Just try to paint me!
Evolution Falsified - The Experiments
Life forms need planning, are complex and did not descend from one to another.
So can universal order in the natural world come about by accidents, chance and time, meaning all life came from mutations beginning with mindless chemical's? Or more directly, teaching that this Woodduck, all DNA and you are a mutation? Who has any right to call you a mutant? That’s exactly the mechanism in which evolution is based, and it’s an assertion that we will show is absolutely wrong!
Life forms need planning, are complex and did not descend from one to another.
So can universal order in the natural world come about by accidents, chance and time, meaning all life came from mutations beginning with mindless chemical's? Or more directly, teaching that this Woodduck, all DNA and you are a mutation? Who has any right to call you a mutant? That’s exactly the mechanism in which evolution is based, and it’s an assertion that we will show is absolutely wrong!
This King Sparrow is a work of art!
The Gulf from Single Cell to Multi-cellular life.(see The Question of Complexity - Genesis Alive! )
Once a single celled creature, always a single celled creature, the same for multi-celled types. Life begets life, but boundaries exist between kinds and complexity. So we have the world of classical evolution telling us that this upward mindless and self-creating motivation (or Common Descent as they like to call it) is fact. Common Decent meaning the first cell started it all, mutated into more complex life (from Prokayote bacteria [with over 4 million DNA codons] like e.coli below to Eukaryote's, [with up to 2 billion codon sets], the cell involved in all multi-cellular life), in an imaginary line of complexity and size, crossing major gaps. Now understanding the operating principals of the cell and DNA coding, these notions have come under intense scrutiny of late, even from those outside the community of faith. (See The Question of Data - Genesis Alive!) Can we really cross this gulf without breaking the rules of logic, experience and common sense? Or as Dr. Crick proposed, this is a lot of data, thousands of different codes for all types of life like the cell and bird above, very similar to different software programs. Can a 4 million base code single-cell that supposedly 'self-formed' can 'self-change' into another with 2 billion? And further accomplish this without a plan and without intelligence acting on it? As we stated before, intelligence acting on matter or, mindless time acting on matter. The latter is what evolution theory claims, with mindless mutation it's engine and natural selection and time it's guiding hand! (see video clip - ▶ Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince (1/2) - YouTube 15 min)
A test you can do that's fun! Setup a bird feeder fill it and note all the unique variety of birds that come to visit each morning. Note that each species is unique and special. You may see Chickadees, Thrush, Catbirds, Sparrows, Grossbeaks, Nuthatches and many more. The list may also include Blue Birds Jays, Robins, Yellow Finch, I've even had Woodpeckers, Pidgeon's, Doves and Flickers getting into the act. I know you will be amazed how may different species come to visit not to mention the differences in male and female. But wait, are there any BlueThush, Nutbeaks, Catsparrows or Chickafinch? No, not a one! But why?, its because each have unique DNA and reproduction boundaries. If evolution were true, you should see many type's of mutational changes and cross breeding occurring, correct?, but no, not a one appears. The entire planet is like this, among all species down to insects and even bacteria. View the topic the Question of Data and a new picture may emerge for you. Evolutionists want you to believe the changes are happening very slowly, so slowly we can't observe them. Many of these same species are found as fossils, the same as they are today and since man has walked the earth! So how do we test for evolutions operation? If we start with single cell life in the laboratory, shouldn’t we be able to create new kinds, or even improved versions, if evolution is true? But we see a cell mechanism that’s based on a closed code with no apparatus to add information, no reading heads like your computer uses. So how does it add new information for new anatomies to function, by itself? Has evolution been observed to actually work? We will see…
Good Science in the Laboratory Falsified Evolution
Research has been conducted to speedup evolutionary potentials using time & generations in the laboratory in small prolific animals. The idea was to prove that evolution works through experiment. So how can we speed up time? As we have shown, life forms, even those indescribably small are very, very complex. So to make things simple, two life forms were chosen by scientists because of their fast reproductive cycles; the bacteria E.coli, and the fruit fly Drosophila. The bacteria E.coli contains over 4.6 million base pairs and 4300 genes, and the fruit fly Drosophila, containing 180 million base pairs and 14,000 genes. These were selected because of their known high reproductive rates, the scientific community in agreement that if evolution via variability, either from self-change or mutations should be observed in these if any in the animal world. Interestingly, in 2010, studies on Drosophila reached the 100 year 600 generation anniversary mark, and E.coli, the 22 year 50,000 generation mark. The conclusion for both, no change in either was exhibited.
