“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

- Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, p. 159

added 4/29/10 - THE SUN:  Nasa: Evidence of Life on Mars

A common trick of the media is to state what is essentially a lie in the title of an article, so that when people are perusing articles, it might catch their attention.  It is only when you read the actual content of the article that you realize the title was a lie.

The problem with this is that some people don't actually read the article, and then think the headline is true.  The media at large pushes atheism, Marxism, and statism with vigor, and whether consciously or not, they lie to the public with misleading titles in order to support those agendas.

In the case of this article, you might see the headline and think, "oh, NASA officially discovered life on Mars!  How profound!"

But if you actually read the article, you find the source of the misleading headline:

“The recent missions have gathered evidence of sulphates on Mars, a strong indication there is water on the planet and therefore life.”

So, NASA found sulphates... inorganic material.  An example of a sulphate is sodium sulphate, or NA2SO4.

So this article is relaying that since we found sulphate, which is a simple inorganic substance, there must have been water, another simple inorganic substance (H2O), which means there must be life, which at minimum requires hundreds of book pages of genetic code and is more complex than the space shuttle they used to get to Mars.

How stupid is this?

That would be like saying where there is copper, there are super computers.

Idiots.

For a good book on the complexity of life, read Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer.

added 3/4/08 - You are trying to convince people that evolution is not a fact, but why should we accept your creation story instead of any of the other creation story myths that have been available over recorded history?

Darwin’s theory of evolution is one of the creation story myths you have alluded to, so hopefully this concept shall be grasped by those able to dictate what is allowed to be spoken in schools.  Since Darwin’s evolution myth is taught in our public education system, it is what bears the burden of needing to demonstrate evidence for itself.  Since, after 150 years of trying, it has failed miserably in explaining the origin of life, being stretched to the point of breaking in attempt to somehow fit the incompatible evidence, alternatives are bound to begin coming to the forefront.  Thanks for pointing that out.

I would also point out that the "creation story" i believe is in the unique position of being a history book which has endured throughout all of recorded history, that begins with the creation of the world, and still survives today due to support from empirical data.  That does not exactly come along very often.

added 2/12/08 - Today is Darwin’s Birthday!

Today, around the world, Darwin’s disciples are celebrating the birth of a famous white supremacist and atheist that has people believing that life has no meaning and that lizards morph into elephants!  How cute.  In the spirit of famous birthdays, we have listed a few Darwin followers’ birthdays that we all can look forward to!  Since we will surely receive hate mail for this (haha), we will point out this in advance: all of these infamous Darwinists operated WITHIN the moral guidelines and teachings of Darwinism and atheism.  In fact, in some cases they were doing exactly what Darwin said to do.  (see quote above)

When someone who is a Christian does something that harms another individual, they are doing so by going AGAINST the moral guidelines and teachings of Christianity, and therein lies the stark difference.  Think about what would happen if everyone lived a life of following Christ, putting other people ahead of yourself... versus everyone living a life of following Darwin, struggling for their own survival and assuming survival of the fittest applied on a global scale with no ultimate consequence.

Get out your party hats, these Darwinist birthdays are right around the corner.

Karl Marx: Born May 5th, 1818.  “Spiritual Father” of the communist system, he wrote that Darwin’s book contained the basis for their views.

Vladimir Lenin: Born April 10, 1870.  Disciple of Marx, outspoken atheistic evolutionist and hater of Christianity.

Leon Trotsky: Born November 7, 1879.  Said “Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.”

Lenin and Trotsky are well known for their mass executions, death camps, and government-caused famine.  They took over power of Russia in 1917, and quenched uprisings of peasants with chemical weapons and the burning of villages.  During their reign of power they killed millions of men, women, and children.

Joseph Stalin: Born December 21, 1879.  Reportedly becoming an atheist after reading Darwin, he is estimated to have killed upwards of 40 million men, women, and children, mostly his own citizens.

