• Controversial Subjects, Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on August 26th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    Problems With Evolution: The Gene Myth

    Problems With Evolution: The Gene Myth

    Biological variation is, in part, transmitted from parent to progeny. Tall individuals tend to have tall offspring, fast individuals tend to have fast offspring, and so forth. This transmission process is key to the action of natural selection. Those trait variations that are successful in transmitting themselves to the next generation, by definition, survived while those that failed would disappear from the population. So long as traits are transmitted, evolutionists argue that natural selection is inevitable. In other words, whatever it is that determines your traits is also transmitted to your offspring. Therefore, if you have evolutionarily successful traits then you will have more offspring, and they will receive your successful traits. But how are the traits defined and transmitted? Darwin didn’t quite know how but in the twentieth century it seemed obvious—via the genes. According to the merger of modern genetics and evolution, it was all in the genes. They determined your traits and they were passed on to your offspring. This view fit evolutionary theory and was quickly accepted as an unquestionable scientific fact.
    There is only one problem: it is false.

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on August 17th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    The Phantom Menace of Creationism

    The Phantom Menace of Creationism

    Conspiracy theorist Lauri Lebo, writing at Religion Dispatches, seeks to defend once more hercloudy thesis that by criticizing a move in Louisiana to teach creationism in public schools, Bruce Chapman revealed Discovery Institute’s secret plot to support teaching creationism in public schools. Even as conspiracy theories go, this one lacks plausibility. I wrote here earlier that Ms. Lebo, a journalist with a specialty in these issues, is presumably aware of the “enormous differences” between creationism on one hand and intelligent design (or even mere Darwin doubting) on the other. She assures us she does know the difference but there’s still no evidence of that in her latest column. Instead she thinks she has found a smoking gun, linking Discovery Institute with creationism, in our definition of intelligent design. According to the definition, the theory holds “that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

    Writes Lauri Lebo: No matter how many times they deny it, intelligent design relies on the supernatural. They can hide it in the passive voice all they want, but when you talk about an “intelligent cause” you are talking about a creator. And that makes it (wait for it) creationism.
    Actually, nothing in that definition, or in the scientific evidence, indicates the intelligent cause must be supernatural in the sense we normally give to that word. And even if the definition did speak of a “supernatural intelligent cause,” ID would not be relying on the supernatural but arguing for it.

  • Creation v. Evolution, Science

    Posted on August 3rd, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    Scientific Experiment Show Plants Have Intelligence

    Scientific Experiment Show Plants Have Intelligence

    Do plants think? They don’t have brains or even neurons. But when scientists shined a light onto a leaf at the bottom of a plant, the entire plant “knew” how to react. Their studies uncovered evidence that plants not only have complex internal interactions, but that these are remarkably well-constructed to adapt for survival. The experiments were conducted on the thale cress plant. This relative of mustard and cabbage has become a model for plant experiments and plant genetic analyses. The researchers discovered that when certain biochemicals in the leaves were stressed with excess light intensity, they initiated a cascade of chemical communication that coursed through the whole plant along bundle sheath cells.
    These cells have long been known as photosynthetically active and tightly arranged around leaf veins. Thus, these cells pull at least quadruple duty: they protect leaf veins, support leaf structure, perform photosynthesis, and transmit electrochemical signals that activate specific biochemical switches in cells throughout the plant. Curious as to how the leaf collected the light data from its environment, translated it into relevant information, and then transmitted that information to the rest of the plant, the researchers tried to track plant responses that occurred in the dark after all experimental lights were turned off. Researcher Stanislaw Karpinski, of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Poland, toldBBC News that “the changes proceeded when the light was off… This was a complete surprise.”1

  • Bible Studies, Creation v. Evolution, Rob Robinson

    Posted on June 23rd, 2010

    Written by Rob Robinson

    Tags

    ,

    Creation v. Evolution Problems

    Creation v. Evolution Problems

    It is a mistake for Christians to compromise in the area of Creation v Evolution. Even worse is to ignore the issues of creationism and evolution and pretend that they do not matter. Our nation was founded on Creation principles and it was taught in every school. Today evolution is taught in nearly every school, it dominates in the opinions of the media and every public institution. If you believe in Creationism, you are viewed as a right wing religious fanatic. The teaching of evolution has spread secular humanism faster than any other method that is used. First of all, Evolution is not science, it is really Philosophy or Religion. Evolutionist admit that no one has ever observed real evolution ever take place. (from one creature to a more complex creature) Many thousands of animals have become extinct in the last few thousand years but not one new animal has evolved. Evolutionists believe that this process of evolving took place millions of years ago and cannot be observed today. Unfortunately, none of these theories can be tested or proven, that is why evolution is not science, it is theory.