Each of these were subjected to every conceivable variable and environment to call out variations in an attempt to observe evolution working. Even with these thousands of generations observed over time, no substantial changes were observed over a 20+ year period. (1)
Once a single celled creature, always a single celled creature, the same for multi-celled types. Life begets life, but boundaries exist between kinds and complexity. So we have the world of classical evolution telling us that this upward mindless and self-creating motivation (or Common Descent as they like to call it) is fact. Common Decent meaning the first cell started it all, mutated into more complex life (from Prokayote bacteria [with over 4 million DNA codons] like e.coli below to Eukaryote's, [with up to 2 billion codon sets], the cell involved in all multi-cellular life), in an imaginary line of complexity and size, crossing major gaps. Now understanding the operating principals of the cell and DNA coding, these notions have come under intense scrutiny of late, even from those outside the community of faith. (See The Question of Data - Genesis Alive!) Can we really cross this gulf without breaking the rules of logic, experience and common sense? Or as Dr. Crick proposed, this is a lot of data, thousands of different codes for all types of life like the cell and bird above, very similar to different software programs. Can a 4 million base code single-cell that supposedly 'self-formed' can 'self-change' into another with 2 billion? And further accomplish this without a plan and without intelligence acting on it? As we stated before, intelligence acting on matter or, mindless time acting on matter. The latter is what evolution theory claims, with mindless mutation it's engine and natural selection and time it's guiding hand! (see video clip - ▶ Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince (1/2) - YouTube 15 min)
A test you can do that's fun! Setup a bird feeder fill it and note all the unique variety of birds that come to visit each morning. Note that each species is unique and special. You may see Chickadees, Thrush, Catbirds, Sparrows, Grossbeaks, Nuthatches and many more. The list may also include Blue Birds Jays, Robins, Yellow Finch, I've even had Woodpeckers, Pidgeon's, Doves and Flickers getting into the act. I know you will be amazed how may different species come to visit not to mention the differences in male and female. But wait, are there any BlueThush, Nutbeaks, Catsparrows or Chickafinch? No, not a one! But why?, its because each have unique DNA and reproduction boundaries. If evolution were true, you should see many type's of mutational changes and cross breeding occurring, correct?, but no, not a one appears. The entire planet is like this, among all species down to insects and even bacteria. View the topic the Question of Data and a new picture may emerge for you. Evolutionists want you to believe the changes are happening very slowly, so slowly we can't observe them. Many of these same species are found as fossils, the same as they are today and since man has walked the earth! So how do we test for evolutions operation? If we start with single cell life in the laboratory, shouldn’t we be able to create new kinds, or even improved versions, if evolution is true? But we see a cell mechanism that’s based on a closed code with no apparatus to add information, no reading heads like your computer uses. So how does it add new information for new anatomies to function, by itself? Has evolution been observed to actually work? We will see…
Good Science in the Laboratory Falsified Evolution
Research has been conducted to speedup evolutionary potentials using time & generations in the laboratory in small prolific animals. The idea was to prove that evolution works through experiment. So how can we speed up time? As we have shown, life forms, even those indescribably small are very, very complex. So to make things simple, two life forms were chosen by scientists because of their fast reproductive cycles; the bacteria E.coli, and the fruit fly Drosophila. The bacteria E.coli contains over 4.6 million base pairs and 4300 genes, and the fruit fly Drosophila, containing 180 million base pairs and 14,000 genes. These were selected because of their known high reproductive rates, the scientific community in agreement that if evolution via variability, either from self-change or mutations should be observed in these if any in the animal world. Interestingly, in 2010, studies on Drosophila reached the 100 year 600 generation anniversary mark, and E.coli, the 22 year 50,000 generation mark. The conclusion for both, no change in either was exhibited.