Mao Zedong: Born December 26, 1893.  His favorite authors were Darwin and Darwin’s disciple, Huxley.  With his attempt to create another communist utopia and acts of genocide, he is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 30-40 million men, women and children.

Adolf Hitler: Born April 20, 1889.  The complete title of Darwin’s most infamous book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  Hitler’s idea of racial supremacy and global genocide came straight out of Darwin’s teachings (see quote at top), and his book, Mein Kampf (which means “My Struggle”) spoke of evolution, survival of the fittest, and creating a supreme, master race, just as Darwin wrote of the “civilized” races that would exterminate the “savage” ones.  Darwin’s disciples angrily and passionately try to disassociate Hitler’s ideas from Darwin’s, but both believed in a superior race, both believed in exterminating the inferior races in the name of evolution, both advocated the survival and breeding of the strong, and both considered all other races of humans to be lower on an evolutionary scale than Caucasians.  Hitler is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people through war, death camps, mass executions, and attempted genocide.

As the above historical figures illustrate, a world by the morals (or complete lack thereof) of atheism inevitably leads to a perception of no ultimate consequence, grab-power-if-you-can mentality.  They all operated with no morals, within the views of Darwinism and atheism.  Looking back at these periods of massive violence, ushered in as Darwinism became popular, one wonders how anyone could be an advocate for a world without any type of moral center.

Happy birthday, Chuck.

added 1/28/08 - *News Story* - “Md. Scientists Build Bacterial Chromosome”

“Scientists in Maryland yesterday said they had built from scratch an entire microbial chromosome, a loop of synthetic DNA carrying all the instructions that a simple cell needs to live and reproduce.”  (story by Rick Weiss, Washington Post 1/25/08)

“The feat marks the first time that anyone has made such a large strand of hereditary material from off-the-shelf chemical ingredients. Previous efforts had yielded DNA strands less than one-twentieth the size, and those pieces lacked many of the key biological programs that tell a cell how to stay alive.”

What an ignorant, misleading headline.  Anyone scanning the news would get the impression that scientists were able to build a portion of DNA from scratch, using chemicals.  In reality, if you read the entire article, you’d find that they just bought DNA that already existed, and cut & stitched parts of it, rendering the DNA less functional than the Mycoplasma genitaliu bacterium they modeled it after.  The headline and opening paragraph would be more accurate if they read:

“Scientists spend a great deal of money to purchase DNA that already existed.”

Scientists purchased DNA and then screwed around with it, accomplishing absolutely nothing that will benefit anyone, since this has been done before.  The DNA they ended up with is less functional than the original.  Scientists hope that by continuing these experiments of cutting parts of existing DNA out of a microbial chromosome in a bacterium, human error will eventually lead to a new type of incurable disease. 

If someone wanted to make an apple pie from scratch, they would not simply cut pieces out of another apple pie, omit a couple pieces, and put most of the pieces back together in a different dish.  Someone else would’ve had to make the original pie for you to do that.  Sadly, it’s apparent that you could find many news outlets to put such an “accomplishment” on the front page.

elaborated 1/14/08 - Why do bad things happen to good people if God exists?

Well, actually, the Bible points out specifically that life will not be perfect.  Not a chance.  There's going to be struggle, strife, sadness, and challenges all throughout life.  There will be good times too though, of course. 

The Earth originally was perfect.  God gave humans everything they could ever need, with no death or suffering; a perfect, immortal life.  But eventually, humans weren’t content to just accept what God had given them, and sought to be like God, knowing everything - the original sin.  And since man first rejected God’s word through sin, humans also essentially rejected God’s perfection in the world He created, bringing death and suffering into the world.  This state of a fallen perfection continues through this day.  But, God has forgiven us through Jesus.  All we have to do is admit the sins we have done and ask sincerely for forgiveness, as we turn away from our sins, looking to Jesus Christ as the model of perfection who reconciles us to God if we believe in him.  And as you look to Jesus you can’t help but want to bring that same love to others on Earth, knowing that there is a constant battle with those who reject God and want purposelessness and despair to dominate the globe.

