You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!

Is chromosome fusion proof of evolution?

2010-07-22T06:45:00.003-05:00

I am going to change from my normal style of posts just briefly to discuss a current issue that may be a little more technical. The issue is that primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes while Humans have only 23 pairs. Evolutionists claim that for this to be true and for evolution to be viable, we have to find 2 pairs of our chromosomes fused. And they believe they have found just that (note: the evidence for this is good, but not conclusive), so evolution is true.

While this seems compelling at first glance, is it?

First, this argument is a fallacy called 'the fallacy of confirming the argument'. Meaning 'If P, the Q. Q therefore P' or 'If we have a common ancestor there will be chromosome fusion. There is, therefore we have a common ancestor.' When in reality, all that is shown is that there is a fusion.

Second, this is not compelling evidence even if true because it is a difference between us and them, not a similarity. It would be far more compelling if everything was similar, not different with a possible explanation. What evolutionists would need to find is the primate in our supposed ancestry that has the fused chromosome to show that this change did actually occur. Without it, all they have is yet another difference in our genetics.

Third, mapping the chromosomes is one thing, knowing the intricacies of and total function of how and why they work is quite another. And that is something we are nowhere close to understanding.

Again, a common designer would use similar tools and similar plans for similar creations. For instance, I make shoes and boots for use in my hobby. To make the shoes, I use the same pattern as I do for the boots and alter it into a shoe. Same with God's creation. He uses genetics and alters them as needed. So He used the same coding principal and fused two together in one and not the other to achieve the desired result. It is not a big deal at all.

Some will claim that making them similar and fusing them together is being deceptive.
However, it is not deceptive in the least. The fact they are similar still points to a common creator. The fact that they are different shows simply that He had to change them to get the desired result.

Evolutionists then claim that chromosome fusion shows that evolution is 'science' because it is a testable and falsifiable prediction. The evolutionist says "if evolution is true, we must explain this difference and here is our explanation. If the explanation was not here, evolution would be falsified."

They will then say that Creation is not science because it makes no such falsifiable prediction. However, this is completely false. The Creationist says "If Creation is true, we must show there are differences and here it is. If there were no differences, Creation would be falsified."

In conclusion, this again is fact verses concept. The SCIENTIFIC FACT is there is a difference in the number of chromosomes between apes and man. There is POSSIBLE evidence to show where two chromosomes may be fused. But that is ALL the evidence shows. The story used to explain the difference (either fused through evolution or through planned design) is philosophy.

In His Service... Arthur Smith

Evolving Parts Is Not Enough

2010-07-14T06:09:00.001-05:00

Previously I have discussed the Miller-Urey experiment which Biology Texts use to claim that life can evolve by natural means. I had previously shown where this experiment not only did not prove this, but also doesn't even prove the evolutionary scientist's claims that it created the building blocks of life. But I want to take this one step further.

For this post, I will pretend that they actually did form the 'building blocks of life' as they claim. Does this really help prove evolution? Only in the tiniest bit. Why? Because as an old commercial states, "parts is parts". What I mean here is that parts do not make life. No matter how many parts you have, no matter how evolved these parts are, you still do not have life. Life requires these parts to be assembled in a 'biological machine'. Let me show you.

Above we have a bunch of parts. Are they of any use? Would they server any purpose on their own? What if they got fancier? If you had these parts sitting in a drawer, would you use them? No, they would sit there and rust until you threw them away. This is the same as in nature. Even if the parts were there, they would be useless until they were assembled. They would sit in the drawer so-to-speak, until natural selection threw them away.

It is not until these parts are assembled as below, that they have any purpose.

You see, even if the parts were there, until they are assembled into the biological system, the 'machine', they serve no purpose. And just like the parts above, tossing the parts around randomly can never produce a functioning machine, little lone a functioning machine that can reproduce itself. These parts have to be assembled in a particular and specific order to achieve a useful function. Actual, scientific testing and observation tells us that this absolutely never happens without intelligence. It is only by denying science and the Laws of Nature that one could ever hope that the assembling of a functional machine could ever happen without an intelligence behind it.

In His service... Arthur Smith

The probability of Evolution

2010-07-13T06:47:00.005-05:00

In 1860, at the Oxford Union in England, the “Great Debate” took place between the Anglican Archbishop of Oxford University, Samuel Wilberforce, and evolutionist and agnostic, Thomas Huxley. Though there is some disagreement in the details, it is said to prove the possibility that the genetic information in the cells (DNA) could assemble itself by chance, random processes, Huxley asked Wilberforce if six monkeys sitting at typewriters could ever type a recognizable word (allowing the monkeys could live forever and never run out of ink or paper). Wilberforce was forced to say 'yes'.