Each of these were subjected to every conceivable variable and environment to call out variations in an attempt to observe evolution working. Even with these thousands of generations observed over time, no substantial changes were observed over a 20+ year period. (1)
Hi Big Cousin!
After exposure to every conceivable environment in and all-out attempt to induce change, the fruit fly emerged a fruit fly. (With corrupted wings and/or changes in eye color per the above drawing). One of the worlds noted scientists on this fruit fly experiment Biologist Pierre-P. Grassé stated:
“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times." (3)
When the core data on the bacteria was studied, it was found that the most changes came early in the generational timeline, but effected very little (such as resistance to various drugs, deformations), then change flattened out for the last 3/4 of the 20 year experiment. This shows that pre-designed boundaries of variation/adaptation were exhibited physiologically in e.coli, but hit boundaries and could change no further. In the end, these extensive experiments designed to effect evolutionary changes, failed. These results were expressed in an essay written by the laboratory Director, Dr. Richard Lenski, head of the study and Professor of Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University; "Evolution: Past, Present and Future (2) (edited for space).
"Because bacteria reproduce so quickly, we use them in experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses. For over 20 years and 45,000 bacterial generations,(now 50,000 as of this print) my students and I have maintained twelve populations of E. coli in small flasks of sugar water. We measure the process that Darwin discovered – adaptation by natural selection (??) – by competing ‘modern’ bacteria against their ancestors, which we store frozen and then revive for the tests. Imagine if we could bring Homo erectus back to life, and challenge them to games of football and chess! In our flasks, the modern bacteria outscore their ancestors in the struggle for existence. You might wonder if the twelve lineages improved in the same or in different ways. Just how repeatable would evolution be if, in the metaphor of Stephen Jay Gould, we could replay the tape of life? On the one hand, mutations are random, so the lineages would tend to diverge. On the other hand, selection would favor the same adaptations because they live in identical environments. We have seen many cases of parallel evolution. The individual cells in all twelve lineages are larger than their ancestors, and all are more efficient at using the glucose in the culture medium we grow them in. Also, all twelve lines have similar mutations in several genes. In other ways, however, they have diverged, including a striking case where a single lineage evolved the ability to consume citrate, another source of energy in the medium, but one the ancestors could not exploit. In fact, a characteristic feature of E. coli as a species is that it cannot grow on citrate. We are now investigating the series of mutations that enabled this transcendent change."
So, what is Dr. Lenski really saying here? I believe he is saying his definition of "evolution" is that of micro-evolution, not Darwinian style trans-specie-make-man-from worms-evolution!
Notice the words "test evolutionary hypotheses". He uses "Hypothesis" rather than the mention of evolution as fact? A hypothesis is defined as; "an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion". (Webster's) As evolutionists, institutes and Government demand evolution be taught as fact, these statement are nothing short of heresy! Further "We measure the process that Darwin discovered – adaptation by natural selection"!. That’s all? All sides understand variation in the genetic range of a species, but this is a function already built into the genes, a known entity. His statements do nothing for classical worms to man Evolution!
Finally, the sum total of this experiment, after 20+ years of lab work they found two variables; 1. "The individual cells in all twelve lineages are larger than their ancestors., and 2, "a striking case where a single lineage evolved the ability to consume citrate". After millions of dollars and all that work, that's it? They got an e.coli to alter diet in one strain and grow a little larger? Even at this point Linski was not able to find support.