Perhaps an illustration would also help.  Let’s say that there are parents who have a child, and they wanted to give that child a perfect life, and everything he asks for or needs he will receive, as long as he follows the rules his parents established.  If the child breaks the rules, should the parents continue to give him everything he asks for?  If the parents continued to give the child everything he wanted, even when he breaks the rules, wouldn’t the child be in control?  The child would be setting the standards according to his own will while the parents simply supply him with the objects of his imperfect desires.  Likewise, if God created humans, and we broke his rules, how could we ever expect to have a perfect, struggle-free life?

It should also be noted that most “bad things” are the direct result of someone bringing sin into the world today, not just a result of the fall of perfection.  Murder, theft, rape, societal injustices, many medical problems, and hate, among many others, are all the results of people who live in the present and choose to allow sin to work through them, hurting other people in the process.  How many problems would vanish if everyone at least attempted to act as Jesus told us to act?

The original sin reminds us of the state of violence in public schools.  Society continually seeks to ban God from public view and replace it with a pagan mythology (evolution) that proposes that death and suffering itself brought man into the world, and falsely promises that humans will eventually know as much as God if they ignore God and follow Darwin.  What else can we expect but an increase in death and suffering, as students show up to schools and campuses with guns and act like the purposeless collections of matter that their science teachers tell them they are?

Download the Bible Here

added 1/14/08 - Thoughts regarding the “Darwin Fish” found on the backs of atheists’ cars:

These days, atheists like to proclaim their faith in the mythological fantasy known as Darwin’s theory of evolution.  And so, many atheists now put a decoration on the rears of their vehicles that is a fish with legs, with the word DARWIN inside of it.  This is strikingly ironic and humorous for a number of reasons, but is sad at the same time.

Evolutionists, who believe that fish sometimes accidentally grow legs and walk onto land where they then reside, often put a fish with legs on the back of their car so that other motorists know what they believe.  The funny thing is, proof for the existence of a fish with legs is non-existent, and is precisely what evolutionists are desperately searching for but cannot find.  They cannot find the proof necessary for their beliefs to be true, and for some odd reason, put one of the many mythical transitional creatures on the back of their car, proclaiming to the world: “I believe in mythical creatures, and look to the white supremacist Charles Darwin for guidance!”  It is ironic that evolutionists would display a prominent reminder of their complete lack of evidence in public view, with Darwin’s name inside of something that is not known to have ever existed.  It is however also sad, because one can’t help but want to pray for those people to someday let go of their disdain for God, and experience freedom from the pagan religion known as Darwinism... that has them unscientifically believing that their ancestors are mythical creatures that they will never be able to find any remnant of.

added 12/16/07 - "Well, a leap of faith... you don't actually need a leap of faith... you... you're the one who needs a leap of faith because you're actually.... you have... the onus is on you to say why you d--... you believe in something."  - Richard Dawkins, stuttering (uninterrupted) to Bill O'Reilly, after Bill O'Reilly suggested that atheism requires a leap of faith.

How dare someone call atheism a faith based religion, aye Richard?  So Richard, you're saying that even though society tries to indoctrinate everyone into believing that life was an accident, and that bacteria morph into elephants, the burden of proof is on those who believe in God, who's beliefs are not currently allowed in the public square?  That makes tons of sense.  (disclaimer: sarcasm)

"if you look at the history of science over centuries.... the amount that is gained in knowledge each century is stupendous."  - Richard Dawkins to Bill O'Reilly, after Bill O'Reilly suggested that atheists don't know everything.

