Question Evolution!

Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"

2012-02-23T13:41:00.004-08:00

CMI has provided information as to why Atheism is chosen (including the issue of being a natural born Atheist). Last month Live Science published an article reporting that Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling wherein they note:

"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it, if they really knew it, they would see the logic and accept it," study co-author David Haury, an associate professor of education at Ohio State University, said in a statement.
But, he noted, research on the matter has been inconsistent. While one study would find a strong relationship between knowledge level and acceptance, another would not. Likewise, studies have contradicted each other on the relationship between religious identity and acceptance of evolution, he said…

In a new study:

124 pre-service biology teachers at different stages in a standard teacher preparation program…[where asked a] series of questions to measure their overall acceptance of evolution…they tested the students on their knowledge of evolutionary science…For each question, the students wrote down how certain they felt about the correctness of their answers — an indicator of their gut feelings.
They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs. Even students with a greater knowledge of evolutionary facts weren't more likely to accept the theory unless they also had a strong gut feeling about the facts, the results showed.
The study has important implications for the teaching of evolution, the researchers said. Informing students about this conflict between intuition and logic may help them judge ideas on their merits.

David Haury notes:

Educationally, we think that's a place to start. It's a concrete way to show
them, “Look, you can be fooled and make a bad decision, because you just can't
deny your gut."

Indeed, and the manner whereby you can be fooled and make a bad decision goes each and every way. For example, from pre-school children’s books to college textbooks we find texts that are supposed to be about science or biology which are peppered with unscientific Darwinian worldview-philosophical narrative passed off as science. Students can go from Pre-K to earning a degree without ever questioning or otherwise discerning observational, empirical facts from worldview-philosophy based Victorian Era story telling.

Moreover, how many people have no particular interest in biology, evolution or Darwinism and thus, never revisit the topics again. How many mere end up un-skeptically holding to that which they were propagandized into believing?

The reference study was published in the January 2012 issue of Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Vol. 49, No. 1, by Minsu Ha, David L. Haury, and Ross H. Nehm) under the title Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution.
The abstract notes:

We propose a new model of the factors influencing acceptance of evolutionary theory that highlights a novel variable unexplored in previous studies: the feeling of certainty (FOC). The model is grounded in an emerging understanding of brain function that acknowledges the contributions of intuitive cognitions in making decisions, such as whether or not to accept a particular theoretical explanation of events…
All of our hypothesis tests corroborated the idea that FOC plays a moderating role in relationships among evolutionary knowledge and beliefs.

One statement has complex and alarming implications as it could offer an encouragement to double upon on the propaganda so as to ensure the erasure of doubt:

Educational research into acceptance of evolutionary theory will likely benefit from increased attention to non-conscious intuitive cognitions that give rise to
feeling of knowing or certainty.

Learn more here:

Education Questions and Answers

Evolution in American education and the demise of its public school system

Evolution in the Percentile's regarding fossil evidence

2012-02-21T22:35:00.000-08:00

Listening to a Debate tonight I heard an evolutionist say "we have fossils of 92% of all forms of life that has ever lived on earth"

Now how do we know we have this much?
To say this the person stating it or the article and scientist stating the original statistic would have to have supernatural knowledge of life before man's History. They'd have to know the creatures that didn't die in the condition to petrify. For all we know that 92% is really only 40% of all the life forms, species that ever lived.

Saying this number is averaged out of what creatures we have examples of today. if there were many animals over a period of 1.3Billion years that we never could conceive of or haven't pieced together to get a full picture of with their bones as of yet only shows that we have an unknown roof of life-groups since the history of life on earth.

saying any %percent of animal remains is known implies we know that there's a number discovered out of 100% and are missing 8% of them. This is a HUGE problem for the true optimistic scientist and shows they really have wishful thinking about their own studies.
Sure we can say that there are methods of measuring how many fossils are in a quadrant of a mile and go according to how many miles have been explored by palaeontologists. This is still a vague measurement and unstable method of getting a valid number of fossils. We could say it's estimated but these evolutionists don't say that, they boast the number as though its fact and I'll keep wondering who it that has the missing 8% is. what's the projected time in which we'll discover the remaining 8 if it's not simply missing. BTW logic dictates that you don't know something's missing unless you know it from the whole.

Evolution Fact or best guess? Does Theory mean fact or does it mean best hypothesis to derive a result?

2012-02-21T22:31:00.000-08:00

First off like any stubborn atheist we'll define some terms

Evolution:

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Genetic Descent with modification

Fact:

A thing that is indisputably the case.
Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Theory:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

With these definitions we get that Evolution is a FACT only because we have nothing else to go with. But when truth comes into view as a 100% knowledge of a subject, then anything that is less is not truth. Only believed and likely to be truth. Though when we're in grades 1-12 we're taught Truth is always a statement or result of fact(s). Mind you when it comes to Scientific Theories such as evolution we throw common sense of this manner out the window and go with deduction and induction confirmations to support our projects or challenges.
When I define a Scientific theory as a group of hypothesis's confirmed by evidence solidly giving likely results rather than concrete answers I get people saying that's right. But say it as though it's an educated guess with promising results and you get people turning into monsters as though you hurt their dog. Though they don't see that when they take a theory of something and confirm their hypothesis by focusing on select data and call it fact this is misleading to those who don't have the drive to look up the data that was thrown away and just ignored.

When in a conversation with some Evolution believing/knowing atheists it is a fact because it can't or hasn't been shown to be likely dis-proven. Now I don't blame them for not having an open mind, I blame the academic world for being closed to anything but the secular explanation as it sits through mans views on nature. Although it is trying at times when they say that all science is rooted in evolution, especially Biology. Now it's true that someone studying to be a surgeon needs to know of evolution but this does not serve any purpose behind the anatomy and how to do the surgery or why the person needs surgery. This would be like an accountant learning the development of Windows and Excel in order to know how to use the program and do calculus. When you're an accountant you're not thinking "O.K. deduct from the gross sum the common denominator and remember Bill Gates and the DOS system" Neither does a Surgeon loom over the patient saying "Suction.... Clamp... Species... Genealogy.... Natural selection... survival of the luckiest and fit"

The evolutionist is being disingenuous when they say that evolution is fact because it's the Genetic Descent with modification (over time) because this is just applied to breeds and the variations within families. They always know that when the topic is evolution it is referring to a Cow to a Whale. Rather they are just avoiding the hard questions and seem to treat the topic and the serious questions about the flaws of the theory as humerus.
The idea that Christians are unscientific because they reject the views of Evolution between species to new major groups of life. or the creation of the universe is flawed. Although some or most Christians don't see the point in discussing science this does not mean all Christians are ignorant.
Often Atheists will say "you don't understand" like a teenager yelling at their parent for not accepting their rebellious new life. This is absurd if not backed up with an intellectual response. Even so when an atheist evolutionist approaches with this attitude then there may have been a communication barrier on the side of the christian (eg. conclude common knowledge or inference) Because to keep the conversation fresh often Christians try to dumb down the discussion rather than bring College terminology into it. And if we can not be considered a Senior student or Professor ourselves as Christians disagreeing with the evolutionary view we are there for unintelligent and uneducated.
In a previous blog I mentioned submission to authority. This is the case for most evolutionists in this blog as they would say that even if they don't understand, if you're not smarter and written more books and shown new evidence that has been confirmed by peer review (which is biased to evolution ONLY) then you will never have the authority to claim any study or statement against a figurehead of the evolutionary choice.
We Christians are guilty of this in some degree but we don't always throw out the logic of any chosen evidence to support evolution against god. Only we reserve our god as the Ace in the hole, but still some of us acknowledge that the evidence THEY choose would confirm their theory. Though the majority of atheists won't consider god, as it's a supernatural explanation to the Humanist natural world.

So I was going to just summarize this blog with "it's a fact because it's a FACT and it's accepted as a fact" Well only 31% of surveyed world scientists DON"T believe in a god.

You see if a creationist secretly did lab work and submitted a paper proving intelligent design and special creation through the god of the bible YHWH, it would be dismissed because it doesn't agree with the natural world theory on how life works.
Show an evolutionist a list of creation believing scientists in the related fields they'd just pass it off as "they are just ignorant to the general conclusion of their peers"

You see folks and fellow Christians, these are Fools as long as they continue with this stubborn attitude. We often feel we are charged to teach them but I tell you no matter how much you want to grind their noses into the other evidences they won't see because they're obsessed with not having god but rather a progression of life through struggle.

Remember to dust your sandals and leave town when the gospel is not welcomed.

Is evolution true?