Huxley went on and asked, again, given the monkeys could live forever and never run out of supplies, could these same monkeys type an actual sentence? Once again, Wilberforce was forced to say 'yes'. Huxley then asked the big question: given the monkeys could live forever and never run out of supplies, could these same monkeys eventually type the works of Shakespeare?

In other words, given infinite time, the monkeys would successfully type "Romeo". Given even more time they would type "Romeo, Romeo." Even more time and they'd get "O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love And I'll no longer be a Capulet..."

Here Wilberforce and all creationists do have to be honest and admit that given an infinite amount of time and the specified circumstances, that yes this could happen. So, case closed, monkeys win, correct?

Wrong. Here's why.

This analogy which has been used to convince countless people, including myself, is fatally flawed. Why? Because it assumes that once the letter is "typed" that it is locked in. If this were the case, given infinite time, the monkeys very well would eventually, accidentally type Romeo and Juliet. However, this is not how DNA works.

Molecules not only form, but they break down. As an example, water (2 hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule combined) evaporates into three separate atoms: hydrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. These three separate atoms are no longer water but are free to form any other molecule.

What does this mean? It means as the monkeys start to type they might get "Romeo". Indeed given even more time they might be lucky enough to type "Romeo, Romeo." However, molecules are not locked together like the typed words from the monkeys. For the analogy to correctly reflect the nature of the DNA, the previously typed letters would have to start breaking down. So by the time they tried to accidentally get to "wherefore", what was previously on the paper would look more like "omeo? Rom o". As the typing progressed it would be "om ? R m o, o o w hrefore art thou Romeo".

Are you getting the picture? Could any number of monkeys, typing for an infinite amount of time, ever type Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' under this scenario which correctly models how molecules actually work? The answer is simply, "no".

Another way it has been stated is through the fact that IF there is ANY chance that something could occur, no matter how incredibly small, given enough time it will happen. So no matter how slim the chance, it goes to show how evolution could happen, right? Wrong. Here's why:

Take these two dice and roll them. How many tries will it take to roll a 15? If any number of monkeys roll and roll and roll from now through infinity, how long would it take before they roll a 15 with these two dice? They never would. The chance of doing the impossible is zero.

According to the Laws of Probability, if the chance of something happening is smaller than 1 chance in 10 followed by 50 zeros, then the event will NEVER occur/ The calculated possibility of getting a single cell by natural processes is calculated as 1 chance in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros. Once again, the chance of doing the impossible is zero.

In His service... Arthur Smith

How Close Is 96%?

2010-06-23T11:11:00.003-05:00

We have been told many times about how similar Human DNA is to Chimpanzee DNA. At first we were told they were 98%, then 97%. Now it has dropped to between 95-96%, but even so, that still sounds like a lot, right? But how close IS it really?

DNA is made up of what are termed 'base pairs'. These are the instruction codes that make us who we are. There are roughly 3,125,000,000 base pairs in human DNA. That means at even 96% similarity, there are still 125,000,000 differences!

What does this mean to evolution? Evolution states that each of these differences came about over time by chance, random process. They use these long periods of time because these changes are rare and most changes are not passed on but weeded out. So very few changes continue down the line. The question is how much time for how many changes.

Using evolutionist's figures, from the time human and chimp separated down different paths from their mutual ancestor, approximately 300,000 generations have come and gone. A staggering amount to be sure. But is it enough?

125,000,000 differences divided by 300,000 generations means that EACH and EVERY generation must have and pass on 133 mutations of the exact variety needed to be passed on and separate the two lines. Remember, mutations are very rare and the vast majority of them are not passed on. Alone, 133 mutations is unheard of in a single generation, little lone 133 beneficial ones that are actually passed on to offspring.

Simply put, even given an additional ten times the number of generations they allow for would not give enough time for such a divergence to take place. This shows that the similarity in DNA does not fit with the 'common ancestor' model. However, it still does fit with the concept of a common creator.

In His service... Arthur Smith

Matter+Energy+Time=?

2010-06-21T08:04:00.003-05:00

Many of us were taught that Matter + Energy + Time = Life. Meaning that given enough time and energy, life will come from non life. However, is this true? Simply put, no, and here's an easy example why.