The more we learn about biological functions, the more complex we realize those biological functions are.  The more complex we realize every living organism is, the less likely it is that those mechanisms arrived via unguided, mindless processes.  Richard Dawkins is funny when questioned about this.  When he is confronted with the notion that evolution is accidental or random, he acts offended, and states that evolution is anything but random, citing natural selection as the disqualifier.  Well Richard, we know that natural selection happens, but unfortunately all it can do is select from among what is already there.  Indeed natural selection is not random.  However, the imaginary process that you claim causes the biological functions to appear in the first place, according to evolutionary belief, is indeed random, unguided, and mindless, and those biological functions in living organisms have to be there before natural selection can select from anything.  To suggest that atheistic evolution has no randomness to it, and to act shocked when someone suggests it, is absurd.  Darwin was able to get away with suggesting that life could originate from blobs of protoplasm, because they hadn't discovered DNA yet, nor knew the complexities awaiting to be discovered.  As science moves forward, so does the evidence for a Creator.  That is why the atheists' only defense is the control of information, via societal institutions with vast resources.  If all the cards were on the table, many people might abandon Darwinism altogether.

Richard Dawkins recognized that there was money and fame to be had by writing books denouncing God to promote beliefs based on the fables of evolutionists.  A quick way to become rich and famous in today's world indeed.

added 11/27/07 - Do you think that the book of Revelation, specifically chapter 13, is talking about Darwin and evolution?

Revelation is a difficult book to study, since it refers to many things that may or may not have happened yet.  Admiral Robert FitzRoy, captain of the very HMS Beagle that carried Darwin on his famous expedition, in discussing the matter with Sir David Brewster, referred to Darwin’s religion of evolution as “the beast rising out of the sea... opening his mouth in blasphemy against God.”  Admiral Robert FitzRoy, a respected scholar, later became a vocal opponent of Darwin’s newly concocted religion.  So, was he right?

Rather than claim to interpret the Book of Revelation perfectly, we will simply state the available facts and let the readers decide... regarding coincidences between Revelation 13, Darwin, and evolution, in case you haven’t come across them before. 

Rev. 13:1-  “... and I saw a beast coming out of the sea...”

Evolutionary belief has people believing that fish morphed into lizards as they evolved out of the sea, en route to becoming land mammals.  Coincidentally, that same passage mentions that the beast had various parts resembling various land mammals.

Rev. 13:3-4-  “... The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, ‘Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?’”

Obviously, societal institutions in general follow and believe in evolution, and defend it with vigor as if it is their sacred cow.  They ridicule anyone who presents facts or scientific study that may cause others not to believe in evolution. 

Rev 13:5-  “The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.”

According to Darwin’s journal, he began writing his “species sketch” on May 14, 1856, at the advice of Charles Lyell.  That was the beginning of writing his book, Origin of Species, which was published in November 24 of 1859; forty-two months later.  Darwin mysteriously became very, very ill by the end of the forty-two months, with frequent stomach pains and fits of vomiting.

Rev. 13:11-13-  “Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.”

Some would suggest that the second beast would be Darwin & Lyell’s followers that linger to this day, spreading their beliefs wherever possible.  Humans now are able to cause fire to come down from the sky on television... i.e. space shuttles, missiles, etc.  While these are the results of scientific discovery and accumulation of knowledge, unfortunately people are trying to create an association between atheism and science, citing Darwin as one of the great scientists of all time.  Then, when Darwinism is questioned, people ask, “How can you question Darwin?  Should we abandon science altogether?  Look at everything science has accomplished!”  In reality, he just gave life to an atheistic origins belief.  No scientific discovery or technological breakthrough has ever been dependent on the belief that fish accidentally morph into cheetahs.

Rev 13:18-  “This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.”

Again a disclaimer... we don’t know if this is necessarily what Revelation 13 is talking about, and that number is certainly abundant in various ways, but it is interesting considering the other coincidences.