2012-02-20T20:39:00.003-08:00

Many if not all who accept the Macro-evolution theory who do NOT work in the field will tell you that it's true because it's written and accepted by experts in the relevant fields. Just because they were taught it as fact they must agree because they are given reasonable logic to accept the world as man see's it.

I was witness to a common and bland discussion in a Christian debate Chat-room. The common emotion for the atheist who was supportive of the theory "or in their opinion FACT" of evolution is just the similarities between breeds of animals today and those that are extinct. Rather than species of animal that are still categorized as say fish but don't see that the Macro says that a fish turned into an amphibian. They can't see that saying "millions of years" and "given our belief of old earth age agrees with the age of dirt we pull must mean the layers date the fossils" we must accept this preconceived data of dating methods and relate everything to that aging process.

Many will say "Everybody, or every creature is a transition" to show that changes are so small that we can't isolate what is changing to dominate the form and behavior of the creature for the future. While still pulling from this, they go on to say that it's spanned over millions of years of evolution. Which is similar to proving the bible with the bible. "Evolution happens because it happens and we can't see it any other way" They'd even go as far as to say the last change that drastically affected a creature's function in it's environment happened so long ago it was before Man kind banged rocks together. Mind you they like the experiment with Nylonase which has been debunked several different ways as not sufficient proof of macro change in a lifeforms.

I posed that if evolution is true then why do the great apes have 1 more pair of chromosomes than Man (we have 23 pairs)? They answer with an unobserved evidence that our missing 24th chromosome pair (which Chimps have) these pairs apparently fused together over a vast time where they (chimps) have 48 chromes in total they figure that it's not a belief but rather an observation that happened before man developed recording methods that this fusion happened. They still say this is SCIENCE even though nothing in science if it is not observable. Where they get a fusion it's a reversal if I remember correctly like a mirror (abcd-dcba)

If you agree that there's some dogma in the above evolution belief, not that I was correct in asking a question and presuming with a bias against evolution but just the validity then please subscribe to this blog and the Main Question Evolution blog-site.

Creation Ministries International offers great sources but is often overlooked because they reject naturalism and methodological naturalism and instead ask "Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?" see: http://creation.com/design_legit. While you're interested give the "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer" page a look.

Related sources:

Creation Ministries International

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Answers in Genesis Hosted by Ken Ham

Main Question evolution Blog page

Question the Textbooks: Tips for Students 3

2012-02-20T20:07:00.000-08:00

Tip #3: As you work through the sections on evolution, remember that textbooks only give a highly-biased fraction of the story. Often evidence for evolution thatseems very compelling completely collapses on closer examination. Makeuse of resources such as Refuting Evolution, The Creation Answers Book or theCreation Ministries International website. Virtually all the questions or objections you willencounter in the classroom have already been addressed extensively.

CaseStudy: Radiometric Dating

Biologytextbooks often touch on radiometric dating methods (carbon dating,uranium-lead, etc.) and claim that these prove that the earth is billions ofyears old. Sadly, many people accept theclaims at face value because they sound so mathematical and precise. Once, I was invited by a high-school Bibleclub to do presentations on creation to one of the club members’ grade 12biology class. Because I thoughtradiometric dating was such a dull topic, I did not address it until the lastpresentation. I was very surprised tofind that the radiometric dating presentation evoked more questions than anyother. It was as if the evolutioniststudents and teachers had assumed radiometric dating was irrefutable, and whenI challenged it, it really startled them and shook their faith. So, don’t beafraid to challenge radiometric dating claims. Creationist physicists and geologists have done extensive research this area, and, like the other evidences presented in textbooks, thisends up being very compatible with the creationist view. For example,

Carbon-14 (theradioactive kind) decays relatively quickly, so that any material older than atmost a few hundred thousand years old should have no measurable carbon-14. However, virtually all fossils do. Carbon-14 has even been found in diamonds, thought to be billions of years old. The presence of radioactive carbon in thesespecimens is totally consistent with the Biblical timescale of thousands ofyears, but certainly inconsistent with the supposed billions of years ofevolution.

Rock specimens ofknown (young) ages still give radiometric dates of hundred thousands ormillions of years old, such as the 50-year-old rock samples from Mt. Ngauruhoe that were radiometrically dated as over a million years old. This sort of thing doesn’t reallyinspire confidence in the millions-of-years dates claimed for rocks whoseactual ages we don’t know!

Extra Credit: When introducing new evidence not presented in textbooks,be as prepared as possible. Make yourpoint quickly and clearly. Since theteacher will probably not be aware of creationist research that contradicts thetextbook’s claims, you might also bring a copy of the article or book and offerto leave it with the teacher. (Someteachers will have enough time and interest to read the material and some won’t,but at least you’ll demonstrate that you've done your research. And maybe anotherstudent will be interested even if the teacher isn’t.)

See also:

Believe it or not, the earth is young

Little known facts about radiometric dating

101 evidences for the young age of the earth and the universe

Evolution quotes #39

2012-02-19T06:00:00.000-08:00

Regarding various descriptions of Ramapithecus' anatomy and habits:

"Here then, was a very complete picture of an animal-not just what it looked like, but also how it lived. And all based on a few fragments of upper and lower jaw and teeth…
'What we saw in the fossils was the small canines, and the rest followed, all linked together somehow. The Darwinian picture has a long tradition, and it was very powerful,'"[1]
"Pilbeam and Simmons managed to maintain their support of Ramapithecus [as a hominid], however, mainly by adjusting their lines of argument in concert with the shifting evidence,"[2]
"Pilbeam began to realize that the fossil material then available simply wasn't adequate to support the kinds of sweeping conclusions that had been made,"[3] "before the decade was out Rama's ape would be just that-an ape."[4]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 95 citing an interview with the author, Harvard University, 23 Oct. 1984
[2] Ibid., p. 98
[3] Ibid., p. 103
[4] Ibid., p. 98

The Question Evolution! Switzerland blog is launching in mid to late March of 2012 or possibly April of 2012

2012-02-19T00:17:00.000-08:00

Due to some personal matters beyond the control of a Swiss Christian creationist, the launching of the Question Evolution! Switzerland blog got delayed but it is launching in mid to late March of 2012 or at the latest in April of 2012. Swiss people often speak French so perhaps a Question Evolution! France blog may launch in the near future also.

God willing, after our group helps the Question evolution! campaign become a raging river in the United States and Canada, I would like to see it promoted heavily in the UK which was the homeland of Charles Darwin. The UK is also a stronghold of Darwinism and atheism so it would be worthwhile to promote it there as well.

The picture featured on this blog post is of a St. Bernard which is the Swiss national dog.

Related articles:

Kamikaze ichthyosaur found in Switzerland

Homeschooling in Switzerland

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is going to be between a rock and a hard place due to a strategic blunder on their part

2012-02-17T21:08:00.000-08:00

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a pro-evolution advocacy organization which promotes the idea that evolution be taught in schools and no competing ideas be taught such as intelligent design or the scientific evidence for biblical creation.

The NCSE is going to be between a rock and a hard place due to a strategic blunder on their part. Their strategic miscalculation was due to pride and underestimating their creationist opposition. Specifically, the NCSE has decided to enter into the man-made global warming debate as far as what is being taught in schools. Now they are in a two front war and now their resources will be split.

Why did the NCSE decide to enter into a two front war?

Why did NCSE decide to enter into a two front war? Recently, the creationist organization Answers in Genesis has seen a big slow down in raising funds for their Ark Encounter exhibit which is life size replica of Noah's ark. The weak American economy has made fund raising more difficult. In addition, due to some manpower issues related to sickness which have been resolved, the Question evolution! campaign initially got off to a slower start than expected, but things are now moving much more rapidly. In addition. perhaps the NCSE thought that if the opponents of the man-made global warming paradigm were to prevail, perhaps it would embolden the anti-evolutionary paradigm forces as well. Creation Ministries International has decided to not make any definitive statements on what side of the global warming debate they are on. Of course, this has enabled them to focus on the creation vs. evolution battlefront.

As a result of the recent competitive landscape described above, the NCSE thought it would be safe to enter into the global warming debate fray and fight a two front war.

Pride cometh before the fall

But was it safe for NCSE to enter into a two front war? No it wasn't. This is a classic case of pride, overconfidence, and underestimating the opposition. In short, pride cometh before the fall. By the end of February of 2012, our Question Evolution Campaign group will have finished studying two recent classic works on gaining internet publicity and other types of publicity. Of course, implementing the material in these books will be a big boost to our efforts in February and March. In addition, by the end of end of February or March will have made major inroads in establishing alliances with other creationist and Christian organizations. Plus, we will soon have some Question Evolution! Campaign man-on-the-street videos plus some great tools on spreading the campaign. By the end of the first quarter of 2012, we expect to have significantly more momentum. By the end of March or at the very least in the first half of 2012, the campaign should have a lot more momentum and be our way to being a creation evangelism juggernaut.