Lets take a computer. You assemble (time) all the parts (matter) and plug it in and turn it on (energy) and it works because you have those three pieces, right? Ah! There is one thing missing: software. If your computer has no program to run it, then it will never run. The hardware (matter) will never work by its self no matter how much time or energy you put into it. It must have the information in the program to work.

The components of life are the same. Given all the time the evolutionists claim has past and any amount of energy, matter could never form life because it would never have the information required for life. That information is hard coded in the DNA, in the genes and chromosomes and made usable through the RNA in our cells.

The scientific Laws of Information in Nature state that information cannot arise from matter. It ALWAYS arises from a source of higher information. Again, think of a computer. A computer cannot program itself. And it cannot program something more intelligent than itself. It takes an external source, a programmer, to install and upgrade its information.

So the equation for life is lacking. To be correct it MUST be Matter + Energy + Time + information = Life. Information cannot come from matter but always from a higher source of information. To program an amoeba, you'd need something with vastly more information than an amoeba. To program a dog, you'd need something with vastly more information than a dog. To program a human, you'd need something with vastly more information than a human. Vastly more information than a human? Where does that lead us to?

In His Service... Arthur Smith

Could all the animals fit on the ark?

2010-03-30T07:56:00.003-05:00

Many people say that they know the account of Noah is not real because all the animals could not fit on the ark. Ask them then, how big was the ark and how many animals had to be on it. Typically they will not know. Do you?

Genesis records that the Ark was 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is the length from one’s elbow to the tip of their finger. Traditionally this is accepted to be 18”. However, up to a 22” cubit is accepted by Jewish Historians and being 600 years old, Noah’s could have been even bigger!

Accepting the smallest size for a cubit, the Ark would thus be 450’ x 75’ x 45’. This would give the Ark 1,518,750 cubic feet of room. Equal to the capacity of 565 railroad stock cars! But was that enough? To answer this question, we must know how many animals were on the Ark.

Genesis records each “kind” of animal was on the Ark. Though we do not have a list of God’s classification of ‘kinds’, in the creation account, we see that kinds can reproduce. Bearing this in mind, we can see not every ‘species’ was required, but a far smaller number would be required. For instance there would not be a Poodle, Labrador, Great Dane, Wolf and fox on board, but one dog kind.

It is believed this number to be less than 35,000 animals. However, even if we were to take the worst case, and look at species, is there enough room?

Looking even at species, there are only 21,100 species that would have needed the protection of the ark. Multiply this by 2 so we have a male and female of each brings our total to 42,200. There are well less than 1000 ‘clean’ kinds but even adding 7 of each at that many, still leaves the number at less than 50,000 even after adding in two of each dinosaur kind. But will they fit?

If you take all animals, including dinosaurs, from the smallest to the largest, the average size would be that of a sheep. As stated earlier, the Ark can hold the same as 565 railroad stock cars. Shipping records show a stock car will hold 240 sheep. So:

50,000 animals at 240 per car = 208 stock cars. Only 36% of the Ark’s capacity to fit all the SPECIES! Room with plenty to spare!

Evolutionary trees actually more like grass

2010-03-29T14:31:00.015-05:00

<
I remember growing up, I had a book on animals and dinosaurs. It had a huge evolutionary tree and I loved reading about the animal, then looking on the tree and tracing it backwards through its evolutionary history. I was completely in awe of those diagrams and just as completely convinced by them. Growing up through the school system, this conviction was solidified in this icon of evolution.

It is no wonder then, when my search to once-and-for-all find the absolute proof of evolution began, that I started with these trees. Yet to my disappointment, I quickly found their flaw. Let me show you:

The first image here is a simple version of one of evolution's "Trees of Life". You can easily follow the evolutionary path and it is quite nice and convincing. But is it accurate? Let me ask you, what is on the black lines, or 'branches'? Why don't they show them?

The reason that they do not show what is on these lines is because they do not know. There simply is nothing to show so instead, they draw lines. What they really have is in this second image to the right: fully formed plants, animals and humans with nothing in-between!

That's right, instead of a tree, what is actually found by real science are fossils of the last leaf on the end of their supposed branches. To make their trees honestly reflect what is observed in nature, we need to remove the lines. What is left, is hardly convincing.

In fact, evolutionists make all sorts of these trees showing how certain things supposedly evolved. Lets look at a few of their examples. On the left is what they will show. The bold or colored lines show what is actually found. The light or dashed lines show what their IMAGINATIONS want you to believe. But these magic lines are an illusion. Remove the imagination, leave only the facts and what you get is shown in the right side of each picture. Lets take a look...