If you assign each letter in Darwin’s name to it’s corresponding position in the alphabet (A=1, B=2, C=3), “Charles” is 66 and “Darwin” is 69.  Put the numbers next to each-other and you have 6669.  Or, just adding up “Darwin,” 6 divided by 9 is .66666.  Coincidentally, Charles Lyell, who’s books and anti-Biblical beliefs are directly credited for giving Darwin influence in his theories and directly advised Darwin to begin writing what became Origin of Species, has the total of 66 for his first, and 66 for his last name (was everyone named Charles back then?).  When Lyell died in 1875, Darwin is quoted as saying, “I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works.”

It is tricky because these events in these passages may not have happened yet.  Certainly one of the most prominent phenomenon today that causes people to doubt their faith in the “Father of Creation” (-quote, Bob Marley) is an opposing belief in a completely materialistic, atheistic origins story that is promoted by powerful institutions around the world.  Despite the difficulty in interpreting some passages, and their implications on the world:

“So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.”

- Matthew 10:26

For another interesting perspective on the Book of Revelation, see:

Total Onslaught - Professor Walter J. Veith Phd.

added 11/27/07 - How can you believe in miracles, such as those believed by Christians, that defy the laws of nature and science as we know it?

Do you think atheism is devoid of any belief in “miracles?”  You used the term “as we know it.”  Atheists believe in many things they don’t know, that quite frankly defy the laws of science and nature as we know it.  Have you ever seen life form?  Undoubtedly, whether you believe in God or not, that event was a miracle that went beyond what we understand.  Did anyone witness the solar system, or for that matter, the universe form?  Do you think think the formation of the universe is confined to the laws of science that we understand?  Where did the matter for the universe come from, that atheists suggest accidentally designed us?  If then, we KNOW that certain events took place that we do not understand “scientifically,” how could a person NOT believe in “miracles?”

One miracle we have a hard time believing is that of lizards morphing into humans.  Evolutionists trumpet that as a fact, with absolutely no evidence that it could occur.  Why should they be held to a lesser standard?  They are the ones teaching their religion of Godless miracles in schools, museums, magazines, television, and movies.  Shouldn’t the burden to produce evidence be placed on them once in a while?

added 10/19/07 - Bacteria adapting the capability to produce a new enzyme in order to consume nylon is proof that new information can be added randomly over time, and is an example of evolution actually happening.

In 1975, Japanese researchers discovered that Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87 were able to produce a new enzyme in order to consume nylon, a substance not previously known to these bacteria.  Is this finally an example of random, mindless mutations that evolutionists can use as support for their beliefs?

Of course not!  Would one expect any other answer?  =)  The problem for evolutionists is that researchers were able to replicate this nylon consuming adaptation repeatedly in laboratory cultures, in generations of bacteria that previously were not exposed to nylon, in just nine days(1.).  If it can be demonstrated that nylon consistently triggers a new enzyme production response in the same strain of bacteria, it becomes apparent that something in that bacteria exists, and has always existed, that allows it to produce a new enzyme when nylon is present.  And thus, it is not “random” after all.

Another thing to point out is that the bacteria in question were originally named, studied and described in the late 1800’s.  Today, millions upon millions of bacterial generations later, despite their impressively quick adaptability, they are the same organisms originally described.  How can this be so?  Shouldn’t they have “evolved” by now?  How can an organism that adapts so rapidly not change into something else?  It is because organisms are designed to adapt, within their genetic limits, without accidentally morphing into something else.  If a single celled organism can’t evolve into anything else over the course of millions and millions of generations, why do you think an ape-like creature can morph into a human in less than a million?

Of course, if an infinitely intelligent being were to create life forms to inhabit changing environments, would this Creator not allow for any adaptation whatsoever?   Or, being infinitely intelligent, wouldn’t he “program” information into the first life forms that would allow subsequent generations a little bit of variability (within limits) in case food sources or habitats change, to lower the chance of extinction?  The answer should be obvious.

Also see:  Adaptation of Bacteria Feeding on Nylon Waste

1.) Prijambada, I.D., Negoro, S., Yomo, T. and Urabe, I., Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5):2020–2022, 1995.

added 10/13/07 - As a Christian, do you think all the people who are not Christians are going to hell?

