Monday, January 30, 2012

Evolution quotes #29

Regarding a fixation on the view of Asian origins:
"it also led to the very ready acceptance into the human family of the most meager of fossil evidence-a single tooth-which first came out of Chou Kou Tien, the famous Peking Man site…'Far from the bones being objective facts to be judged as evidence, there was an established pattern of belief. There was a climate of opinion that favored discoveries made in Asia but not the 'silly notion' of small-brained bipeds from Africa.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 53 citing "Human Evolution After Raymond Dart," in Hominid Evolution: Past, Present and Future, edited by Phillip V. Tobias, published by Alan Liss, New York, 1985, pp. 3-18

Related resources:

Human evolution: oh so clear?

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?

Not from the apes

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Grade your teacher project! Grassroots Question Evolution! Campaign supporter launches new initiative!

A Christian YouTube grassroots supporter of the Question evolution! campaign has a stroke of genius. And with over 21,000 YouTube subscribers and the support of other people, he definitely is in a position to share it with other people.

Are you ready? Are you excited? Are you sitting down?

You have to watch the video: The "Grade Your Teacher Project"

The beauty of the "Grade your teacher project" approach

I strongly believe that the biblical creation movement as a whole could be more proactive and less reactive. I have noticed a pattern where the evolutionists often seem to take the initiative and creationists react/respond to such and such evolutionist new bogus claim.

The great beauty of the "Grade your teacher" approach is that it could be done the entire school year across the world plus it is a very proactive approach and fosters student-teacher dialogue about origins. The model where the teacher indoctrinates passive and uninformed/unthinking students is model which is bound to fail. And let's face it: an informed student who employs critical thinking and demands proof and evidence is an evolutionist teacher's worst nightmare.

"The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." - King Solomon, Proverbs 18:17

Of course, each Question Evolution Campaign group can call this new approach whatever they wish. For example, "Show your teacher the 15 questions for evolutionists", etc. etc.

Grade your teacher project

One raging blog river or multiple blog streams?

Our Question evolution! campaign group has been reading material on:

- building/managing volunteer teams

- blogging

- social media and online video

- reaching the public directly

- publicity

- related topics

We have been very pleased with our traffic to this blog and we want also want to expand our blog traffic to a much higher volume traffic. And although having some of our team members get sick with the flu was a pain and slowed us down, it did give us some time to do some additional research and to reflect on what we found. And we have come to the conclusion that initially it is far easier to cause large/massive amount of traffic to one blog than launch multiple blogs (a blog network). In other words, at least initially, we would rather have one raging blog river than have many blog streams.

Evolution quotes #28

"'virtually all our theories about human origins were relatively unconstrained by fossil data,' observes David Pilbeam.[1] 'The theories are…fossil-free or in some cases even fossil-proof.' This shocking statement simply means that there is and always has been far more fleshing out of the course and cause of human evolution than can fully be justified by the scrappy skeleton provided by the fossils. As a result, he continues, 'our theories have often said far more about the theorists than they have about what actually happened.'"[2]

[1] "Current Argument on Early Man," in Major Trends in Evolution, edited by Lars-Konig Konigson, published by Pergamon Press, 1980, pp. 262, 267
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 43

Related resources:

That quote!

Fossils wrong place

The human fossils still speak!

Pre-adamic man

Friday, January 27, 2012

How did sex originate?

How did sex originate? Asexual repro-duction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

So, believers in evolution, why would a more efficient method of reproduction evolve into a lesser efficient method?  How would an asexual organism that has never seen or heard of sexual reproduction know it needed to evolve into a sexual organism before there ever existed a sexual organism?  How could mutations, which cause corruption of genetic information, produce two entirely new systems at the same time in separate yet like organisms and get them to interact and work properly?  How could mere physics and chemistry invent such complimentary systems and apparatuses needed at the same time?    Remember, non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs.