Okay, do you see the point? What they try to show is not what the facts actually show. The facts are on the right of each example. You can either use their imaginary, magic lines and try to connect them with lines, or you can read them for what the facts actually show: that each and every animal was created exactly how they were and did not evolve into anything else. They ALWAYS show up in the fossil record 100% complete in their kind. And you know what? That's EXACTLY what God said.

In His service... Arthur

Which Came First? The DNA or the RNA?

2009-12-14T11:44:00.009-06:00

We all know the old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It is a question evolutionists can't specifically answer. However another such question that is more important is "which came first, DNA or RNA?"Okay I know, the topic alone is daunting. We have seen the pictures like those above and they are way too technical and over our heads. Most of us try to purge any knowledge of these out of our brains as soon as we finish our Biology final. However, the concepts of DNA and RNA are easy to grasp. Just remember these two bits of information:

1) DNA = coded information
2) RNA = the code itself

For instance, below is a code of instructions. Please read it and tell me what it is instructing you to do:

What? You can't? Well, this code is equivalent to DNA. It is all the information you need for something, but what? Without knowing the code, it is meaningless mumbo jumbo.

This is the same in our cells. Without the code (RNA), the instructions (DNA) are meaningless. So to help you out, listed below is the code which is equivalent to the RNA along with a new set of instructions for you to follow. Are you ready?

CODE:

Instructions:

Ok, so you have the code so you know what this second set of instructions is asking you to do, right? No? Of course you don't because you now have the code, but none of the instruction. So your code is useless. Remember, your code is your RNA. Without the information (DNA) your code (RNA) is useless. It is only when you have the two together that they are of any use. This is exactly the same as is the case with DNA and RNA. It is only when they are both together that they are of any use.

So, back to the question, "which came first DNA or RNA?" We see it could not have been either. Both are required to have originated at the same time. However, the chance that either developed naturally by chance, random processes is so remote as to be statistically impossible. But I will grant secular scientists that 'statistically impossible' and 'actually impossible' are not the same.

What that means is that though the chance is so remote as to realistically be impossible, there still is the slightest chance that DNA could assemble IF the information were available in the right form. There is the slightest chance that RNA could assemble IF the code were available in the correct form. But the chance that BOTH of these could happen completely independent of each other, at exactly the same time and place in the universe, by chance, random process and that they would be in perfect synch with each other is zero. It simply could not happen without the intervention of an intelligent, outside force purposely guiding the information and the code to work together to form a coherent combination of information structured into a specific instruction that can be decoded correctly.

The only thing left to determine is who or what was this intelligent force. As an answer, the decoding of the above instructions is as follows:

"Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not unto you're own understanding."

In His service... Arthur

PS - Oh, to answer the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg", Genesis says that all birds were made together on day 5. So the answer is the chicken!!

Evolution - Insulting Intelligence

2009-12-01T09:41:00.008-06:00

I have to warn you on this one before I start. I am going to insult your intelligence. Please bear with me. You see, we have all seen the typical "Evolution of Man" pictures like this one.

But have you really thought about what it is trying to say? Does this make sense?

I am going to propose a 'theory' of my own evolution for you. You see, according to evolution, all we see started out of a "big bang" where nothing exploded and created matter in the form of Hydrogen and Helium. From these evolved everything including the elements which includes aluminum. So according to their 'theory', aluminum is a given from evolution.

EVOLUTION OF THE CAN!!!

So, millions and millions of years ago, there was a sandy beach. During a lightening storm there were strikes on land and sea. One of them at sea struck and formed completely new and complex structures from where they had never existed anywhere in the universe! Complex structures like amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA and the complex codes in them that together created life from non living elements!

A second strike of lightening wasn't as fortunate. It struck the beach, but it only fused together the aluminum that was there into a small, round, dish-like structure that collected the rain from the storm.

Through the next few millions of years, the new life from the first strike, evolved more and more complex structures, completely by chance that allowed it to move, absorb and process nutrients into life-sustaining energy and even reproduce! The aluminum dish on the other hand evolved some low, rudimentary walls which allowed it to hold more liquid.

Millions of years more pass and the life form has become multi-celled. It has evolved motors and circulatory systems and immune systems. Again all by chance, all from scratch and all extremely functional! The aluminum dish? Higher walls, sigh.

More time passes and the life form evolves a brain, eyes and sight, the sense of touch, hearing and smell, as well as gills to breathe and fins for propulsion! The Aluminum dish has also made great sides in this period of time. It has gained a lid. Oh, and a tab so the liquid inside still can be accessed.