  • Archeology, Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on June 23rd, 2010

    Written by Rob Robinson

    Tags

    ,

    Ancient Man No Different From Modern Man

    Ancient Man No Different From Modern Man

    In this interesting study from the National Academy of Science, studies show that in comparing the DNA of ancient man with the DNA of modern man, there is very little difference. This would be impossible if the Theory of Evolution were true. As there has never been found any transitional species in the fossil record, there is now conclusive evidence that there is also no evolutionary process in the development of man. The facts of science are that man today is virtually identical with the first man. This means that human beings did not evolve from apes and give strong evidence that man was created fully formed by an intelligent being.

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on June 4th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    If Evolution is True, How Could the Human Brain Evolve?

    If Evolution is True, How Could the Human Brain Evolve?

    Question: The human brain is extremely complex. It is noted that we only use a portion of its capabilities. From an evolutionary standpoint, why and how would such a complex organ evolve? I would think evolution would produce a brain that is used to 70-90% of total capacity, yet ours are not. Is this an erroneous assumption? Is it a valid statement that when God created us, Adam was using much more of his brain than we are today?

  • Creation v. Intelligent Design, Science and the Bible

    Posted on May 27th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    “Artificial Life” or Intelligently Designed Plagiarism?

    “Artificial Life” or Intelligently Designed Plagiarism?

    The operative phrase above is, “They copied this code.” Venter and his team showed they can successfully identify the code necessary for a living bacterial cell. They sequenced the code, imported the code into a computer, and then outputted it. But we still don’t even understand how all the parts of a bacterial cell work. As biochemist Russell Doolittle wrote in a Nature paper titled “Microbial genomes multiply”:
    in each of the completely sequenced genomes so far there are vast numbers of putative genes for proteins of unknown function. It is precisely this point – the large number of putative genes with no known function – that has been the biggest surprise in genome sequencing…In every genome examined so far, at least a quarter of the genes remain ‘hypothetical,’ in that no function can be ascribed. After such a long history of biochemical and genetic examination, how could there be so much in the way of unknown equipment?
    Learning how to import the right code from a bacterial chromosome into a new bacterial chromosome doesn’t mean we fully understand all aspects of the code or the proteins and structures it encodes.

  • Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on May 23rd, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    A Hairy Evolution Story

    A Hairy Evolution Story

    May 20, 2010 — A mammal hair was found in amber. It is claimed to be 100 million years old, but it is identical to modern mammal hair. What is the meaning of this find? How should it be interpreted? It may say more about the modern evolutionist than about evolution itself.
    New Scientist told the story. The title read like a crime scene: “CSI 100 million years BC: oldest mammalian hair found.” Romain Vullo at the University of Rennes I in France discovered the hair in a piece of amber (petrified tree sap) in southern France. This is the oldest sample of mammal hair ever found, the article said.

  • Archeology, Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on March 9th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    Ancient Primate Fossil Roils Scientific Community

    Ancient Primate Fossil Roils Scientific Community

    (March 5) –Touted as “the missing link” between humans and early primates, a 47-million-year-old fossil appears to be an ancestor to lemurs instead, a newly released study says. The debate, however, seems far from over, and it illuminates the often tricky relationship between science and the media.
    Last spring, when Norwegian paleontologist Jorn Hurum and his colleagues announced the unveiling of “Ida,” an unusually complete prehistoric primate fossil, it was portrayed in newspaper and television reports as a blockbuster discovery nothing short of an “eighth wonder of the world” that would offer a look at one of mankind’s earliest evolutionary ancestors.

  • Creation v. Evolution, Creation v. Intelligent Design

    Posted on January 6th, 2010

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    A Look at What Darwin Got Wrong

    A Look at What Darwin Got Wrong

    For many years, Jerry Fodor has been an outspoken critic of Darwinian reasoning in cognitive science and the philosophy of mind / language. As a graduate student, I saw him present a colloquium on these topics, in front of a semi-hostile audience, and admired his bravado in refusing to kneel before the Altar of Darwin. Sorry if that language seems over the top, but after the end of the Darwin Year, the steady worshipful attitude towards old Charles has finally got to me.
    Now, in the wake of his controversial and much discussed London Review article, Fodor — along with cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini — has made his arguments fully general inWhat Darwin Got Wrong.

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on December 13th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    The Darwin Myth

    The Darwin Myth

    In nine highly readable chapters The Darwin Myth takes its reader from Darwin’s boyhood of wealth and privilege, to his brief stint in theology school, his quest for adventure, and the development of his “one long argument” that would form the remainder of his life’s work. This bold and uncompromising biography exposes Darwin “warts and all,” the flaws of Darwinian evolution,and the dark and disturbing consequences of a theory that easily lent itself to social Darwinism, the eugenics movement, and even Hitler’s völkisch racism.