Evolutionists, since you do not know the answers, why do you teach our children that this occurred as though it were scientifically proven fact?  Have you ever observed it happen?  Has anyone observed the evolution of any organism from asexual to sexual reproduction?

Evolutionists, you claim evolution is science, yet you are teaching hypothetical ideas, and fanciful beliefs as if they were proven using the scientific method.  When will you start using actual science instead of fanciful stories and just-so fairytales?

Even the evolutionists know the supposed evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction is not possible, yet they are driven to teach it as fact because they cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door, even if it is the Truth.

Related Articles:
15 Questions for Evolutionists: Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Evolution quotes #27

Ernst Mayr is the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, of Harvard University and "has probably done as much as anyone to advance evolutionary theory and to entrench it at the core of all biological thought…He's one of the founders of modern neo-Darwinism and has restored natural selection to a central place in the theory of evolution."

Mayr has stated:

"Mendelian genetics did not seem to support the possibility of gradual adaptive changes, which Darwinism required. Geneticists favored the idea that species evolved suddenly through massive mutations. 'But we naturalists realized that species develop gradually. The only evolutionary theory that was gradual was Lamarckism, and so to oppose the mutationists, we all became Lamarckians."

John Rennie, "Profile: Ernst Mayr - Darwin's Current Bulldog," Scientific American, Aug. 1994, pp. 24-25

Related resources:

A who's who of evolutionists


Still fighting...

Darwin and the search for an evolutionary mechanism

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Evolution quotes #26

With regards to "emotionally charged atmosphere" and "charge of inappropriate exclusion" from accessing fossils, Donald Johanson states:

"'Sometimes this has resulted in rather bitter rivalries,' says Johanson, 'with
scientists breaking down communication with one another….This is unfortunate,
because it stops the development of the science. It interjects a distasteful
form of elitism, because it sometimes results in instances where-it has been
recently written-only those in the inner circle get to see the fossils; only
those who agree with the particular interpretation of a particular investigator
are allowed to see the fossils.'
Virtually every anthropologist has a tale
or two to tell about a rival professional improperly preventing others from
working on fossils in his possession. 'There are lots of ways of simply making
it difficult for someone to come to your lab and work with the fossils, if you
choose not to have them come,' comments one senior anthropologist. 'You don't
have to be so obvious and crude as to say 'No,' even if that's what you really
Of course, even when a curator of fossils has genuine reasons for
suggesting to a fellow anthropologist a more convenient time to come to his lab,
for example, or for imposing some kind of restriction on publication, such
responses can easily be misinterpreted as malicious attempts to prevent access,
and not infrequently they are."
Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 23-24

Related resources:

15 questions responses 2

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen, part one

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen, part two

 Anthropology and apemen questions and answers

Monday, January 23, 2012

YouTube Christian with 21,000 subscribers tells his subscribers to ask their teachers the 15 questions that evolutionist cannot answer. Also, popular YouTube evolutionist fails to answer the 15 questions

The popular YouTube Christian Shockofgod does a video on a popular YouTube evolutionist, Lapkine77, failing to answer the 15 questions that evolutionists which are a part of the Question evolution! campaign. In addition, he asks his 21,000 subscribers to ask the 15 questions in their classrooms.

Watch the video:

Popular YouTube atheist fails to answer the 15 questions

Second phase of our Question evolution! campaign group outreach

The first phase of the Question evolution! campaign was focused on: developing some initial suggested materials on spreading the campaign, creating some key blog posts, doing some initial YouTube outreach and establishing an outreach plan.

The second phase of the Question evolution! campaign will be phased in this week and we expect to have some blog posts on the upcoming second phase later this week which will include an outreach plan that was developed and finalized last week. Briefly, the second phase will involve aggressive outreach to the Christian community. Obviously, this is a key phase of the campaign because it will involve aggressively recruiting many more additional volunteers to spread the campaign, forming partnerships, fundraising (grants, etc), various internet creation evangelism activities and many other activities.