Yet more millions of years and our life form has evolved feet and legs, lungs to breathe air, come aground and evolved new eyes and new senses like the ability to smell. All done completely by chance, random process from never-existing materials or plans! Our little can has progressed too. It has added specks of color because the lady cans prefer male cans with a sense of style.

We watch millions more years pass and our life form has developed hollow bones wings for flight or warm blooded creatures better adapted for new environments, complex brains that can reason and think. Eventually this life form's bones and muscles all change to allow it to walk on two legs, have feelings, make decisions, understand morality and type blogs on computers! Our can has added more color which makes it more appealing to the lady cans and can now be found in family units of six.

Of corse, along this evolutionary line of our little can, there were some mutations. These produced cans that looked a little different, but they were all still cans. Other fossils of cans that have been found were thought to be missing links between the steps, but were simply cans that had suffered from age, abuse and other deficiencies.

Okay, okay, I know you are well into thinking I have lost my mind. You know full well that the can did not evolve. I mean, just look at it and its complexity. It was obviously designed by an intelligent mind for its purpose, right? Yet what about the other half of the story above? The little life form? You laugh at that too because it is blatantly wrong. It is missing so many immensely complex steps as to be nonsense. The process I typed was so over-simplified that it is barely a representation of what happened at all.

Wait, what? A can evolving is impossible because of its obvious design yet evolving a human IS possible? A human which is infinitely more complex than a can? In fact, pick any one aspect of a human, say the eye and sight, the immune system, consciousness, reproduction, even a simple bacteria cell inside a human. Each of these are individually infinitely more complex than a can. So why is it an insult to our intelligence that a can evolved when we are demanded by secular science to believe that all of the components that make man, evolved from nothing, on its own, with no information on how to construct any of the new additions, completely by random chance? Now who is insulting your intelligence??

In His service...

Didn't they create life in a test tube?

2009-11-19T08:53:00.010-06:00

Ah Miller and Urey... Simply put, no they didn't. They did get successful results, just not ones indicating life. To the left you see their experiment. To the right you see a diagram of it.

Miller and Urey's experiment starts out (1) with a sample of the 'primeval soup' - the stuff that was in the ocean before life arose. They added heat to vaporize it. This vapor rose up as the 'primeval atmosphere'. (2) An electric spark was added to simulate lightening and the matter created was condensed (3) and filtered out (4) to be tested.

Here's why it didn't do what you were told it did.

(1) There is no sample of this supposed 'primeval soup'. Its not even known if it existed little lone what it was made of. Why did he choose the ingredients he did? Not because of any proof, but to get the specific results he needed. You see, they knew that to even stand a chance of getting their desired results their 'atmosphere' (2) could contain no oxygen because oxygen immediately destroys the amino acids they were hoping to create. So whatever mixture they used for this 'soup' could not produce any oxygen.

To simplify this, take a standard box of 8 crayons. Now melt them all until what color is the result? The color you end up with is a result of the colors that were actually there. But that's not the color you wanted so you remove all the colors from the next box that do not fit your color scheme and change the amounts of the remaining colors so that when you melt the second batch, you get the color teal. The problem is, you didn't use what was actually there in the box. You took out what was actually there and only left exactly what you needed.

This is not scientifically valid. To have this be valid, the soup must be a valid recreation of what was actually here when they claim. NOT simply a mixture of the chemicals they need in order to produce the desired results they want.

"Maybe they early atmosphere didn't have oxygen."

A good thought. We don't know, right? Wrong. According to evolutionary scientists, many millions of years before life formed, rocks formed. Every rock ever studied contains oxygen. So without a doubt, the atmosphere had to have oxygen unlike that used in the experiment. Not to mention the Earth's ozone is made of oxygen. No oxygen means no ozone. No ozone and the sun's radiation kills everything on the Earth.

So the experiment started with the wrong solution, produced the wrong conditions and killed everything on earth. Anything else? Unfortunately, yes. You'll notice after the 'atmosphere' is zapped, it goes down another tube (3) where it condenses and continues into a water trap. Why? Because the amino acids dissolve in water. So Miller and Urey had to devise a way to remove them from the solution before they dissolved, hence the trap. The problem is, there is no such trap in nature. So without this trap, any amino acids created would also be destroyed.