NCSE, batten down the hatches! A perfect storm is headed towards the SS Evolution

NCSE, I hope you enjoy your two front war! The creationist front is going to be a far tougher battle front for your organization. Batten down the hatches of the SS Evolution because the Question Evolution! perfect storm is heading your way.

For additional information see:

Creation Ministries International is inoculating young people against Darwinism. Let's break the back of Darwinism!

50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released

Related resources:

Question evolution! campaign

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Creation evangelism and the Question evolution! campaign

Atheism

Photo credits:

1. Animal under rock picture

Title of picture: Between a rock and a hard place

Photographer: Gilles Gonthier

Location of photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gillesgonthier/412590265/

License agreement: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0), see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

2. Momentum graphic

Description: English: GoMomentum.com Logo

Date 1 June 2011

Source: HoodStacey, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Momentum-Solid-BLK.jpg

License: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

2012-02-17T18:30:00.000-08:00

Question #12:

Why is evolutionary‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionistsoften use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary toevolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr. Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinianexplanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makeshumans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic andpeaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread theirseed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. Whenan explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficultto test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientificdiscovery.”8 creation.com/sexstories(Sourced from the 15 Questions forEvolutionists)

Story-telling, a main accusation many evolutionists useas a claimed reason to not believe the Bible, but dismiss it as an unreliablereligious text – just a bunch of stories meant to persuade or cause people tobehave in a certain manner, has become the stock-in-trade of evolutionists. Evolutionists claim the Bible to be filledwith stories on the same level of mythology as the Greek gods of Olympus, orthe Egyptian gods, or even fairy tales.

Yet, when it comes to explaining exactly how any step ofhypothetical evolution occurred, the evolutionist has no actual evidence thatcan be experimentally tested and repeated, but must rely upon stories thathappened “just-so”; not because they were witnessed, are repeatable orconfirmable, but because they absolutely must have happened “just-so” for theirfaith in the hypothetical series of occurrences to have continued fromnothing-to-the uninhabited universe with chemicals-to all living things as weknow them today.

Case in point, the hypothetical evolution of non-livingchemicals into the first “living” cell.

For goo-to-you evolution to have occurred, non-livingchemicals (against all scientific fact, experimentation and observation) had toevolve into the first self-reproducing living cell. In other words, evolution(molecules-to-microbiologists) had to violate science in order for evolution(pond scum-to-people) occur and become a “known scientific fact”.

Evolutionists will claim that given enough time, and justthe right chemical mix, and just the right conditions and just the righttiming, nature can violate the law of biogenesis; you know, the scientific lawthat states every living thing in nature came from a prior, already existing,living thing.

At this point the evolutionist has one of two choices: 1)claim that biogenesis is not a law, or 2) claim that abiogenesis obviouslyhappened at least once because we are here.

A police officer clocks you going 85 mph in a 55 mphzone, where 55 mph is the clearly and obviously posted speed limit. When you go to court, will you be able toclaim the law does not limit you to a legal maximum speed of 55 mph? Sure, you could claim that all day long,however, every time you go back to the scene of your crime, you will see thesign “SPEED LIMIT 55” clearly posted, according to the traffic laws of thejurisdiction you were speeding in. Claimthe 55 mph speed limit is not a law all you like, you will still be wrong, andstill be guilty of lying and of speeding.

Just the same way, every time you see a new life, or anew living organism, come into being, it is as a result of reproduction from analready existing living organism. Thescientific law of biogenesis is a law because it has NEVER been witnessed tohave been violated. Some evolutioniststry to prove this wrong in a laboratory, however they forget, their experimentsare actually proving the absolute need for an Intelligent Designer to gatherthe necessary materials and arrange them in a specifically designed order,creating all the working pieces necessary, and making all the pieces properlywork together. In the laboratory, theintelligent designer is the scientist manipulating the experiment according tohis will.

So, now we are left with the “just-so” story ofabiogenesis, an unproven, unscientific, unobserved hypothesis that must havehappened “just-so” in violation of science and the laws of science or elsegoo-to-you evolution could never have happened. So amazing is this “just-so” never witnessed and never repeated storythat non-living chemicals were able to assemble the over 200 parts necessaryfor a single cell to survive and reproduce with no instructions for operationor cooperation of the parts that were being “evolved”, and no instructions fortheir assembly, and no instructions for the parts that were actually needed orthat parts were indeed needed in the first place. The tiny little non-living chemicals justkept on trying over, and over, and over for millions, possibly billions ofyears until they got it right and had a huge honking party to celebrate theirsuccess!

Really? Evolutionists claim this is science. Even the existence of a Tooth Fairy is more plausible. But you know, evolutionists will tell you itis an absolutely undisputable fact of science, evolution happened...“just-so”.

_____________________________

8 Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionarytheory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10,2005.

Evolution quotes #38

2012-02-17T06:00:00.000-08:00

"Some people even admitted that they were giving their fossil a new genus and species name so as to call attention to how important they thought it was. Everyone who had a fossil come into their hands for description wanted it to be something new-perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously-for the purposes of self-aggrandizement."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 91 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

related resources:
The rise and fall of Skull 1470
Homo erectus 'to' modern man
15 questions responses 2

Evolution quotes #37

2012-02-15T06:00:00.000-08:00

Ales Hrdlicka is the founder of the American Society of Physical Anthropology and for many years was the editor of the society's journal, "from which positioned wielded substantial power over what was acceptable to the establishment and what was not…Hrdlicka, he [G. Edward Lewis] says, 'thought he was the anointed and elect prophet who had been foreordained and chosen to make such discoveries and demolish the work of anyone else.'"[1] Lewis had interpreted Ramapithecus as a hominid but Hrdlicka believed it to be just an ape and so he "tore into Lewis's work,"[2] although "Hrdlicka's paper was somewhat self-contradictory, and, says Simmons, 'scattered with blunders and naïvete that a really good professional simply would not have made.'"[3]

"Even a causal examination of this paper is sufficient to show that it bears all the evidence of being a controversial and non-objective contribution,"[4] "amateurish,"[5] "It looked to me like someone coming into something he didn't know much about, with preconceived ideas."[6] Lewis wrote a rebuttal to Hrdlicka's criticism's of his work but the editors of the American Journal of Science refused to publish it, "because they said Hrdlicka was an important man, and I was a young man."[7]

Hrdlicka had attempted to discredit Lewis' position based on the evolutionary concepts of the time whereby "To have the first hominids appearing in the eastern part of the Old World was therefore simply unacceptable. 'So he did a hatchet job on Lewis' work,'[8] says Spencer." Lewis had discovered Ramapithecus but not long after this clash with the authority of the time he "left Yale and never really made another important contribution to paleoanthropology."[9]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[2] Ibid., p. 88

[3] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[4] "The Phyletic Position of Ramapithecus," Postilla, Yale Peabody Museum, p. 374 (1961)

[5] "A Source for Dental Comparison of Ramapithecus with Australopithecus and Homo," in South African Journal of Science, Feb. 1968, p. 97

[6] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[7] Ibid., p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[8] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, New York, 13 Dec. 1985

[9] Ibid., p. 89

related resources:

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?

Finding the real 'missing link'

The Piltdown Man Fraud

Creation Ministries International is inoculating young people against Darwinism. Let's break the back of Darwinism!

2012-02-13T19:48:00.000-08:00

In order to break the back of Darwinism, it is vital to inoculate young people against Darwinism, before they are indoctrinated by Darwinists through the schools and through the media.

Creationists, we have some exciting news and data to share with you!

The website of Creation Ministries International, which is Creation.com, percentage wise is reaching more young people than any other major creationist website as a percentage of its visitors. And based on tracking the web traffic data free web traffic data services, we also have reason to believe that the Question evolution! campaign and its various outreaches is increasing the percentage of young people visiting Creation.com. In addition, the web traffic for Creation.com is trending upward and our upcoming Question Evolution Campaign surge will even make things better.

Furthermore, we have a strategy to specifically reach more young people with the Question Evolution! Campaign which feature the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.

In this post, we will discuss some of this exciting data via graphs and give a brief outline of our plans.