The utter failure of internet atheists/evolutionists to adequately address the 15 questions for evolutionists will of course be mentioned during the second phase.

We had hoped to initial the second phase of the campaign in earlier in 2011 but had some bouts of ill health within the membership of our Question evolution! campaign group (injury, flu bugs, etc.). However, we are now able to move forward at a much quicker pace.

Related resources:

15 questions evolutionists STILL can't answer

Marking 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

The HIGH price of not asking the 15 questions in your classroom


Refuting evolution

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Evolution quotes #25

"no one likes to be told that the notions upon which he may have built and
promoted his career have turned out to be wrong. And scientists, contrary to the
myth that they themselves publicly promulgate, are emotional human beings who
carry a generous dose of subjectivity with them into the supposedly 'objective
search for The Truth.' In fact, a completely unbiased, unprejudiced exploration
of nature is a methodological impossibility, as biologist and philosopher of
science Sir Peter Medawar is fond of pointing out…

the way in which
scientists typically report their findings, in formal papers submitted to
learned journals, is, he says, 'notorious for misrepresenting the process of
thought that led to whatever discoveries they describe.'[1] Preconceptions are
rarely acknowledged, because this, after all, would be 'unscientific.' And yet
preconceptions are and individual scientist's guide to how to view the world
with a degree of order that allows structured questions to be asked…

Donald "Johanson readily agrees that paleoanthropology is no different
from other sciences in this respect. 'The fossil finders themselves have often
brought with them their own personal prejudices and beliefs…We see discoveries
as bolstering our specific interpretation of what the family tree should look
like.'[2] Leakey's view is similar. 'In our family we were working with the
human sciences, and I was never shown examples of objectivity in the true sense
of what science is supposed to be like.'"[3]

[1] Sir Peter Medawar, "Induction and Intuition in Scientific Though," reprinted in Pluto's Republic, Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 78
[2] "Four Million Years of Humanity," lecture at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, 9 April 1984
[3] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 19 citing an interview with the author, Nairobi, 21 January 1985

Related resources:

Sickle cell anemia

The pigs took it all

Getting past propaganda

Stone age flour

Friday, January 20, 2012

How did multi-cellular life originate?

 How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

A seemingly simple question for the evolutionist who is so sure the hypothesis of goo-to-you evolution is true.  If indeed their supposed abiogenesis (a hypothesis known to have never occurred, for every time a new life comes into being it has always, 100% of the time been witnessed to have come from already existing life) is given them, how did this single celled organism’s supposed progeny learn to exist in unity and cooperation with other cells when they specialized in existing alone, as a singular entity?  Who taught these supposed cells cooperation?  Who taught these supposed cells their new specialized roles of unity, cooperation and participation?  With only information to do what they had previously done, where did the new information come from?  Corruption of existing information by mutation would have destroyed the cells, not produced the new information and instructions necessary for cooperation or their new specialized operations.

Related Articles:

Evolution quotes #24

"paleoanthropology alone among all the sciences operates within the fourth
dimension, with humanity's self-image invisibly but constantly influencing the
profession's ethos."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 319

Related resources:

Alleged apemen

Paleoanthropologists' simplistic interpretation 

Connecting imaginary dots

All in the mind

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Evolution quotes #23

"These peaceable theories of human origins, like the best-in-man idea, become 'a mirror which reflected back only those aspects of human experience which its authors wanted to see….This is precisely what we would expect of a scientific myth.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 318 citing "The Myth of Human Evolution," in New Universities Quarterly, vol. 35, p. 432 (1981)

Related resources:

One Blood

Variation, Information and the Created Kind


The Way We Were

Are the rants of atheist crybabies increasing as atheism continues to fail to gain respect and global atheism shrinks? Get used to it atheists!

Gary Gerofsky writes:
I am not a religious person but I see a trend these days toward elevating atheism to the status of a religion and — the atheists are doing this with real religious fervour — attacking the faith community and showing intolerance for anyone who sways from their leftist, atheistic beliefs.