Surely that's all the problems with the experiment, right? No. First, the experiment never claimed to have created life. What they created were amino acids which are used to build proteins which one part of what is required for life (with the above crayon example, its like saying you have blue dye and therefore have a crayon without having wax or any process to combine, refine and finish one). Now, in the amino acid world there are two types: Left handed and right handed. For there to be life, these all have to be left handed otherwise they cancel each other out. Think of it like a race track, if everyone goes left it is all fine. But even one driver going right would cause a catastrophe!

But in the Miller-Urey experiment, they were nearly equal parts left and right handed. Again a fatal flaw.

So the experiment:
1) Started with the wrong solution
2) Produced the wrong conditions
3) Created a fatally radioactive earth
4) Relied on a trap not found anywhere in nature
5) Got the wrong results

Scientifically speaking, the experiment was a success in that it proved that with their starting solution, following all their procedures, you could make a nearly equal amounts of left and right handed proteins. Unfortunately, that doesn't relate at all to how life started on this planet.

In His service...

What about Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’ and things that have evolved?

2009-11-19T06:58:00.008-06:00

Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’ is a familiar site to most of us. It helps us visualize the evolutionary path from single cell to man. However, it has many problems. When looking at one of the pictures, you see two things: fully formed animal kinds and lines. The lines are there to supposedly show the evolutionary progression, but how that progression is suppose to have happened is left to our imaginationn.

The reason for this is that imagination is the only thing evolutionary science HAS to fill those blanks! We mistakenly call these “missing links”. However there isn’t a link missing in the chain, it’s the entire chain that is missing. Scientifically, what we actually observe in nature and the fossil record are fully formed kinds of animals - no lines – making Darwin’s tree look more like this:

“But what about animals we have seen evolve like horses, finches, fruit flies and peppered moths?”

Exactly, what about them? Again, what do we see? We see horses giving birth to horses, finches giving birth to finches, flies giving birth to flies and moths giving birth to moths. This is exactly what God said would happen: animal kinds reproducing after their own kind. Is there variation within a kind? Most definitely. We see that throughout the world in every kind of animal and in humans as well. Tall, short, frail, well-built, big nose, small nose, blue eyes, brown eyes and teeth of all shapes and sizes.

We even see traits like large brows, forward-set jaws, long arms, dwarfism, hunched posture and other traits supposedly reserved for our ancestors.

{Note: I am by no means saying that these people are sub-human, but that these traits are not traits indicating our ‘ancient ancestors’ but are traits still here in twenty-first century humans.}

The point is this: just because children are not identical copies of their parent, does not mean that evolution has occurred; at least not the kind of evolving required to evolve outside of specific kinds (i.e. primate to man). Sure some traits are passed on and become more prominent. The evolutionist will claim that these small changes added together over millions of years, equals evolution. Again, what do we actually see? We see no examples of this ever happening. No examples of a species part way between one species and another. In other words, there is nothing on those magic lines in Darwin’s tree. Believing those lines are real is purely imagination and not science.

In His service...

Mislead by Lucy

2009-11-05T14:20:00.000-06:00

How many times have people been swayed against believing God's account of Creation because of supposed "missing links"? Finds like "Peking Man" which was a fraud, "Nebraska Man" which was only one tooth (which happened to be from a pig) or fossils like Cro-Magnon man and Neandertal man which are nothing more than modern, fully human skeletons suffering from arthritis or rickets (vitamin D deficiency). Finally there is the last group of supposed "missing links" such as "Ida", "Ardi" and Lucy which are fully primate.

Secular scientists blasted the claim that Ida is anything more than an extinct Lemur. "Ardi" is again a full primate. Claimed to be bipedal based on finger and toe length (which actually fit perfectly fine in primate categories) and a supposed bump found on its highly crushed pelvis. I will post more on Ardi in a later segment. For this segment, I want to focus more on the much more well-known "Lucy" fossil.

Lucy is from a group of fossils known as "Australopithecus afarensis". She was found in Ethiopia and has made her rounds in several museums and text books as the "missing link" between human and primates. We see her here walking with her mate and looking very human-like. Notice the straight posture and the fully human hands and feet. Not bent over with the "knuckle walking" hands and grasping feet of the primate at all. Very convincing and looking at this lovely couple, one does see the human likeness in her. However, here lies the problem.

What you see here is not Lucy. It is an artists rendition of what he imagined she might look like. So, how accurate was the artist? Lets look at the real Lucy.

Here is the real Lucy. Or rather this is a picture of all the bones found of her. Do you notice anything? Here's a hint: remember the human hands and feet in the model? Do you see them? No, because they aren't there! The human-like hands and feet were added by the artist not because Lucy HAD human-like hands and feet, but because they hoped she had them.