The three major creationist websites: their web traffic broken down by age group

Demographic breakdown of Creation Ministries International's website Creation.com broken down by age using directly measured data from Quantcast:

Demographic breakdown of Answers in Genesis website broken down by age using directly measured data from Quantcast:

Estimate of the demographic breakdown of Institute for Creation Research website by Quantcast (not directly measured):

Recent comparison of the website reach of Creation.com vs. the website of Answers in Genesis using the website traffic tracking company Alexa

Long term Alexa traffic data for the website of Creation Ministries International which is Creation.com

Do you notice the upward trend? Creationists, would you like to see the traffic keep going up and up? Creationists you are going to be excited by our upcoming Question Evolution Campaign outreach surge! Please see: 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released.

Why is reaching young people first important?

King Solomon declared: "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6 NASB). What do the social sciences say about this matter? Research indicates that people often side with the argument they hear first concerning a particular ideology. In addition, if they make an errant decision to accept a false ideology (such as Darwinism), they often try to shoehorn evidence to fit their faulty worldview. Many times this is due to human pride causing an individual to avoid admitting error.

So it vital that people hear the biblical creation message and its supporting evidence first.

Science Daily writes:

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Taste tests have been conducted showing that competing brands taste better than Coke. Yet, Coke remains on top. Why? One of the big reasons is that they were first. Who climbed Mount Everest first? Did you come up with the answer? Now who was the second person to successfully climb Mount Everest? I am betting you don't know. Don't feel bad. I don't know either!

Let's be the first people to tell young people about origins and present to them the evidence for biblical creation and the Question Evolution Campaign.

Also, this cannot be stressed enough: Young people often bring tremendous enthusiasm and energy to a grassroots campaign like the Question Evolution! Campaign. But so can old people! We don't want to leave anyone out of this campaign!

7 ways to break the back of Darwinism via reaching young people

Here is our blue print for reaching young people:

1. This week our Question Evolution Campaign group is contacting Christian educators and prepares of anti-Darwinism materials geared towards young people in order to gain their assistance in developing Question Evolution Campaign materials specifically geared towards young people of different age groups. There is no reason why Question Evolution Campaign booklets, workbooks, books and other educational materials should not be developed.

2. We will encourage people to tell their children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren and young people about the Question Evolution Campaign. Christians, tell young people about this campaign!

3.Our group will do outreach to Christian websites and ministries which work with young people.

4. Encourage young people creation groups in schools though messages like this and similar methods. For example, in the United States there are equal access laws which allow student lead and initiated religious groups to form in schools.

5. We will contact various Christian homeschooling groups

6. We can contact companies which market services and products to young people.

7. There are likely list brokers who can provide assistance to the campaign reaching young people or their parents.

8. We want to do fundraising to help some of the above happen as quickly as possible. Please donate to Creation Ministries International today.

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

Evolution quotes #36

2012-02-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

Regarding the Taung fossil:

"Lacking large segments of the anatomical jigsaw puzzle, Smith Woodward had to make some guesses as to how the pieces he had might relate to each other. Apparently misidentifying some minor anatomical landmarks on the interior of the cranium, he assembled a skull that not only was erroneously small (just over 1,000 cubic centimeters) but also appeared to have certain primitive anatomical features. This reconstruction deeply impressed Elliot Smith. Sir Arthur Keith, however, challenged the accuracy of the reconstruction and did one of his own, eschewing the errors Smith Woodward had committed. Keith's version not only was much bigger (about 1,500 cubic centimeters), but also lacked the primitive features erroneously present in Smith Woodward's…

'Why did not [Keith's] correction immediately raise suspicions of the authenticity of the Piltdown fossils?' asked Le Gros Clark. 'Because of its personal nature the controversy [between Keith and Smith] certainly clouded the issues and befogged the atmosphere of scientific discussion…
In his day Elliot Smith's authority carried great weight (and rightly so, for he was a very eminent anatomist), so that not only did he persuade himself that his original interpretation of the skull and endocranial cast had been fundamentally right, he also seems to have persuaded biologists in general that this was so.'[1] But in spite of their differences of opinion, both Keith and Elliot Smith continued to accept Piltdown Man as a vindication of their own ideas, each for his own different reasons. Keith, who viewed the skull as essentially modern in form, saw it as a confirmation of the antiquity of modern types of man. At the same time, Elliot Smith claimed the cranium to be distinctly primitive in form."[2]

[1] "The Exposure of the Piltdown Fraud," lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 20 May 1955
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 74-75

related resources:
The Piltdown Man Fraud

The Taung Skull: 'missing link'?

That quote!

An atheist says "I fear for the future of evolution". The atheist knows the evolutionary hypothesis can't take Question Evolution! Campaign punches

2012-02-11T20:39:00.000-08:00

An atheist writes to Creation Ministries International about the Question Evolution! Campaign and says, "I fear for the future of evolution". Watch this atheist have a nervous breakdown following the upcoming Question Evolution! Campaign outreach surge that is about to be launched for the next 90 days (Please see: 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released).

Despite whatever claims, protestations and excuses atheists and evolutionists give to creationists, deep down they know evolutionary belief is unwarranted. This is nothing new. For example, in a letter to Asa Gray, Charles Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design. Also, to anyone who knows the history of Darwinism, it comes as no surprise that evolutionists have recently shown a great reluctance to defend their pseudoscience in public debate after they lost hundreds of public debates to the creationist side of the aisle. The biologist Dr. Duane Gish won hundreds of debates against evolutionists and now most prominent evolutionists are afraid to publicly debate creationists. A great many defenders of evolutionary nonsense know that the evolutionary hypothesis can't take a punch. In 2010, the members of Global Atheist Conference refused to the debate the scientists at Creation Ministries International.

Duane Gish wrote concerning the Question Evolution Campaign:

As one who has debated over 300 evolutionists, I am delighted to see this Question Evolution campaign under way. The 15 Questions for Evolutionists brochure hits all the major questions on origins that evolutionists have no satisfactory answers for. The questions should be propagated widely. I commend the campaign.

Evolution quotes #35

2012-02-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

"When American anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka asked in 1927, 'What is the actual, precise, evidence for human evolution that science now possesses, and upon which it bases far-reaching conclusions?' (my emphasis [Lewin's]),[1] he was in fact posing a question that has no answer. Not because there is no evidence for human evolution, but because3 no science works that way. No science-least of all paleoanthropology-is as objecting as Hrdlicka implies here or as is often portrayed in the philosophers' idealized view of science…
preconceived ideas shape the progress of all sciences, but nowhere else to the degree that occurs in the search for human origins. And yes, personalities are important in the flow of all sciences, but, again, in the science of man emphatically so. Le Gros has an answer: 'Undoubtedly, one of the main factors responsible of the frequency with which polemics enters into controversies on matters of paleoanthropology is purely an emotional one. It is a fact (which it were well to recognize) that it is extraordinarily difficult to view with complete objectivity the evidence for our own evolutionary origin, no doubt because the problem is such a very personal one.' Ernst Mayr, one of this generation's most prominent evolutionary biologists, concurs: 'Human beings seem quite incapable of speaking about themselves and their history without becoming emotional in one way or another.'"[2]

[1] Smithsonian Report for 1927, pp. 417-32
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 20-21

related resources:
Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?

Human Evolution Stories

Bones Overthrown

Question 2 - How Did the DNA Code Originate?

2012-02-10T19:29:00.000-08:00

DNA contains information which codes for all of life. The four letters (A C T & G) are arranged in a highly specified way in order to code for biological functions, in the same way that letters in the english language are arranged in a specified order to convey meaning. How is this a problem for Evolutionists and Atheists? The problem is that nature DOES NOT produce information or code systems. It never has and never will. Information ALWAYS comes from an intelligent agent. When we see "John Loves Suzie" written in the sand on the beach, we don't think "Wow the waves are acting weird today!". Instead, we immediately conclude that some intelligent agent wrote that in the sand.

However, that doesn't stop Evo's from imagining things! In this video, you can see what kind of explanation Evo's come up with to explain the origin of information. I've arranged this video to show how even Evolutionists refute themselves!

So do Biblical Creationists need to feel intimitated by Evo's? Of course not. They can ridicule and mock all they want, but at the end of the day, their explanation for the origin of DNA is "it came together". Wow. What a great scientific explanation! To this I say:

I admire your faith!!

I'm going to stick with the Bible that tells us that God, an infinitely intelligent being, created us. Afterall, information ALWAYS comes from a mind, which means that the evidence is 100% consistent with what the Bible teaches.

Isn't science awesome?

- Matt

How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

2012-02-10T17:39:00.000-08:00

Question #11.