Global atheism is shrinking and the Question evolution! campaign will accelerate the shrinkage

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) reported that every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day (see: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - status of Global Mission report).

In 2011, the American Spectator wrote concerning research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding.

(As a theologically conservative Protestant, I do understand that not everyone who proclaims themselves a Christian is a bona fide Christian in God's eyes and there are people who are deluded and/or false teachers. See: Matthew 7:23, Matthew 7: 14-15)

In the United States atheists are a tiny minority of the population and one of the most distrusted groups which certainly must aggravate and upset militant atheists. According to the atheist author Dr. Sam Harris the label of atheist is "right next to child molester as a designation." Oh that must hurt, Mr. Rude and Arrogant Atheist. In 2010, the The Telegraph ran a story with the byline "Professor Richard Dawkins is embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'." Even former militant atheists turned agnostic such as Richard Dawkins find the behavior of many atheists distasteful. Of course, Dawkins himself is not Mr. Cordiality, is he?

Of course, as the Question evolution! campaign continues to gain new fans and spread across the globe in 2012 these desperate rants of militant atheists crybabies may reach a feverish pitch. No doubt the Question evolution campaign will accelerate the shrinking of global atheism which will cause more atheist rants. I know it's hard atheists, but please don't cry because Creation Ministries International has ripped your Darwinism blankie away from you with their 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.

Related resources:

Question evolution! campaign

Refuting evolution


Related blog posts:

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

The high price of NOT asking the 15 Questions for Evolutionists in your classroom

Monday, January 16, 2012

Another Canadian well versed about the creation vs. evolution issue is joining our volunteer group

We are pleased to announce that another Canadian well versed in the creation vs. evolution issue is joining our Question evolution! campaign volunteer group. This will be an excellent boost to our Canadian outreach.

In addition, later this week we will be announcing a new strategy for recruiting volunteers which we recently decided to implement. We expect this strategy to increase the effectiveness of our volunteer recruiting efforts twenty fold. We believe it will enable us to recruit more well people with an extensive knowledge of the creation vs. evolution issue plus greatly increase our outreach to the general public. Since the Question evolution! campaign is a grassroots movement, it is vital to have an effective outreach to the public at large.

In March of 2012, we hope to recruit the "Wayne Gretzsky of Canadian creationism" into our volunteer group! He shoots, he scores! Another biblical creation puck in the evolutionism goal! (see: Question evolution campaign and Canada. Will we enlist the "Wayne Gretzky of Canadian creationism"?)

See also:

Keep the Creation Ministries International team moving in Canada

Evolution quotes #22

John Durant, Oxford University,has written:

"'Could it be that, like 'primitive' myths, theories of human evolution reinforce the value-system of their creators by reflecting historically their image of themselves and of the society in which they live?'...'Time and again,' observes Durant, 'ideas about human origins turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our remote ancestors.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 312 citing "The Myth of Human Evolution," in New Universities Quarterly (now Higher Education Quarterly), vol. 35, p. 427 (1981)

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Evolution quotes #21

Matt Cartmill, Duke University anthropologist states:
"The demands of the scientific method itself force us to pursue the essential extrascientific objective of telling stories that explain our privileged status in the universe of things…The importance of our science lies in its effects on our world view-on the way people think of themselves and the universe and their place in it-which is a subject within the providence of ideology and religion, broadly defined."

"Scientific Method and Mythological Content in Paleoanthropology," lecture given at Meeting of American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 13 April 1984

"Edward Tyson had earlier, in 1699, unconsciously manipulated what was to be the first scientific description of a great ape, in this case a juvenile chimpanzee…In the post-Darwinian era, throughout the history of paleoanthropology, authorities would commit Tyson's error time and time again: Neanderthal, Piltdown, Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus-each in its turn has been the object of the exaggeration of traits favored by observers whose theories demanded them."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 304-305

Friday, January 13, 2012

The high price of NOT asking the 15 Questions for Evolutionists in your classroom

The bottom line. Regardless of whether it is in business or in our personal life, most people in today’s society are concerned about one main thing: the bottom line.