Through the years, more fossils of Australopithecus have been found and guess what? Their hands and feet are completely primate. So why do the museums and text books still show Lucy with human-like hands and feet?

But the hands and feet were only part of the case. Lucy also stands upright. This is partially determined by more bones that weren't found (leg this time) and partially by her hip bone. See, primate hips are very wide and flat. Human's hips are more curved. This changes the center of balance and allows us to stand upright. Here is Australopithecus' hip:

Very wide and flat. But that means primate, right? When the original fossil was found, they 'knew' Lucy stood upright because she had to. So what did they do? Click on the following picture to watch a video clip and see:

That's right! The pieces didn't fit, so they took a rotary tool to them and reshaped them until they fit together how they wanted them to fit. The only reason Lucy stands upright is because they so badly wanted her to that they were willing to do whatever it took to make her stand upright.

Fortunately, further discoveries of Australopithecus have continued to show the primate pelvis, hands and feet and now nearly all scientists, including secular ones, agree that Lucy did not stand upright and is merely an extinct primate. Unfortunately this has not changed the recreations in museums, zoos and text books. Why you ask? Because they have no other missing link to fill their gap.

In His service

Wouldn't it take starlight longer to reach the earth?

2009-11-05T14:06:00.008-06:00

An often asked question is if the stars that we see in the night skies are really millions of light years away, how could we see their light if the universe were only a few thousand years old? Here is the dilemma:

The stars and earth are a long ways apart. We have wrapped a rubber band around the above star to simulate its light.

After the "short" amount of time the Bible allows, the light from the stars would not have enough time to travel the millions of light years required to be seen from the Earth. How can Creationists explain this? Easy, the answer lies in scripture.

Genesis says God created the "lights" in the sky so we could "mark seasons and days and years". For them to do this, they had to have been visible to Adam. So somehow, between day 4 and day 6 the light had to be visible. So God had to have made the "lights" (which would include stars, planets, etc) close enough to the Earth that their light was here. Like this:

"WAIT!" you say. "The stars aren't that close and if they were, we'd all be cooked. Explain that!" And in response I point you to any of the following verses: Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12 or Jeremiah 51:15. All of these verses plainly state a variation of the following:

"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host."

You see, God didn't make the stars millions of light years away and sat around waiting for their light to arrive. God made the "lights" here and visible, THEN He stretched them out to where He ordained them to be in the sky. In other words, the rubber band started at earth and stretched the other way:

In His service

Why Rock Layers Were'nt Laid Down Over Millions Of Years

2009-11-03T13:23:00.005-06:00

Another "proof" evolutionary scientists claim show millions of years, are the layering we see in the rocks. You can see this anywhere in the world where the rock layers are exposed; from the Grand Canyon to places on the interstate where the road has been carved out. They claim that these rock layers have been laid down over millions and millions of years. But is this so?

First, look around you and what do you see? The whole world is flat as a pancake, right? Not at all! We see hills and gullies, mountains and valleys. "So what?" What do you see in the rock layers? Hills and valleys? No, all the rock layers are flat! But if the layers were laid down over hills and valleys, it should accumulate like this:

But look at the first picture again, they are flat. What would explain the flat layers?

On a trip to the Northwest US, I stopped off at a number of places and took samples from various rock layers and collected them in a jar. I then filled the jar with water and shook it up until it was all mixed up. I then let it sit. After a few days, guess what appeared? Flat rock layers!
What could explain this happening in the world? What could cover the world with water, stir it all up and then let it settle in layers? Secular science can't account for it, but Genesis 6-9 does quite well!

In His service... Arthur Smith

Why Dating Methods are Flawed

2009-11-03T11:48:00.004-06:00

One of the main arguments in opposition to the Biblical Creation Account is the idea of "millions of years". The Biblical account simply does not allow for more than a few thousand years. So how can dinosaurs be millions of years old, rocks even older and yet have the Bible's claim of only a few thousand years be true? Simply put, they can't both be true. So, how does one believe the Bible over secular, evolutionary-based science? Lets see how the dating methods work.

When a fossil bone is found, it has no date on it. How it is dated is usually based on what layer of rock it is found in. How the rock is dated is usually based on what fossils are found in that layer of rock. The only thing that breaks this circle are various dating methods.