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton (Sourced from: 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

The hypothesis of evolution (goo-to-you evolution) is based upon the beliefs of naturalism and materialism, the beliefs that only things that can be discovered by our five senses (consisting of matter) exists. So, how did blind chemistry (unguided random chemical interactions) produce the working mind and intelligence?

We know we have a mind because we think with it, and evolutionists do not dispute the existence of the mind or intelligence, but neither the mind nor intelligence can be tasted, touched, heard, smelled or seen. Some may argue that the mind works by electrical impulses causing chemical reactions in our brains. So, what translates an electro-chemical interaction into meaningful and understandable information? I can send electrical impulses through a wire into chemicals all day long, but that will not produce a sentient mind or the intelligence of a mind.

So, where did the mind come from and how did it originate? Since the mind cannot be studied by naturalistic or materialistic methods, but can only be studied by observing the effects of the mind (answering questions, conversation, problem solving, etc.), should evolutionists deny that the mind and intelligence actually exist? They deny the existence of God as Creator for this very reason.

Evolutionists, I really want to know, where did the mind and intelligence actually come from?

How did blind chemical interactions cause meaning? Meaning cannot be measured or tested, yet we know it exists. What gives purpose to life and the things we do every day? What gives our lives meaning?

The eminent apologist for evolutionism Richard Dawkins would argue that the only meaning our bodies have is the reproduction of the selfish genes they carry.

I pose these questions to you then:

Who assigned the meaning of reproducing the genes our bodies carry as the meaning for life?

If the meaning of life is to simply reproduce our genes, then why is it mankind is driven to invent, create, think, discover, build or to have meaningful relationships? Since the only meaning our lives have is to reproduce, why is it we do so much more? Why does anyone even care about the future or how they will be remembered if our only meaning is to reproduce our selfish genes? I think Mr. Dawkins is incorrect.

Again, evolutionists, I ask you, how did blind chemicals produce meaning (purpose)? Since meaning (purpose) cannot be scientifically measured in a materialistic fashion, does meaning and purpose even exist? If not, then why would Mr. Dawkins argue that meaning does exist (even though it cannot be scientifically quantified)? So evolutionists, how did blind chemical interactions create meaning?

How did blind chemistry produce altruism? Altruism cannot be measured by materialistic means, yet we can all witness the results of altruism. You can mix any chemicals you want in a laboratory, but altruism will not climb out of the beakers. How did blind chemical interactions produce people doing good for others without expecting anything in return?

As for Mr. Dawkins, how does blind chemistry make someone spend their life, or at least a significant portion (or any portion, for that matter) doing good for others with no gain for themselves, when the only purpose for their body is to be selfish, and only serve the purpose of the selfish genes their bodies are slave to for the only purpose of reproducing them?

Evolutionists, do you have the answer to how blind chemistry created altruism?

What about morality? How did blind chemistry create morality? A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction, it is neither good nor bad, nor can it be unless someone assigns meaning or purpose to the chemical reaction; and this cannot happen unless blind chemistry has already created meaning and purpose.

So how is it the chemical reactions in someone’s brain causing them to rape someone can be considered any less moral than giving a poor person money, food, clothing or shelter? According to Mr. Richard Dawkins, the person committing the rape is at least fulfilling his purpose of reproducing his selfish genes, and it seems that at least that action would be moral, since it is the person’s only true purpose in evolution; that is, according to Mr. Dawkins. (Evolutionists, do not be foolish enough to attempt to claim I am promoting rape or even considering it is any less than absolutely morally reprehensible, WRONG, and SIN.)

What chemical interactions occur to determine that other chemical reactions are moral, and still other chemical reactions are amoral or immoral? Are the chemical reactions that make such a determination moral?

Evolutionists, you really have your work cut out for you. If the blind chemical interactions caused these things, then you do realize the same blind chemical interactions are forcing you to read this article. Maybe they want you to realize that the chemical interactions in my brain are the ones you should really believe and honor; you know, the ones that know evolution is a bankrupt hypothesis not worth of any claims to scientific integrity.

We all know that minds, intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality exist, and none of them are chemicals; nor can any of them be materialistically quantified.

So how exactly is it that the process of evolution used chemistry to produce non-materialistic things? Inquiring minds want to know (how your chemicals produced them).

G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

‘It’s not science’

50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released

2012-02-09T21:09:00.000-08:00

The writing of a 50 page Question evolution! booklet which focuses on the 15 questions that evolutionist is going to commence shortly. This will be a very important component to add to the Question Evolution! Campaign. If we want young people who are creationists and other creationists to better compete in the marketplace of ideas in schools and in the public square, preparation is vital. A person educated concerning the many weaknesses of evolutionary notions via the issues raised by the 15 questions for evolutionists will be a much better opponent of Darwinism and its ideological cousin atheism. After a 50 page booklet is written, the next logical steps would be Question Evolution! workbooks and a Question Evolution! book. We are going to put a tremendous amount of effort into the Question Evolution! Campaign in terms of further educating our fellow creationists and the general public on the many flaws and weakness within the evolutionary belief system. In addition, we are going to do the necessary amount of work in promoting the campaign. If we want this campaign to gain more momentum and move as fast as a speeding train, we have to put in the necessary effort to get the momentum going.

Fanning the flames of opposition to Darwinism

Compared to many ideologies, Darwinism and atheism are much weaker than other ideologies and it is not surprising that Darwinists and atheists have recently been gun shy when it comes to defending their ideologies via public debate (for example, see: Global atheists reject debate challenge). Although biblical creation and the science supporting it have certainly hindered the promulgation of evolutionary belief in the last 50 years, I think Christendom could have worked much harder and achieved much better results in defeating Darwinism. Christendom simply has not worked hard enough in defeating Darwinism. Grassroots activism such as the Question Evolution! Campaign can make a radical difference in supplying the needed effort to defeat Darwinism. Now is the time to put in this effort. Global atheism is shrinking and so is the influence of many Darwinist allies such as the mainstream press. The advancement of the Question Evolution! Campaign can and will fan the flames of opposition to Darwinist and atheist ideology.

60 Day Action Plan Blueprint

1. On February 13, 2013 we are going to begin contacting creationist groups in the United States and Canada in much more aggressive manner. The flu bug unfortunately delayed this by 6 weeks. There are about 160 plus such groups in North America. Ideological warfare requires allies and the more allies we have the stronger we will be. We are expecting some of these allies to join our Question evolution! campaign volunteer group.

2. From February 9, 2012 to February 12, 2012, we are going to take a crash course on advancing social movements using various very effective approaches which reach the public directly (social media, online video, blogs, news releases which also reach the public, etc.). We have recommended materials on these topics in our blog post Getting even more results from your Question evolution! campaign efforts. In addition, we contacting more creationists who are involved in social media.

3. We releasing a press release/article to 100 Christian newspapers.

4. We are releasing a press release to dozens of press release websites.

5. We will contact major press outlets in the United States, Canada and the UK in the next 30 to 90 days.

6. A California creationist will soon be giving us a free online Question Evolution! online quiz that we can have the public take. We think it will prove to be very popular.

Related resources:

Creation Ministries International

Question evolution! campaign

Traditional Values - Question evolution! Campaign webpage

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Atheism

Evolution quotes #34

2012-02-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

Referring to Lord Solly Zuckerman:

"His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes,' he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 164-165

related resources:

The African 'Ape-Men'

That New Missing Link

Lucy-atheism-science

Evolution quotes #33

2012-02-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

With regards to Skull 1470:

"One point of uncertainty was the angle at which the face attached to the cranium. Alan Walker remembers an occasion when he, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of the skull. 'You could hold the maxilla forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the fact short,'[1] he recalls.
'How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it.'
Leakey remembers the incident too: 'Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else. But there was never any doubt that it was different. The question was, was it sufficiently different from everything else to warrant being called something new?'"[2]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 160 citing an interview with the author, Potomac, Maryland, 5 Aug. 1984
[2] Ibid., p. 160 citing an interview with the author, Nairobi, 21 Jan. 1985

related resources:

The rise and fall of Skull 1470

Skull wars

Evolutionists 'go ape'

Evolution quotes #32

2012-02-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

"Even as recently as the 1970s, professional anthropologists would assume, on the flimsiest of evidence or more usually on no evidence at all, that the australopithecines' bipedalism was an ungainly, energetically inefficient 'stagger'…In fact, proper anatomical analysis has shown australopithecines' locomotion to have been perhaps even more efficient than that of Homo sapiens. Here again was an example of that old problem of differences being exaggerated while similarities were minimized."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 83

related resources:

Sediba revisited

Lucy was a knuckle walker

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?

