Greer, LSU]

Nonsense. If life, any life, was around for such a long time, wherever you would dig, you would dig up bones. Such views are a mathematical impossibility. Evolution is hype piled on top of hype. It is a very false doctrine. It shows instructors mostly just rehash what they read in teachers edition of text books (if available) before you do.

Teaching Behind Closed Doors

Students, listen up. I read once that there was a student at Texas Tech starting a new class. The instructor outlined the criteria he would use in his evaluations. He said something like, he would only recommend students for medical or graduate school who earned an A in his class, whom he knew fairly well, and those who would affirm evolution to be true. There was one student in the class, who, upon hearing this, got up and left the classroom. - Most would think, well, that was the end for him. But no. The student went on and enrolled at Lubbock Christian University where he received a recommendation for medical school and returned to Texas Tech with lawyers from Liberty Legal Institute of Texas. - The next thing that happened was, that the professor who had announced his criteria did not fare to well now since he had attempted to practice an egregious (flagrant) form of intolerance within a cloistered classroom. After that he did no longer require that his students believe in evolution, only that they understand its theories. The Assistant Attorney for civil rights said then, "A state run university has no business telling students what they should or should not believe in." ["Texas two-step," WORLD, May 10, 2003.] - So LSU students know your rights.

There is a vast difference between a Creation Museum and those subscribing to evolution. Some of the latter still present exhibits on the defunct `Neanderthal Man' stories as if they had any relevance today. The prime example is the Neanderthal Museum itself. Humanity and creature life degrading advertisements of scheduled shows or displays of monsters are not rare. So they even have a show of `Galgen, Rad und Scheiterhaufen'. Why? Because they know that the current popularity of Vatican power is tending to revive these despicable reminders of the Middle Ages for they being revived again, even as we speak. They know that Rome wants to treat `nay sayers' to their dogmas that way.

Spiritually challenged thinkers and tinkerers are hitting sometimes on parcels of truth without realizing that the Word of God in Romans chapter one has described the curse of sin that way. We read:

"First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing `out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably some hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions." [P.Z. Myers, "Morality Doesn't Equal God," Pharyngula, August 24, 2009.]

That must mean that there is nothing wrong with presenting reasons and evidence that evolution is wrong and teaching creationism instead. There can also be nothing wrong then to teach that humanism, atheism and certain religions are wrong.

October 10, 2009: A Catholic professor from the Netherlands, says Genesis 1:1 was translated wrong, we read there, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." She wants it to say `God separated' on the basis of pagan extra-bibilical studies. Of course she seems to overlook that heaven, the firmament, and the waters (clouds), were not separated or divided until verse 7. She also overlooked what Jesus said, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." Mark 13:19. We learn from this that Christians cannot trust theologians. These teachers follow another master, the god of this world, and it is safe to ignore their Babylonian doctrines.

Abstract: Uniformitarian scientists define their stratigraphic column using fossils linked to type sections, with the expectation that the rock record should exhibit evolutionary trends in its strata. However, such is often not the case. A significant portion of the "Tertiary" section exposed along road cuts and in open-pit mines near Americus, Georgia is barren of both fossils and trace fossils. Hence, there is sparse evidence to support the assertion that the strata reflect millions of years of evolution. Instead, these sediments exhibit features suggesting high-energy deposition. The field data are more amenable to an interpretation within the young Earth Flood Framework. [860]

Introduction

Modern stratigraphy has codified rules for mapping and age-dating strata in the `North American Stratigraphic Code' (1983) and the `International Stratigraphic Guide' (Salvador, 1994). Field geologists apply these rules to determine the proper sequence of strata and their corresponding age-dates. The paleontologic contents (e.g. trace and body fossils) of the various rock layers are crucial for defining the stratigraphic position and ages of the rocks, because uniformitarian scientists believe that history can be measured by evolution, documented by fossils contained in the sediments.

Most strata appear to have been deposited in subaqueous marine settings. Uniformitarians insist that life has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. That much life over that much time should have left plentiful body and trace fossils throughout the rock record. However, this is not always true. In fact, the vertical rock record for any given location typically contains few fossils, and those are usually concentrated in specific zones or along bedding contacts, and not evenly distributed throughout the column.