In his book, The Edge of Evolution, Dr. Micheal Behe shows the conversion equipment to consume citris already exist in E.coli, and prior studies 4 had isolated a citrate consuming mutant. Behe's bottom line after billions of bacteria were constantly bathed in sugar and citrate, "it's not surprising". [a strain was found to consume citrate]! 5 Does it quack like a duck - yes, does it look like a duck - yes, does it fly like a duck, certainly, then it’s a duck. In other words, it's still E.coli! As a final note, the quoted narrative of Dr. Lenski was altered after his comments were published by this institution and his assertions watered down in the new version [/Essay1]. The first version [Essay_] published here was removed from the University website. I emailed Dr. Lenski about the alteration and received no reply.
In Summary -
In these controlled tests the subject creatures were subjected to every conceivable variable and environment to call out variations in many generations over time. The sole object was to bring about positive mutations and get evolution working under observation. The end result is the experiments are a dismal failure for evolution. When the core data on the test were studied 6, it was found most changes came early in the generational timeline, these alterations effected little, (such as noted size and new diet!), then change halted for the last 3/4 of the 22 year experiment. This shows the pre-designed boundaries of variation/adaptation were initially exhibited physiologically then a wall was hit, the DNA wall! The genetic code boundaries allowed no further alteration, verifying the cell/DNA relationship just as observed in microbiology everyday in the present. So we have classical evolution, the trans-specie over time mutation based evolution, falsified in the laboratory. Try as they may in controlled conditions, the fruit fly and bacteria (prokaryote and eukaryote) reacted exactly as their programmed limits as directed by the DNA allowed, no more and no less. This is devastating to evolution, now a "hypothesis," where it should have been left 150 years ago!
So what we observe in the present concerning the complex cell mechanism and role of DNA played out perfectly. There were no surprises in testing, Evolution was falsified. Further, just as we observe living on Earth today, no transitional mutants came forth in the laboratory.
In reality, what we observe in all the variety of life kinds from E.coli to Man have an un-scalable wall between each sub-class, despite the claims of evolutionary "science." In other words, the propagators of such are all wrong.
1. http://www.icr.org/article/a-100-years-fruit-fly-tests-show-no-evolution/
2. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
3. Grassé, P. P. 1977. Evolution of Living Organisms. New York: Academic Press Inc., 130.
4. 2. Hall, B.G. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 151:269-273.
5. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2008/06/multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/ - Behe commentary on the Lenski claims
6. Tompkins, Jeffery P. Design and complexity of the Cell 2012 p 30
See the post - The Question of Data - Genesis Alive!
For more on DNA and how it works. See 2 min Video clip - That's a Fact - Evolving Bacteria?
So what we know about the cell mechanism's and DNA played out perfectly in experimentation with no surprises. Evolution was falsified - again, just as we observe in nature on Earth today, with no transitional types emerging in the wild.
Micro-Evolution Misrepresented Macro-Evolution?
The Dog kind. Starting in size from Chi Wawa to the Great Dane, a dog is a dog. Pure genetic information (as contained in all the original 'kinds' at the beginning of earth-life) can be manipulated through breeding to bring out different useful traits. In fact, breeders can selectively cross-breed and get traits and code back in new a new generation, but that’s not evolution, that’s just great pre-planning in knowing how to use the built-in ranges already existent in the DNA code!
And what about individual personalities in the same breeds? If evolution were true, shouldn't these be erased and each dog have the exact same personality and characteristics if they were a product of mindlessness? But no they don't, the Creator has instilled individuality and personalities in animals and as we know, People! And what about feelings, sad/happy/angry/jealousy/etc.? And instincts? One of our dogs, a sheep dog, would corner and heard a white soccer ball before he ever saw a sheep as a puppy!
Now isn't it sad that evolution attempt's to pirate the vast abilities of the Creator, and call it all mindlessly self-made! Instinctive breeding is very useful for mankind and its no accident, its in their DNA! A 'Kind' boundary is also be related to reproduction ability, a common identifier to determine speciation. When different kinds exceed reproduction boundaries, such as the horse, donkey and mule series, (1) where the offspring, mules, are sterile, so a wall is hit. So if animals mate and produce some kind of mutation, it stands to reason a female and male must somehow find each other and be productive to reproduce some type of mutant offspring. The logically a concordant mate must have "evolved" simultaneously. But in observation, experience and reality, such has never happened, they're offspring are always sterile or deformed!