Contrary to popular belief, this does not include Carbon 14 dating because Carbon 14 is only able to date things a few tens of thousands of years old. So other radioisotopes are used. There are various ones, but they all work the same. They know these isotopes break down. So they measure the amount of the first isotope (the parent) verses the amount of the second isotope (the daughter), figure out how long it takes for one to turn into the other and from that they can see how long it would take to accumulate the amount of the daughter isotope that is found in the sample. Here, let me demonstrate.

Here we have two bottles connected by two caps. These caps have a hole in the middle so when connected as shown, drops of water will pass from the top bottle to the bottom bottle. Now, we can measure how much water is in the top bottle (the parent) and how much is in the bottom bottle (the daughter). We can measure the volume of the water drop and how fast that it drops. With some simple math we can then calculate how long it would take for the amount of water measured in the bottom bottle to have dripped down from the top bottle and therefore we would know how long ago the process started. All very simple, makes sense, right? This is basically how all the dating methods work. So how is this method flawed?

Simple. Let me ask you some questions. Looking at the picture, can you tell me...
1) How much water was in the top bottle when I started?
2) How much water was in the bottom bottle when I started?
3) At any point, was any water added or removed from either bottle?
4) At any time did anything happen to change the rate of the dripping (squeezing the bottle, laying them on their side, etc) or the size of the drop (hole made bigger or blocked by something in the bottle)?

Correctly answering each of these questions is crucial to correctly calculating the time it took for the change to take place. From the sample provided, you cannot answer any of those questions. You can guess, but guessing is not science. This is the same problem secular scientists have. They first guess that the parent element was 100% and the daughter was at 0%. They then guess that nothing contaminated the specimen that might have added or taken away some of one of these elements. They then guess that nothing happened over millions and millions of years that could have changed the rate at which the conversion happened. They support these guesses by saying that in the last 50 - 75 years that these rates have been recorded, nothing has happened, but to assume that means that nothing has happened in 100 million years is not scientific.

So what happens when these methods are applied to rocks of known age? Meaning rocks newly formed in recent volcanoes? They fail 100% of the time. Secular scientists claim this is because you cannot use a test that measures by the scale of millions of years to measure something only a few thousand years old because the method would fail. However, if the entire world were only a few thousand years old as Scripture says, then dating rocks by these methods would fail exactly as observed.

Do not let scientific words like "radio-isotopic decay" and "Potassium-argon" scare you. The principles are simple, as is pointing out why they are impossible to believe. It takes far more faith to believe in the unprovable, unknowable guesses of secular scientists' than to trust God to know how He created everything.

In His service... Arthur Smith

Welcome to 'You Don't Have to Have a Ph.D.!'

2009-10-29T09:42:00.002-05:00

I want to welcome you to this exciting new ministry. Let me tell you a little about how this got started. Growing up, I was what they call a 'theistic evolutionist' which means that I believed completely in evolution, but that it was controlled by God. Why did I believe this? Because my teachers taught me about evolution and millions of years. I was just a student, they were teachers, so they obviously knew, right? And what my teachers taught me, came from text books. Obviously these text books had to be right or they wouldn't be used, right? And these text books were written by scientists with fancy letters after their names. Surely scientists were the smartest of all, right?

You see, this is a problem with the education system. In school, we are taught to memorize what is in our books so we can pass the tests and so pass the class. But what we aren't taught to do is THINK. You don't need to think about what is in the text book, you don't need to really comprehend all that is behind what is there, you only need to know what it says so you can pass the test. So most of us grow up simply believing what we are taught simply because we trust our textbooks. But what if the text books are wrong?

As I entered my 20's I got tired of simply quoting the 'icons of evolution' to creationists to prove them wrong. I wanted facts, so I went researching. It was during these next several years that I actually began to think. I went through the evolutionist's arguments, but instead of just accepting them, I tried to look for ways creationists could rightfully shoot them down. This is when I started to find out, there wasn't a single one that couldn't be shot down with only applying a small amount of God-given common sense.

And that leads us to here and to the conclusion that you don't need to be a scientist to understand the way God has designed this world. In fact, God says so when He says that all of His "invisible" ways are clearly seen so that no one, not just scientists with Ph.D.s, is with excuse. That means YOU! Yes you can easily understand science, how the universe works and see why the complicated, convoluted stories made up by evolutionary scientists simply do not fit.

Do not let them convince you that you can't understand. Do not let them convince you that you don't have enough schooling. Do not let them convince you that you are not as smart as they are. You have the same God-given brain they have been given and God promises you that you most certainly can understand all of this! All you have to do is stop simply accepting what you have been told and start thinking their claims through. But I warn you now, it will change everything!

In His service... Arthur Smith