We often count the cost of the things we do. We look at the cost/benefit ratio, the Price/Earnings ratio, the effort/reward ratio; but let me ask you, how often do we seriously consider the cost for NOT doing something?

How might this really affect us in our world? Ask yourself the following questions:

What if God never said, “Light be”?

What if God never caused the dry land to appear?

How would our favorite restaurant make our favorite steak if God decided to NOT make any animals?

Better yet, what if God proceeded through the six days of creation, and then decided, “Mankind is going to be too much trouble, I AM going to stop here?” Many of us enjoy a really good aquarium or terrarium; the whole world as the perfect terrarium – now THAT would be awesome, but there would be no people.

What is the cost of NOT asking the 15 questions evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in your classroom? Remember the saying, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
When it comes right down to it, the actual bottom line, if we just keep our mouths shut and never speak up, evil will indeed triumph. It would be like losing a war because we decided we were not going to use our military and we refused to defend ourselves. The enormous problem with this is, this war - of which evolution is like a biological agent which infects our populous spirit, soul and body – is the war for the souls of all humanity. If we do not stand up and ask the 15 questions evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer, evil will indeed triumph.

Evolution teaches us there is no God, no heaven, no hell, and that people are nothing more than advanced pond-scum, and morality is arbitrary to whatever the majority of chemical reactions do at a given moment in time.

If you have a relationship with God through faith in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, you know God is. So, what is the high price of NOT asking the 15 questions evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer?

Bottom line: People are going to go to hell, and eventually, after the Judgment, the Lake of Fire to be eternally separated from God. This is the high price to be paid by people if we decide to keep our hands down and our questions to ourselves.

Look at your friends and classmates next time you go to school. Do you want to be responsible for their eternal damnation because you refused to ask a simple question in class when you had a burning in your heart to do so?

The exceeding high price is the salvation and eternal future of your friends and classmates. Some of your friends will forever disbelieve God because of the spiritual blindness caused by the ultimate belief of evolution – there is no God!!! Other friends of yours are struggling with the conflict between what is taught as “science” (which evolution is not) and what is claimed to be religion. The creation of the universe by Almighty God is not religion! The creation of the universe by Almighty God is accurately recorded history! The creation of the universe as recorded in Holy Scripture is the ultimate eyewitness testimony of the most reliable Witness there could ever be: the Almighty God who was there and actually created the universe.

Do you want the highly infectious belief in evolution to continuously eat at the souls of your friends and classmates? Or, do you want to do what you can, raise your hand in class and ask a few simple questions? The choice is yours, and so is the reward. Will you choose the action whose reward is watching your peers slowly lose their faith to a false atheistic belief system, or will you choose the reward of helping your friends gain the crown of life?

You have the knowledge, and you are aware of the necessary action and the cost. Ultimately, you are responsible to do what you know to do with the information you have. Be strong and of very good courage knowing that our God and Father is with you. Be emboldened by Holy Spirit to stand for what is good, what is righteous and what is true. For the eternal future of your friends and peers, ASK the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. Stand in faith, and reap the rewards of your good action.