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
In the realm of religion, the Bible does have a hint for us;
"For since the Creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that man is without excuse."
Invisible qualities - Micro-sized Axial Proton powered motors, code systems and cells
Seen - see them with only the most powerful imaging sensors
Made - Intelligence acting on Matter
Without excuse - proof that a Watchmaker exists and wants to communicate with us!
Engaging truth?
Many in science and education are accusing people who discuss these ideas as "back-door evangelizing" and promoting a belief in God. But is this a valid argument regarding origins ideas? Who has the right to accuse as such when obviously evolutionists have faith also - in time and absence of intelligence acting on matter! So if one says there's good reason to believe God did it by common sense and observation, that's just as valid a belief as theirs, so such accusations are patently invalid and outside the realm of operational science. Factually, these folk are promoting a "faith" also. A person should be able to say, "I believe God did this" and have just as strong a position as anyone who claims it came about without "God."
“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times." (3)
When the core data on the bacteria was studied, it was found that the most changes came early in the generational timeline, but effected very little (such as resistance to various drugs, deformations), then change flattened out for the last 3/4 of the 20 year experiment. This shows that pre-designed boundaries of variation/adaptation were exhibited physiologically in e.coli, but hit boundaries and could change no further. In the end, these extensive experiments designed to effect evolutionary changes, failed. These results were expressed in an essay written by the laboratory Director, Dr. Richard Lenski, head of the study and Professor of Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University; "Evolution: Past, Present and Future (2) (edited for space).
"Because bacteria reproduce so quickly, we use them in experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses. For over 20 years and 45,000 bacterial generations,(now 50,000 as of this print) my students and I have maintained twelve populations of E. coli in small flasks of sugar water. We measure the process that Darwin discovered – adaptation by natural selection (??) – by competing ‘modern’ bacteria against their ancestors, which we store frozen and then revive for the tests. Imagine if we could bring Homo erectus back to life, and challenge them to games of football and chess! In our flasks, the modern bacteria outscore their ancestors in the struggle for existence. You might wonder if the twelve lineages improved in the same or in different ways. Just how repeatable would evolution be if, in the metaphor of Stephen Jay Gould, we could replay the tape of life? On the one hand, mutations are random, so the lineages would tend to diverge. On the other hand, selection would favor the same adaptations because they live in identical environments. We have seen many cases of parallel evolution. The individual cells in all twelve lineages are larger than their ancestors, and all are more efficient at using the glucose in the culture medium we grow them in. Also, all twelve lines have similar mutations in several genes. In other ways, however, they have diverged, including a striking case where a single lineage evolved the ability to consume citrate, another source of energy in the medium, but one the ancestors could not exploit. In fact, a characteristic feature of E. coli as a species is that it cannot grow on citrate. We are now investigating the series of mutations that enabled this transcendent change."
So, what is Dr. Lenski really saying here? I believe he is saying his definition of "evolution" is that of micro-evolution, not Darwinian style trans-specie-make-man-from worms-evolution!
Notice the words "test evolutionary hypotheses". He uses "Hypothesis" rather than the mention of evolution as fact? A hypothesis is defined as; "an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion". (Webster's) As evolutionists, institutes and Government demand evolution be taught as fact, these statement are nothing short of heresy! Further "We measure the process that Darwin discovered – adaptation by natural selection"!. That’s all? All sides understand variation in the genetic range of a species, but this is a function already built into the genes, a known entity. His statements do nothing for classical worms to man Evolution!
Finally, the sum total of this experiment, after 20+ years of lab work they found two variables; 1. "The individual cells in all twelve lineages are larger than their ancestors., and 2, "a striking case where a single lineage evolved the ability to consume citrate". After millions of dollars and all that work, that's it? They got an e.coli to alter diet in one strain and grow a little larger? Even at this point Linski was not able to find support.