Question the Textbooks: Tips for Students 2

2012-02-04T17:25:00.001-08:00

Thank you for reading the second installment of this series on questioning evolution in the classroom.

Students, please feel free to comment and to share strategies of your own.

Tip # 2: Question the underlying assumptions of any claim about history. Remember that both creation and evolution are historical sciences (as opposed to operational sciences which can be directly observed and repeated in the present). Thus, both make claims about history that are neither observable nor repeatable. A simple question to ask when confronted with claims about things that supposedly happened millions of years ago would be, "How do you know? Were you there?" In reply, of course, the evolution defender will admit that no one was there, but will probably cite an interpretation of some data observed in the present. The creationist can then show how the data also fits nicely into a creationist worldview, reinforcing again the very important point that the evidence doesn't speak for itself but is always interpreted within a framework.

Case Study: The Fossil Record
In many textbooks, the fossil record is presented as solid evidence of evolution, almost as good as having a written record. We weren't there to observe the fossilized creatures, but at least we can study their remains. It is claimed that there is a clear progression of fossils so that it is easy to trace the transitions from early, simple forms to later, advanced ones. In reality, though, the fossils found are of fully formed, distinct creatures. In the words of the late Ernst Mayer (a passionate evolutionist):

Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual, steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly...This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution? - Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books: NY, 2001, p. 14.

In class discussions about the fossil record, it is often useful to point to the charts and graphs found in the textbooks of the evolutionary tree of life and note that only the "tips" - the final products - are shown. But what about the branches? Why are no pictures shown of the creatures that are represented there? This is a good way to use the textbook itself to show how much of the fossil "evidence for evolution" doesn't even exist. Of course, the fact that creatures appear in the fossil record fully formed and that there are only a handful of debatable "missing links" in all the millions of fossils found is much more compatible with the creationist view.

Extra Credit: Remember to ask questions cheerfully and politely. It is sometimes effective to phrase questions in the third person, as if you have read or heard of an interesting observation by someone else and want to hear the teacher's take on it. This can keep the discussion from feeling like a personal attack (on either the teacher or you). For example, "Creationists would claim that ..." or "I was reading that..." or "But a creationist would answer that by saying..." or "But then, wouldn't that mean..." Teachers usually like it when a student engages with the material being taught and questions it thoughtfully, so try to demonstrate with your questions that you have not only studied the relevant material but have also taken it upon yourself to dig a bit deeper.

See also:
They are teaching lies to our kids!
The non-evolution of the horse

Question the Textbooks: Tips for Students

2012-02-04T17:20:00.000-08:00

Thank you for the opportunity to post on this blog! As a teacher myself, I thought I’d begin a series on questioning evolution in the classroom. Over the next several weeks, I hope to cover the most common evidences for evolution presented in the textbooks and to give some helpful tips for those students who want to constructively challenge the prevailing evolutionary dogma.

The good news: the evidence for evolution presented in textbooks is extremely weak. With a little thought, students should have no problem coming up with incisive questions.

The bad news: textbooks are very carefully – sometimes sneakily – worded. Chapters can be written in a way that makes it difficult even to pick out the arguments, let alone question them. If you find the sections on evolution confusing, don’t worry. The problem is almost certainly not with you!

Tip # 1: Always keep in mind that the evidence doesn’t speak for itself. It is interpreted within a framework. Evolutionist teachers and fellow students may not understand that it is not a case of “their evidence against yours,” but rather a case of two different interpretations of the same evidence. It is often instructive to pick an example of evidence for evolution, show how it also makes perfect sense in a creationist worldview, and then ask why this is considered evidence for evolution, since it could just as well be evidence for creation.

Case Study: Homologous Features

Different kinds of creatures share similar features or structures (such as a five-fingered hand/paw/claw or the same genetic code). This is claimed to prove that these creatures had a common ancestor. However, it is easy to find real-life examples of situations where different items have structures in common not because they evolved but because they had a common designer. A car, a truck, a school bus, a front-end loader, a locomotive, and an airplane all share some features in common (wheels, a gasoline-powered motor, the same symbols used on their blueprints, etc.). If a person was so inclined, he or she could construct a beautiful phylogenetic tree of the ‘transport’ family…even though these vehicles were all specially created, not evolved. After all, any wise designer would reuse a part or component that works well. So, in any collection of objects, whether created or designed, there will be similarities. One would expect to see homologies regardless of whether creation or evolution was true.

Extra Credit: You will be much more likely to influence a teacher or a fellow student if you are polite, kind, and friendly than if you are aggressive and hostile. Remember that a good Christian witness involves a lot more than stumping the teacher! Strive to earn the teacher’s respect (and show some respect to the teacher) by working hard, obeying instructions, and finishing assignments on time. After all, you don’t want to propagate the stereotype that only the ignorant and the uninformed reject evolution.

Jesus reigns triumphantly while the atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers is down and is in decline

2012-02-03T16:57:00.000-08:00

According to Google Trends, the Google search volume for the search "Jesus" is up, while the Google search volume for the search "PZ Myers" is down:

PZ Myers Google Trends:

Jesus Google Trends:

A popular software tool estimates that Google has 8,360 searches a day for the search "Jesus". The obscure atheist crank PZ Myers is estimated to get 20 searches a day for the search "PZ Myers" at Google and the number of searches is trending down. The search "who is PZ Myers" is estimated to get 3 searches a day at Google. It must be so sad to be an obscure atheist who is trending down at Google!

The atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers' strategy of running away from debates with Creation Ministries International and Vox Day is producing an embarrassingly meager harvest for Myers in terms of his public profile and his attempts to expand the global atheism pie in the marketplace of ideas (see the article: Will PZ Myers debate Vox Day? And, on the “Question Evolution” campaign).

Will Myers evolve a backbone and attempt to take on the 15 Questions for Evolutionists of the Question evolution! campaign in a formal debate? Lately, the atheist community has suffered from high profile publicity relating to its cowardice. For example, the British newspaper The Telegraph published an article in 2011 entitled Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.

Global atheism is in decline, Global Christianity is expanding

In 2011, the American Spectator declared 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.

PZ Myers fiddles while global atheism burns

How long will Myers watch global atheism die of cowardice and intellectual atrophy? Judging from his past and the past of his fellow atheists, global atheism will keep spiraling downward in terms of its international profile.

Quick update about our group

1. In the past few days, our Question evolution campaign group has considerably rebounded from the residual effects of flu/cold season which has considerably slowed down our pre-illness expansion in the size of our group.

Now that this chapter of illness in our group is largely closed, we now resume contacting the 160 plus creationist organizations in the United States and Canada plus contacting Christian bloggers and webmasters. We wanted to do this in December and January in a much greater way, but some of the key members of our group got temporarily bogged down via flu.

2. There has been a lot of excellent books published in the last 4 years or so on reaching audiences directly through the internet and various social movements in recent years have leveraged this knowledge. Although we certainly want to leverage the existing strengths of Christendom in terms of internet evangelism capabilities, one of the members of our group went on a buying spree of these type of books and is looking very forward to devouring their contents.

“To rely on rustics and not prepare is the greatest of crimes; to be prepared beforehand for any contingency is the greatest of virtues.” - Sun Tzu

"Opportunities multiply as they are seized". - Sun Tzu

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. - Hebrews 1:8

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

2012-02-03T16:01:00.000-08:00

Question #9

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imag-ination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. creation.com/pattquote (sourced from the 15 Questions for Evolutionists Tract)

With millions of different species of animals there should be billions, if not trillions, of transitional fossils, yet there is not one indisputable transitional fossil. Where did all these fossils go? Artistic renderings of what scientists believe or imagine happened are not scientific evidence.

Many evolutionists and evolutionist scientists overlook this important lack of evidence as inconsequential because they “know” evolution is a ”scientific fact”, even though the scientific evidence they need to prove it is entirely missing.

So, evolutionists, “Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?”

Surely you didn’t accidentally misplace them.

__________________________

6 Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.

__________________________

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

15 Questions for Evolutionists Tract

The links are missing

Evolution quotes #31

2012-02-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

"The real interest of Piltdown, however, is not so much where on the family tree-or bush-it was hung, but how those who believed in the fossil saw in it what they wanted to see. Remember, that cranial parts were those of modern man…
And the jaw is that of a modern orangutan, chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and with cheek teeth filed down to make them look humanlike. Given this mischievous chimera, this is what was said of them.
'The Piltdown skull, when properly reconstructed, is found to possess strongly simian peculiarities,' noted Elliot Smith. 'In respect of these features it harmonizes completely with the jaw, the simian form of which has not only been admitted, but also exaggerated by most writers.'[1]
In other words, Elliot Smith was able to see signs of humanity in the orang jaw and features of an ape in the human cranium.' That the jaw and cranial fragments…belonged to the same creature there has never been any doubt on the part of those who have seriously studied the matter.'"[2]

[1] Human History, published by Jonathan Cape, 1934, p. 84
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 73 citing "The Controversies Concerning the Interpretation and Meaning of the Remains of the Dawn Man Found Near Piltdown," in Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, vol. 59, p. IX, 31 Mar. 1914

Related resources:

The Piltdown Man Fraud

Piltdown Prankster finally fingered?