  • Bible Prophecy Updates, Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on November 25th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    What Scientists Think About Christianity

    What Scientists Think About Christianity

    Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.

    According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

  • Archeology, Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on November 19th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    , ,

    What is the Age of the Earth?

    What is the Age of the Earth?

    The Big Bang Theory is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without the need for a Creator. One obvious difficulty with the theory is the evident order in the universe, galactic walls, precise distances of earth, sun and moon etc. that cannot have arisen from an explosion! Then the great problem of there being insufficient mass in the universe and the need to appeal to “dark matter” to account for the supposed accretion of the sub-atomic particles. Comets provide tangible evidence for a universe of limited age. Comets consist of ice and dust: Haley’s comet is a long period comet and returns to our solar system every 76 years, at which time it loops around our sun then returns to outer space. During the four to five months it remains within our solar system it loses water by sublimation at 10 tons per second leaving a trail of dust and gets visibly smaller. The fact that we see comets at all indicates just a few thousand years otherwise they would have all been used up long ago. In 1950 Jan H. Oort (1900-1992) proposed that there is a great cloud of comets beyond our solar system to account for the continuing existence of comets. There is not a shred of evidence for it.

  • Archeology, Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on November 19th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    Why Do Evolutionists Claim Billions of Years?

    Why Do Evolutionists Claim Billions of Years?

    It was assumed that the distribution of the fossils in the strata was perceived to represent a record of the evolution of life throughout earth’s history. This notion had originally been proposed by the Greeks. But it was Charles Darwin who later provided a mechanism by which one life form was believed to have become another. The multiple millions of years were equally as essential to him for his theory to work. Again, the same argument was used for the evolution of life: it all takes place so slowly that it can’t be see

  • Bible Prophecy Updates, Creation v. Evolution, Science

    Posted on November 14th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    DNA Repair Disproves Evolution

    DNA Repair Disproves Evolution

    One of the many examples of incredible complexity in biology is the DNA repair system. It is also an example of incredible complexity that appeared incredibly early in the history of life. If complexity evolves from simplicity, then it does so at an astonishing pace. As amazing as this story is, it is only the beginning. We now know that DNA’s transcript–its sister molecule RNA–has its own repair system which also must have arisen early.

    Not surprisingly the RNA repair system is immensely complex. But an interesting twist is that after the RNA molecule has been repaired it is sealed with a methyl group, making it stronger than it was in the first place.

  • Creation v. Evolution, Science and the Bible

    Posted on November 13th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    ,

    The Origin of Life

    The Origin of Life

    Origin of life: An article in Science Daily is accompanied by a picture that looks like a scene from Frankenstein. Researchers at NASA-Ames are zapping ice with ultraviolet light. The headline announces, “NASA Reproduces A Building Block Of Life In Laboratory.” What really happened was that they made uracil (one of the pyrimidines in RNA) under highly specialized conditions. It’s not really news, anyway; Jonathan Sarfati on Creation.com wrote about this 10 years ago. Nevertheless, one of the researchers fired a conclusion heard round the universe: “Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed.” They speculated that UV light shining on ices could have formed the uracil in comets, but did not explain how the “whimpy” [sic] molecules would have survived re-entry or concentrated in significant amounts to do any good.

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on November 12th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    Are Humans Evolving? Depends on Your Definition.

    Are Humans Evolving? Depends on Your Definition.

    Observable change is happening in humans, albeit slowly and only for certain traits. Scientists have tracked the histories of 14,000 residents of Framingham, Massachusetts, since 1948. Data from 2,238 females participating in the Framingham Heart Study were recently analyzed, including weight, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and number of offspring. The results suggest that a slow shift in height and weight is occurring, leading some to conclude that “evolution is still in action.”1

  • Creation v. Evolution

    Posted on November 8th, 2009

    Written by B.P.U Contributor

    Tags

    Darwin and Mathematics

    Darwin and Mathematics

    Among the mathematicians that I knew from very roughly 1970 to 1995, the general attitude toward Darwin’s theory was one of skepticism. These days, I do not get around all that much, and whatever the mathematician’s pulse, I do not have my finger on it. But the reactions of which I speak were hardly surprising. Until recently, mathematicians have been skeptical of any discipline beyond mathematics, and I say until recently because attitudes as well as times have changed.

    In talking of the mathematician’s skepticism, I mentioned Von Neumann because his name was widely known. I might have mentioned Gian-Carlo Rota. He despised the enveloping air of worship associated with Darwin; he thought biology primitive and dishonest.

    How do I know this? I know it because we were close friends, and because he said so. He said so to me.

  • Older Posts Yeah! There are more posts, check them out.