In his book, The Edge of Evolution, Dr. Micheal Behe shows the conversion equipment to consume citris already exist in E.coli, and prior studies 4 had isolated a citrate consuming mutant. Behe's bottom line after billions of bacteria were constantly bathed in sugar and citrate, "it's not surprising". [a strain was found to consume citrate]! 5 Does it quack like a duck - yes, does it look like a duck - yes, does it fly like a duck, certainly, then it’s a duck. In other words, it's still E.coli! As a final note, the quoted narrative of Dr. Lenski was altered after his comments were published by this institution and his assertions watered down in the new version [/Essay1]. The first version [Essay_] published here was removed from the University website. I emailed Dr. Lenski about the alteration and received no reply.
In Summary -
In these controlled tests the subject creatures were subjected to every conceivable variable and environment to call out variations in many generations over time. The sole object was to bring about positive mutations and get evolution working under observation. The end result is the experiments are a dismal failure for evolution. When the core data on the test were studied 6, it was found most changes came early in the generational timeline, these alterations effected little, (such as noted size and new diet!), then change halted for the last 3/4 of the 22 year experiment. This shows the pre-designed boundaries of variation/adaptation were initially exhibited physiologically then a wall was hit, the DNA wall! The genetic code boundaries allowed no further alteration, verifying the cell/DNA relationship just as observed in microbiology everyday in the present. So we have classical evolution, the trans-specie over time mutation based evolution, falsified in the laboratory. Try as they may in controlled conditions, the fruit fly and bacteria (prokaryote and eukaryote) reacted exactly as their programmed limits as directed by the DNA allowed, no more and no less. This is devastating to evolution, now a "hypothesis," where it should have been left 150 years ago!
So what we observe in the present concerning the complex cell mechanism and role of DNA played out perfectly. There were no surprises in testing, Evolution was falsified. Further, just as we observe living on Earth today, no transitional mutants came forth in the laboratory.
In reality, what we observe in all the variety of life kinds from E.coli to Man have an un-scalable wall between each sub-class, despite the claims of evolutionary "science." In other words, the propagators of such are all wrong.
1. http://www.icr.org/article/a-100-years-fruit-fly-tests-show-no-evolution/
2. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
3. Grassé, P. P. 1977. Evolution of Living Organisms. New York: Academic Press Inc., 130.
4. 2. Hall, B.G. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 151:269-273.
5. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2008/06/multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/ - Behe commentary on the Lenski claims
6. Tompkins, Jeffery P. Design and complexity of the Cell 2012 p 30
See the post - The Question of Data - Genesis Alive!
For more on DNA and how it works. See 2 min Video clip - That's a Fact - Evolving Bacteria?
So what we know about the cell mechanism's and DNA played out perfectly in experimentation with no surprises. Evolution was falsified - again, just as we observe in nature on Earth today, with no transitional types emerging in the wild.
Micro-Evolution Misrepresented Macro-Evolution?
The Dog kind. Starting in size from Chi Wawa to the Great Dane, a dog is a dog. Pure genetic information (as contained in all the original 'kinds' at the beginning of earth-life) can be manipulated through breeding to bring out different useful traits. In fact, breeders can selectively cross-breed and get traits and code back in new a new generation, but that’s not evolution, that’s just great pre-planning in knowing how to use the built-in ranges already existent in the DNA code!
And what about individual personalities in the same breeds? If evolution were true, shouldn't these be erased and each dog have the exact same personality and characteristics if they were a product of mindlessness? But no they don't, the Creator has instilled individuality and personalities in animals and as we know, People! And what about feelings, sad/happy/angry/jealousy/etc.? And instincts? One of our dogs, a sheep dog, would corner and heard a white soccer ball before he ever saw a sheep as a puppy!