Not another ape-man!

Evolution quotes #30

2012-02-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

Loring Brace regarding the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal fossil:

"There is no trace of evidence that Neanderthals had exceptionally divergent great toes or that they were forced to walk orang-like on the outer edge of their feet; there is no evidence that they were unable fully to extend their knee joints; there is no evidence that their spinal columns lacked the convexities necessary for fully erect posture, there is no evidence that the head was slung forward on a peculiarly short and thick neck."

"The Fate of the Classic Neanderthals," in Current Anthropology, vol. 5, p. 5 (1964)

Related resources:

Neanderthal children's fossils

Neandertal genome like ours

Evolution quotes #29

2012-01-30T06:00:00.000-08:00

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

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

2012-01-28T22:42:00.000-08:00

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?

2012-01-28T22:14:00.000-08:00

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.

So initially, our group will have one Question Evolution! Campaign blog for the English world and also have blogs for other languages. For example, in February of 2012, we plan on officially launching the Question evolution! Switzerland blog. Eventually, we may have blogs for each country, but not at the present stage. We want to focus more on creating volunteers to launch the campaign in their local communities plus spread the campaign across the internet.

Our volunteer team almost back to full strength post flu season problems. Keep praying

2012-01-28T20:53:00.000-08:00

About a week before Christmas, our Question evolution! campaign group got slammed hard with flu/pneumonia problems. It really slowed down our volunteer recruitment efforts plus a number of our key initiatives that we wanted to implement. We did make some progress though albeit at a slower pace.

The good news is that these health issues appear to be finally diminishing within our group so we will be able to resume our former pace of group membership growth. We are almost back to full strength. If necessary, with Dayquil in our right hand and Nightquil in our left hand, we will advance full speed ahead! Please keep us in your prayers.

Evolution quotes #28

2012-01-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

"'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

How did sex originate?

2012-01-27T14:30:00.000-08:00

Question # 8 for Evolutionists

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). creation.com/evosex

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.

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

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

Evolution quotes #27

2012-01-26T06:00:00.000-08:00

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

Epigenetics

Still fighting...

Darwin and the search for an evolutionary mechanism

Evolution quotes #26

2012-01-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

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
intend.'
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

Wiping the grin off of Richard Dawkins' face. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory while you can Dr. Dawkins

2012-01-23T23:01:00.000-08:00

Creation Ministries recently published an article entitled Dawkins gloats over boost to evolutionary dogma in schools. Of course, the force feeding of Darwinian pseudoscience comes with a price and the price is the inevitable backlash.

In the first quarter of 2012 (perhaps as early as January of 2012), our Question evolution! campaign group expects to officially launch our efforts in the UK. Given the highhanded strategies and tactics of British atheists/Darwinists, there certainly appears to be a lot of backlash to tap into in the United Kingdom. In February of 2009, the Guardian reported that half of Britons do not believe in evolution.

Dr. Dawkins expect increased grassroots opposition to your evolutionary tall tales. It's on its way and there are a myriad of creative ways to spread the Question evolution! campaign in the United Kingdom. Creation Ministries International stumped you before with a question and now we have 15 more questions that are sure to stump you and your fellow British evolutionists/atheists. Review these questions well Dr. Dawkins because they will be asked in British classrooms by British students.

Review of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's book The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution

Cornell University professor, Dr John Sanford, pioneer of genetic engineering and inventor of the gene-gun, writes, “In my opinion Sarfati’s book beats Dawkins’ book, point by point, on all issues.”

See also: The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution

Related resources:

Marking 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

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

15 questions evolutionists STILL can't answer

Refuting evolution

Atheism

Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals

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

2012-01-23T00:05:00.000-08:00

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, establishing a blog network, 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

Atheism

Refuting evolution

Evolution quotes #25

2012-01-22T11:39:00.000-08:00

"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

How did multi-cellular life originate?

2012-01-20T09:59:00.000-08:00

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? creation.com/multicellularity

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.

Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?

Evolution quotes #24

2012-01-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

"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

Evolution quotes #23

2012-01-18T06:00:00.000-08:00

"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

Atheism

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!

2012-01-18T01:01:00.000-08:00

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 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.

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 who often tend to be quarrelsome and socially challenged individuals (Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men). 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.

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.

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

2012-01-16T06:36:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-16T06:00:00.000-08:00

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)

Evolution quotes #21

2012-01-14T06:00:00.001-08:00

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

Speed is of the essence in creation vs. evolution ideological warfare. We're moving faster!

2012-01-13T21:18:00.001-08:00

In all warfare speed is crucial. The Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in his work the Art of War: "Speed is the essence of war". The American Civil War general Nathan Bedford Forrest was asked by a woman how he won a battle and he replied, "Ma'am, I got there first with the most men."

Of course, speed is of the essence in creation vs. evolution ideological warfare too. If the Question evolution! campaign is going to be successful it should move as fast as a cheetah pursues a gazelle. God designed the cheetah so it can move at 70 and 75 mph (112 and 120 km/h). The cheetah is able to go from 0 to over 62 mph (100 km/h) in three seconds. Creationists the time for stalking evolutionary shams is over. It's time to move in for the kill!

Sun Tzu also taught the importance of being flexible and efficient in warfare and our Question evolution! campaign group is always looking for more efficient ways to increase the size of our group and also to make our group's outreach more efficient so we can disseminate the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer with faster and faster speed.

Our group will be faster and stronger

We have some very good news report. Not only will our group substantially increase our size and geographic reach this month though additional effort and a very large shot of promised publicity, but we expect to soon implement new ways to make our recruiting and outreach faster and more efficient. If things work out as expected, we expect our outreach will become 20 times faster than it is at present. We want to first institute this new strategy in the United States and then in the UK. God willing, we want to institute the new strategy and accompanying tactics in the United States next week.

By the end of the January or mid February, we have a goal of increasing the size of our Question evolution! campaign volunteer group until we have at least 50 volunteers in our group.

"It is swift as the wind in that it comes without a trace and withdraws like lightning. It is like a forest in that is orderly. It is rapacious as fire across a plain, not leaving a single blade of grass. It is immovable as a mountain when it garrisons". - Sun Tzu, Art of War describing an army

Photo credits:

Cheetah and gazelle picture:

Source of picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianscott/1383267276/

Title: End of the chase

Photographer/Flickr username: Brian Scott

License: Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

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

2012-01-13T14:45:00.000-08:00

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

Atheism

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

2012-01-13T12:29:00.000-08:00

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?

Creation.com/design_legit

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?

_____________________

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: Part 1

Responses to our 15 Questions: Part 2

______________________

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.

Evolution quotes #20

2012-01-12T06:00:00.000-08:00

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

We don't know yet

2012-01-11T22:13:00.000-08:00

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 plosbiology.org, 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 wired.com (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 (talkorigins.org 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.

Evolution quotes #19

2012-01-10T06:00:00.000-08:00

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

Duane Gish, a giant in the modern biblical creation movement, gives a strong endorsement to the Question Evolution! Campaign

2012-01-10T03:26:00.000-08:00

Dr. Duane Gish, a giant in the modern biblical creation movement, gives a strong endorsement to the Question evolution! campaign. Dr. Gish is a notable creationist author who won over 300 debates with evolutionists.

Dr. Gish declared:

As one who has debated over 300 evolutionists, I am delighted to see this Question Evolution campaign under way. The 15 Questions for Evolutionists brochure hits all the major questions on origins that evolutionists have no satisfactory answers for. The questions should be propagated widely. I commend the campaign.

Related resources:

Duane Gish - short bio

Duane Gish - CreationWiki

Rolling out the Question Evolution! heavy artillery for 2012. Locked on evolutionary indoctrination! No evolutionary falsehood will be safe!