Charles Darwin had apparently some Christian background. But at some point in his life he struggled with the character of a loving God. He wrote, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designed created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." [600] Coming out of his teens he had already made up his mind to reject God and accept evolution. Hardly anyone has been able at that age to figure out the meaning of life. It does take time to learn the Word of God and understand it. The answers are contained in it, but one must dig for it. Once having convinced himself that the Bible was not true, he removed the only fixed point man has to discover himself and interpret correctly the world around him.

Rejecting God and how He revealed himself in His word, has always negative consequences for it removes recognition of sin and causes one thus to participate in it. That can only lead to a downward slide in one's personal life and ultimately the whole world. That path this world is sliding around on in our days. Those who deny God because of suffering and death in the world, reject the only source that explains its origin and existence.

The sad truth is that young people are denied studying for themselves the aspects of a well rounded world view. Humanists seem to insist that education is supposed to be neutral not admitting that there is no such thing as neutrality on issues of origins. We are either on the right side of it or on the wrong side. Eliminating the Bible from education meant that humanists could now present their `Bible' in its place. The legacy of Darwin is that he was instrumental in replacing God with partial human wisdom. They have to revise and change around their theories for ever. The impact on young minds is that there are no absolutes, no ground rules, just the struggle of the fittest. Multiply this thinking by the number of those espousing it, and you know why there is so much violence in the human race.

But sin is temporary, there will be an end to it - when Christ comes in might and power to claim His creation back from the wicked one who started the cycle of decay and death.

The consequences of the supposed "death of God" in modern life and thought have been excruciating and shattering all over the world indeed. People started to think that science is far and away the principle agent of social change, and will determine the future of man. Today we should know better. Just take the current financial crisis and the tones of bogus money being printed as well as the bogus causes it is attributed to. The truth lies more in the greed and self servicing policies of highly placed officials themselves. They have converted their believe in "no God exists" into "therefore everything goes as long as I don't get caught." So little figures on the `dishonest ladder' get caught and fined and put into plush jails to satisfy the gullible public. Since what news is presented to the public is decided before it is presented, the people in the land hear only their view points. Truth has fallen in the streets of the cities. Prescreened news only makes the news. People turned away from newspapers which printed only trash. People will more and more turn away from televised tales as well and forfeit the tube - if they are smart.

But is science the answer to everything? Of course not. Most of popular science is run by those who have an agenda of publishing only what furthers their cause of `no God.' Those who are still calling themselves theologians are from Mars. The God of modern theology has been reduced to a remote shut-away deity who is denied any direct activity in human affairs. As a consequence of a general culture of unbelief God does not even enter into the consideration and concern of man's day-to-day existence. Science thinks it has faith in God made irrelevant. But today we are beginning to reap the consequences which are often attributed to wrong causes.

The truth is, wherever man goes, corruption follows closely. Even among astronauts we had obvious shenanigans of wicked people occurring. Man is not getting progressively better, he is getting worse - physically and spiritually. Some believe that the ethic of knowledge which they like to think created the modern world - and what a chasm of despair it made - is the only ethic compatible with it, the only capable, once understood and accepted, of guiding its evolution. Of course the productions of this `knowledge' is mostly unethical to the highest degree as shown by its products in war, machinery, pharamaceutical poisons of all descriptions, abhorrent entertainment, etc. Only those with a worldly wise conscience can see these as harmless.

Spiritual Warfare

[500] Answers Magazin, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan-Mar 2010, p. 35-37.

[600] The fiction of Charles Darwin, `Origin of Species'.

[860] The 10 best evidences for a young earth are the following points: 1) Very little sediment on the sea floor. 2) Bent rock layers. 3) Soft tissue in fossils. 4) Faint sun paradox. 5) Rapidly decaying magnetic field. 6) Helium in radioactive rocks. 7) Carbon 14 - in fossils, coal, diamonds. 8) Short lived comets. 9) Very little sal in the sea. 10) DNA in "ancient" bacteria. [See answersingenesis.org, Oct. 14, 2012.]