Now isn't it sad that evolution attempt's to pirate the vast abilities of the Creator, and call it all mindlessly self-made! Instinctive breeding is very useful for mankind and its no accident, its in their DNA! A 'Kind' boundary is also be related to reproduction ability, a common identifier to determine speciation. When different kinds exceed reproduction boundaries, such as the horse, donkey and mule series, (1) where the offspring, mules, are sterile, so a wall is hit. So if animals mate and produce some kind of mutation, it stands to reason a female and male must somehow find each other and be productive to reproduce some type of mutant offspring. The logically a concordant mate must have "evolved" simultaneously. But in observation, experience and reality, such has never happened, they're offspring are always sterile or deformed!
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
In the realm of religion, the Bible does have a hint for us;
"For since the Creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that man is without excuse."
Invisible qualities - Micro-sized Axial Proton powered motors, code systems and cells
Seen - see them with only the most powerful imaging sensors
Made - Intelligence acting on Matter
Without excuse - proof that a Watchmaker exists and wants to communicate with us!
Engaging truth?
Many in science and education are accusing people who discuss these ideas as "back-door evangelizing" and promoting a belief in God. But is this a valid argument regarding origins ideas? Who has the right to accuse as such when obviously evolutionists have faith also - in time and absence of intelligence acting on matter! So if one says there's good reason to believe God did it by common sense and observation, that's just as valid a belief as theirs, so such accusations are patently invalid and outside the realm of operational science. Factually, these folk are promoting a "faith" also. A person should be able to say, "I believe God did this" and have just as strong a position as anyone who claims it came about without "God."
Passion Flower with healing chemicals man cannot duplicate
It takes a pile of faith to imagine an ion motor, a cell or this Passion Flower came about from self-made nothingness. Like a 747 or a Proton Motor, no one believes they formed themselves. See post; The Question of Complexity - Genesis Alive!
Dr. Collin Patterson, Zoology Director of the British Museum for many years was making comments as below to various groups and inside circles concerning his skepticism about evolution being scientific before his passing in 1992.
"One day I was thinking that after studying this stuff for over 20 years, that there isn't one thing that I know about it, that is true. I asked this question to various people and groups, including a very prestigious group of evolutionists in Chicago, and all I got was silence for a long time and then someone spoke up, "well, I know one thing, it shouldn't be taught in High School."
The author personally interviewed Dr. Patterson about this comment and he affirmed its accuracy and context. Though not a public advocate of Intelligent Design, Dr. Patterson in no way opposed my understanding of origins as presented here. He confirmed my observations of living animal gaps with no intermediates, I mentioning my experience and observations in Alaska. To this his comment was as follows; "My friends in the tropics tell me the same thing"! He closed the conversation saying - "May you be successful in your quest for truth."
Scientists that dispute evolution;
DarwinAd4.qxd - 100ScientistsAd.pdf
Videos;
Evidence for Creation (12) The Giraffe
DNA - God's amazing programming; evidence for his existence
Dr. Collin Patterson, Zoology Director of the British Museum for many years was making comments as below to various groups and inside circles concerning his skepticism about evolution being scientific before his passing in 1992.
"One day I was thinking that after studying this stuff for over 20 years, that there isn't one thing that I know about it, that is true. I asked this question to various people and groups, including a very prestigious group of evolutionists in Chicago, and all I got was silence for a long time and then someone spoke up, "well, I know one thing, it shouldn't be taught in High School."
The author personally interviewed Dr. Patterson about this comment and he affirmed its accuracy and context. Though not a public advocate of Intelligent Design, Dr. Patterson in no way opposed my understanding of origins as presented here. He confirmed my observations of living animal gaps with no intermediates, I mentioning my experience and observations in Alaska. To this his comment was as follows; "My friends in the tropics tell me the same thing"! He closed the conversation saying - "May you be successful in your quest for truth."
Scientists that dispute evolution;
DarwinAd4.qxd - 100ScientistsAd.pdf
Videos;
Evidence for Creation (12) The Giraffe
DNA - God's amazing programming; evidence for his existence