Related resources:

Question evolution! campaign

Refuting evolution


Photos/graphics: public domain

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

So, we can dig up some pottery and see that the very simple design of pottery points to a human designer; and when we see the apparently complex designs of jets, computers, traffic systems, and information systems we understand that these complex designs are the results of teams of extremely smart and intelligent designers; but when we see the even more complex designs of the creatures on this planet, and the extreme complexity of the inner workings of a living cell and the various systems involved in living creatures and even in single cells, we are supposed to believe, without any proof, that there was no designer involved?  Really?
Related Articles:

4 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986.
5 Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Evolution quotes #20

Regarding the footprints at Laetoli:
"Not only are the prints 'remarkably similar to those of modern man,'[1] says Mary Leakey, but they, 'could only have been left by an ancestor of modern man.' Therefore, for Mary Leakey the discovery of the footprints served to support the conclusion that the teeth and jaws described by White were indeed from members of the genus Homo. 'The form of the prints fully confirms this,'[2] she says. This line of argument rests on the assumption that only species of Homo would have feet and a gait like ours and that the footprints of Australopithecus would be somehow identifiably different: more primitive, perhaps. It is an assumption of the sort that has often been made in paleoanthropology, but it appears to be based as much on special pleading-a kind of homocentrism-as on hard evidence."

[1] "Footprints in the Ashes of Time," in National Geographic, April 1979, p. 446
[2] Interview for The Making of Mankind, BBC Television, 4 Sep. 1979

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

We don't know yet

In this day and age, we know a lot. I just tried to give a few examples, but I had no idea whatsoever where to start. We know how to make everything from virtual worlds to 100-story skyscrapers. We know the basic elements of all matter. We have cataloged over 1.2 million species. New discoveries seem to be made every day!

Nowhere is this information explosion more apparent than on the internet. All one has to do is type in their query into Google, and they'll get an answer. Who was the first man to sell chewing gum? John B. Curtis. How does the Venus Flytrap work? It attracts insects with nectar, and the hairs on the outsides of its mouth trigger the trap. It's a little more complicated than that, but you get my point. The internet allows the modern world to explore information like never before.

Now try this: Search "How many species are there on earth"? The first result should be from, titled "How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?". I recently was curious about that very question - the catalog statistic from earlier came from this website -  but one sentence caught my eye.

"In spite of 250 years of taxonomic classification and over 1.2 million species already catalogued in a central database, our results suggest that some 86% of existing species on Earth and 91% of species in the ocean still await description."

Despite all of our research, all of our knowledge, our understanding of the earth's creatures only scratches the surface. This got me thinking, what else don't we know? I searched that next, and came across an article on (if you are interested, click here). In a nutshell, this article goes through various big questions that we have no definitive answers to. These questions include the makeup of the earth's core, what time really is, and whether or not the universe is actually made up of information.  The article ends with a huge question: Why do we still have big questions?

We are led to a unique paradox, a paradox of science. It seems that whenever one question is answered, many more are raised. Knowledge seems to show us how much we still don't know. We have our theories about nearly everything, of course, but many are unprovable with the means currently available to us. Now, instead of repeating other peoples' questions, I'd like to posit one of my own:

Why do secular scientists think they know the answer to the biggest question of all?

This question I'm referring to is the origin of life as we know it. We're told by evolutionists the earth is 4.55 billion years old. We're told the Big Bang caused the universe's existence. We're told random chemical reactions caused life on earth. Finally, we're told that natural selection and random mutations caused these initial unicellular organisms to turn into bears, lizards, and us. We "know" this, despite the fact that we don't fully understand the brain, the atmosphere of the initial earth, or even what 96% of the universe is made of! It seems that when we discover more, the age of the earth is pushed back a few million years. Nothing is set in stone as a result of this lack of knowledge. We are told, however, one thing is absolutely true: God had no part in it.

In light of all we don't know, how on earth can we conclude that? Even with all the evidence to the contrary? Even with all the holes in our current theory? God cannot simply be dismissed from the equation. One common criticism of Christianity is that we simply say "God did it", and end the issue ( claims this). This simply isn't the case. "God did it" is the beginning, it allows us a starting point to then ask "How did God do it?" Now we are not only discovering our universe, but the nature of our Creator.

Related resources:

Rules of the game

Do creationists have to resort to secular ideas to explain geology and astronomy?

Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related?