2012-01-10T00:32:00.000-08:00

In the latter part of 2011, we announced at our Question evolution! campaign blog that our group was going to be very active in 2012 and we going to help make 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism. Well, it looks like the Question Evolution! Campaign heavy creationist artillery fire is going to start its targeting of evolutionist pseudoscience earlier than we expected in the United States. Thank God for His pleasant surprises! Of course, intellectually the evolutionists cannot initiate any evolutionary counter fire against the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. Evolutionism will suffer some heavy damage in 2012 while biblical creationism will remain unscathed and continue its rapid expansion across the globe (see: Thriving Christianity).

Below is a list of some of the things that evolutionists will face in the early part of 2012:

1. Hickory Hammock Baptist Church - A zealous Christian church which loathes evolutionism

Hickory Hammock Baptist Church, a zealous anti-evolution church in the American south, recently joined the Question Evolution! Campaign. Pastor Carl Gallups is the senior pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church.

PPsimmons

Pastor Gallups is a well known advocate of biblical creation and he narrates many (if not all) of the popular and informative PPsimmons anti-evolution videos. According to YouTube, the PPsimmons channel has received over 500,000 views since its inception in October of 2008. PPSimmons produced the first Question Evolution! Campaign fan video and the video was very well done.

Overview of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church

Below is a more complete description of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church taken from their church website:

Hickory Hammock Baptist Church, in Milton, Florida, is a JESUS LOVING, SPIRITUALLY ALIVE, DOCTRINALLY SOUND, Southern Baptist Church!

We give to the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are a member of the local Santa Rosa Baptist Association.

Our Pastor, Carl Gallups, serves on the Board of Regents of the University of Mobile, a Southern Baptist University, and served for over 10 years as a National and International Youth Evangelist for the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (Current LIFEWAY PRESS). Pastor Carl has been with us since 1987. He has several regionally broadcast radio programs and has for many years, written a weekly column 'Ask The Preacher' for the Santa Rosa Press Gazette.

The church youth group is becoming thoroughly acquainted with the 15 questions that evolutionist cannot answer and the 15 plus pages of supporting linked material. In addition, Question Evolution tracts and t-shirts have been ordered. A mom in our Question Evolution! group just developed an acrostic to learn the 15 questions and the young people are going to love it (see: An acrostic to learn the 15 questions that evolutionist cannot answer). Pastor Gallup and his wife are very excited about the campaign and the beneficial impact it will have on their church youth group.

2. 160 American creationist organizations are being contacted in the first quarter of 2012.

3. Tonight we are contacting one of the most active anti-evolution activist when it comes to social media outreach. In addition, one of our group members has scheduled 30-120 minutes a day to enhance his social media outreach skills. He is sharpening his social media outreach skills to a razor sharp edge. Evolutionists, the creationist social media outreach axeman cometh!

4. We are wanting to dramatically increase the amount of creationist blogging, video production and mp3 audio file production for the internet in 2012. This process will start in the first quarter of 2012 and some of it has already started.

5. In addition, although we have a Question Evolution Campaign PowerPoint presentation designed for web conference rooms (which require only small amounts of information to be presented per slide to fit the web conference rooms), we want to produce some high quality Question Evolution Campaign PowerPoint presentations to be used outside of web conference rooms. If anyone is familiar with creating PowerPoint presentations, we would appreciate it if you created some good Question Evolution! Campaign PowerPoint presentations.

6. We want to help get some more churches and other Christian organizations involved in the campaign.

Related resources:

Refuting Evolution

Atheism

15 questions for evolutionists

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

2012-01-09T19:34:00.000-08:00

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: http://creation.com/15-questions
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
frame?
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
classes?
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
humankind?
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:
source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prathambooks/3291620507/lightbox/
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)

Evolution quotes #18

2012-01-08T06:00:00.000-08:00

"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

Question Evolution! India blog expected to launch in 2012

2012-01-07T22:43:00.000-08:00

Our Question evolution! campaign group expects the Question Evolution! India blog blog to launch in 2012.

There are some wonderful Christian Indian creationists and according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa the website of Creation Ministries International currently receives 3.5 percent of their web traffic from India.

Our Question Evolution! group believes that the cultivating friendly relationships with our Christian creationist brethren in India would be a wonderful thing to do and it would make the biblical creation movement stronger. Plus, it would make the Question evolution! campaign stronger. This is especially true when it comes to the internet presence of the Question evolution campaign as far as English speaking countries. Obviously, the more English speaking countries that are involved in the campaign, the stronger than campaign will be in terms of prominence on the English speaking portion of the internet. We also want the campaign to expand into other languages as well. The Great Commission is for all nations of the world after all.

The Question Evolution! India blog is continuing to be developed and we are seeking volunteers to assist in the management and development of the blog for Indians. Among the things we will be offering is creation vs. evolution issues unique to India.

Volunteer opportunities

If you are a Christian creationist in India and would like to volunteer for the Question Evolution! Campaign in India, please contact the CMI-Australia office via the Australia contact form located at the Creation Ministries International website.

Johnson C. Philip

One of the more prominent Christian creationist is Johnson C. Philip and he has made some valuable contributions to the Christian apologetics field (Christian apologetics is the discipline which concerns itself with defending the Christian faith). A excellent biography of Johnson C. Philip is available at CreationWiki plus another good biography of Dr. Philip can be found at at Brethrenpedia It would be great to get Dr. Philip involved in the campaign and/or people he recommends.

Indian elephants picture

The blog picture features Indian elephants. In 2010, the elephant was officially declared the National Heritage Animal by the government of India.

Photo credits:

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WildElephants,Munnar.JPG, Transferred from ml.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper.

Title: Wild elephants in Munnar, Kerala

Date:

Author: Aruna at ml.wikipedia, http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%8D:Aruna

Permission: CC-BY-SA-3.0.

License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Internet Video Tips for Creationists

2012-01-07T07:34:00.000-08:00

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 http://www.twitter.com/shockawenow."

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

About.com 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

What's the matter Richard Dawkins? Cat got your tongue? Ha! Ha! Ha!

2012-01-06T22:54:00.000-08:00

The 13-year old young man in our Question evolution! campaign group who is publicly pointing out that Richard Dawkins can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists recently updated the 2 part video series Michael the Archangel meets Richard Dawkins on his YouTube channel so now the second video is even better.

The updated video series can be found at:

Richard Dawkins meets Michael the archangel - Part 1

Richard Dawkins meets Michael the Archangel - Part 2

Here are some of my favorite lines from the second video:

Michael the Archangel: Richard, can you answer the 15 questions?

Richard: Um....

Michael the Archangel: What's the matter Richard? Cat got your tongue? Ha! Ha! Ha!

I can just imagine the 13-year old young man in our Question evolution! campaign group gleefully saying that to Richard Dawkins!

Here are some more of my favorite lines from the second video:

Richard Dawkins: Give us more time. We will answer the questions.

Michael the Archangel: Time's up Richard. You failed. Evolution is a failure.

Of course, we are going to tell a lot of people about this video series and help our 13-year old creationist spread the word about his video series. Please do the same.

Have you ever noticed that evolutionists often strut around saying big boastful words, but when it comes to time to debate and face cross examination, they hide like little bunnies? Evolutionary dogma is a failure. The scientists at Creation Ministries International challenged the members of the 2010 Global Atheist Conference to debate, but the prominent atheists such as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins hid like little bunnies in their burrows. It must be a sad thing to be an atheist and evolutionist who quivers like a little bunny in his burrow.

Related resources:

Was Dawkins Stumped? Frog to a Prince critics refuted again

Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure”: New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins

Atheist with a Mission: Critique of The God Delusion

Dawkins’ Delusion

Picture credits:

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54844390@N05/5110231975/

Title: Cat

Flickr username: MowT/anas yoo

License: Creative Commons - Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) , see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

2012-01-06T13:56:00.000-08:00

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”_[1] creation.com/motor (includes animation).

Once again we see a highly educated scientist admitting “there are no detailed accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Italics added)

Since it is a scientific fact that there are no detailed (or any?) accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, why is evolution of this nature being taught as scientific fact to our children in schools? If you cannot observe it, cannot confirm it, and cannot repeat it or see it repeated, is it science? Creationists have been calling the teachings of this type of evolution “wishful thinking” and “just-so stories”. What do evolutionists call it? According to the evolutionist biochemist Franklin Harold this type of evolution is only “wishful speculations”.

When an evolutionist biochemist says there are no accounts, yet evolutionists still believe it occurred, who is relying on blind faith, and not actual science? Scientists should be able to use the tool of science to confirm the “evolution of any biochemical or cellular system” if it were indeed scientific fact. Until then, stop teaching your “wishful speculations” to our children, and stop trying to force-feed us your fantasies about goo-to-you evolution as though they are actually scientifically supported, with true science.

____________________________________

1. Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205