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Evolution quotes #19

B. C. Johnson wrote a book that is meant to teach atheists how to debate with, and win against, theists:

"Theists are impressed, for example, by the fact that the eye is composed of many atoms which work together closely interacting to make possible a particular result - in this case sight. Theists claim that close, complex interaction of countless parts proves that the result produced is actually intended. This assertion is unfounded and an example should suffice as evidence to support my claim.

Consider a random whirl of dust particles. All the particles composing it must interact to produce the exact distribution of particles which occur. If only a single particle has moved contrary to its course, the exact arrangement of particles would have been different. We would never have recognized the change because all dust particles look alike to us, but the result would nevertheless have been different.

Now, according to the theist's reasoning, the existence of this complex interaction of countless particles producing a specific result must indicate the presence of some intention. However, the result of a completely random, totally unplanned whirl of dust particles in exactly what we mean by an unintentional result. Clearly, reasoning which makes a demonstrably unintended result appear to be intended is fundamentally unsound."

B. C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater's Handbook (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1983), pp. 39-40

Monday, January 9, 2012

An acrostic to learn the 15 questions evolutionists cannot answer - A mom's perspective continues

The 15 questions for evolutionists is a great way to teach our children not only about important concepts of science and biological science, which cannot be explained by the theory of evolution, but also the reality that the theory of evolution has no business being taught in any kind of “science’ course!

The full brochure with linked articles of the 15 Questions for Evolutionists is here:
You will want to refer to it for further explanations.

Let’s get started!

There are fifteen questions to teach, and each is easily learned!
Let’s use acrostics as we teach the 15 Questions for Evolutionists:

Q1. E is for Early Just how did early life originate?
Q2. V is for Verify The verified DNA code, how did that originate?
Q3. O is for Oops! Mutations, the oops!, how could copying mistakes
create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of
living things?
Q4. L is for Luck Luck?! Why is natural selection ( a principle recognized by
biblical creationists) taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains
the origin of the diversity of life?
Q5. U is for Unique Unique biochemical pathways, how did they originate?
Q6. T is for Think Living things look like they were designed, so how do
evolutionists know that they were not designed?
Just Think.
Q7. I is for Individual How did individual cells “learn” to cooperate and
specialize to create multi-cellular life?
Q8. O is for Organs The male and female reproductive organs and
complimentary apparatuses, how could mere physics
and chemistry invent all that?
Q9. N is for No No countless millions of transitional fossils to be found?
Q10. I is for Intrinsic How does the intrinsic nature of “living fossils” remain
unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years,
while worms evolved into humans during the same time
Q11. S is for Science If everything evolved, as per evolution, and there is no
God, then what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should nihilism (life is meaningless) be taught in science
Q12. Z is for Zag Evolutionists use flexible story-telling to “explain”
observations contrary to evolutionary theory.
Since evolution is their zig (straight line) to answer all
questions, why are their considerable zags
(sharp turns away from the straight course) and
story making tolerated?
Q13. E is for Experiments Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
And why is evolution taught so dogmatically, stealing time
from actual experimental biology that so benefits
Q14. R is for Ridiculous Why is evolution - a theory about history - taught as if
it is the same as operational science? Ridiculous!
Q.15 O is for Oxymoron Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief
system, that fails to explain the evidence, taught in
science classes?

EVOLUTION IS ZERO - each letter represents one of the fifteen words which correspond to each of the 15 questions! This can easily be learned in no time - just take a question a day for the younger children. The older children and teens will be eager to learn all 15 in just one day! Moms - get started!

Related resources:

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Parent's Corner

Biblical worldview project for parents and grandparents

Raising godly children

Prescription for raising children

Photo Credits:
Photography by Ryan Lobo
Title: Children Reading, Prathram Books and Akshara
License: Creative commons, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Evolution quotes #18

"What was causing [Andrew] Gleadow concern was the ability to discriminate genuine as against pseudo tracks in the crystals, the reliability of counting them, and the regimen for plugging the numbers into the age computations."

He eventually came up with a method that he considered bias-free and came up with the 1.8 million year date.

Hurford stated, "I was convinced that his analytical approach was right. But I wasn't convinced that 1.8 was right. I had nailed my colors to the mast of 2.4 and I didn't want to believe 1.8."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 245-246 citing an interview with the author, Berne, Switzerland, 14 June 1985

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Internet Video Tips for Creationists

Internet Video Tips for Creationists

Video is very popular and powerful on the internet. Many people are not aware how truly popular YouTube videos are because YouTube only displays to the viewers of YouTube videos the video view counts that occur by people who happen to be logged into YouTube at the time they saw the video. The person who operates the YouTube video channel is able to determine the actual view counts , however.

The popularity of video is especially true today because many people prefer video to reading. Video is also a great way to attract traffic and links from other websites and from the search engines like Google.

Internet Video Tips

1. Video editing software

Video editing software allows you to edit your digital video. You can add special effects using this software too.

Here is some excellent video editing software:

Top 5 free video editing software

Review of CyberLink PowerDirector 10

Comparison of video editing software

2. YouTube Marketing Tips

YouTube Marketing Tips (This is a good article but you need to sign up for their free newsletter which only takes a minute)

You can also imbed YouTube videos on your website which will lower your server cost as it will not have to run the video plus it will increase
traffic to your YouTube channel. If you choose to imbed YouTube videos on your website, I would follow the suggestions of Aaron Wall which are directly below.

3. Internet video tips from Internet Marketing Expert Aaron Wall

A. "If you are going to post content on your site and on YouTube, you are best posting it on your site first. And the reason being is – you want the links coming to your site, if you can; because then that link juice can be used to rank better for a wide array of keyword."

B. "You can also give people embed code like Vimeo does, so you are building links back to your site from embeds."

C. "Try to make your site have more content on it than you put on 3rd party sites – perhaps there is a part 2 on your website or textual transcription on your site."

4. Optimal Internet Video Length for very important videos

If you have a very important video that you want to spread widely on YouTube and the internet the best internet video length is 8 minutes. The current research supports that you want to make your most important and interesting material appear within the first minute of you video - about 50% of YouTube visitors stop watching a video after 1 minute. There has also been research on how long the typical YouTube video is.

5. Video optimization Tips - getting YouTube and search engines to rank your videos higher

Video Search Engine Optimization (Video SEO) by Eric Enge

14 Best Practices and Tips for Video Optimization SEO

Research Summary on YouTube Optimization

6. YouTube Tag Optimization - Getting your videos to show up higher in YouTube search engine

YouTube Tag Optimization

The New Frontier: YouTube Optimization

Number of Tags per Video on YouTube

7. Develop YouTube Allies if Possible

Find some popular YouTube channels that are related to your channel and get them to favorite a good video of yours or ask them to do a video which endorses your YouTube channel.

8. Help Build up a YouTube Subscriber Base with Twitter

Here is a tip I got from Christian YouTuber : "I will tell you what has helped me a lot with views and getting subscribers is TWITTER. All you do is set up a Twitter page then go into your YouTube channel and look at one of your videos and below it will say TWITTER. Click the Twitter icon and it auto broadcasts your video to your Twitter page! Very easy and you don't have to do anything. For example check out my Twitter page at"

9. Additional Tips from the Social Media Expert Dan Zarella

I highly recommend reading this book as it gives tips on how to get the most out of your efforts with YouTube, Facebook, and other social media platforms. The Social Media Marketing Book by Dan Zarella

10. Automated ways of spreading your videos across many video sharing websites has an article on this matter which declares:

Here are ten video distribution and multiple video upload services and software applications (some free, some have user fees or membership requirements) compared:

Video Distribution and Automated Submission Services Compared

Related post:

Spread the Question Evolution! Campaign on YouTube far and wide

Powerful tools to spread the Question evolution! campaign