We believe that one of the worst things a Christian can do is judge or condemn other people.  More than once, we have seen people calling themselves Christians on TV being asked questions about their beliefs.  They were asked that same question in similar words, and some said “yes” without blinking.  That type of mentality makes us want to throw up.  Jesus came out against judgementalism repeatedly.  Does anyone think they will bring love to Earth by blatantly condemning and judging people like that?  That’s not ours to decide... all we can do is help and pray for those if we feel they need it.

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:  “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people- robbers, evildoers, adulterers- or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’  But the tax collector stood at a distance.  He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.  For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Luke 18:9-14

added 9/30/07 - "Animal rights activists are campaigning to get a 26 year old chimpanzee legally declared a person.  The one remaining obstacle?  It’s not."  - Seth Meyers, Saturday Night Live News Update

We just thought that was funny!  

But sadly, evolutionists actually believe the chimp’s descendants could be people someday.  And don’t tell them that Lucy isn’t a human, because then you’ll really offend them!

added 7/15/07 - *News Story* - "Butterflies fast forward evolution to evade death"

There was an exciting story in the world of evolutionary belief that has all the evolutionists excited, yet again.  From MSNBC:

A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.

The proportion of male Blue Moon butterflies dropped to a precarious 1 percent as the parasite targeted males. Then, within the span of a mere 10 generations, the males evolved an immunity that allowed their population share to soar to nearly 40 percent — all in less than a year.

“We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds or thousands of years," said study team member Gregory Hurst, a Darwin disciple at the University College London. "But the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time."

The Darwin disciples believe the males developed genes that hold a male-killing microbial parasite, called Wolbachia, at bay.

Wow!  Sounds like evolution, the savior of Darwinians, is at work in all of its glory!  Unfortunately, logic may ruin their day.

You see, what we know from this article is that the bacteria only tended to kill the males, while also living inside females' reproductive cells.  The bacteria didn't kill the females, it just got passed on to the next generation of butterflies. 

That means that females were already immune to the bacteria, and thus the immunity was already present in the butterfly species... it just wasn't a trait often displayed by males over the past decade.  And of course, SOME males were able to fight off the bacteria, since obviously the bacteria didn't kill ALL of the males, just most of them.

Since (again) it is obvious that the immunity was already present in AT LEAST the females, there is nothing to suggest any new genetic information was added to the genome of these butterflies.  It looks like random, information-gaining mutations are still as lacking as the ever elusive "missing links" (non-existent evidence).

It is funny how quick evolutionists rush to declare evidence for their religion.  If an animal adapts resistance to a bacteria or virus, is that evolution?  Every time you get a cold your body adapts resistance to that strain as it fights it off.  Are you evolving within your own lifetime, or simply using the immune system already present in your DNA?  Would God have designed living creatures without any ability to fight off or become immune to bacteria? 

It is astonishing what so many "scientists" today consider "science."

added 4/30/07 - *News Story* - “T. Rex is a Distant Relative of the Chicken, Say Scientists”

“Protein extracted from a 68-million year old Tyrannosaurus rex bone has provided further evidence of a direct evolutionary line between dinosaurs and birds.”

In 2005, a study in a journal called Science documented the discovery of unfossilized tissue from a Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Using this T. Rex tissue, it was possible to compare protein sequences of the extinct dinosaur against other animals in the database.  It was found that of all the animals in the database, the Tyrannosaurus Rex most closely matched the protein sequence of a chicken, being 58% similar.  Evolutionists have concluded that this is another link supporting the idea that lizards evolved into birds.

While that is certainly an interesting belief, here is what the evolutionists, science journals, newspapers, and educational institutions will never tell you, or ever mention for that matter:

- The T. Rex protein sequence was 51% similar to frogs and newts

- Human protein sequence is 81% similar to frogs

- Using the same comparison, humans are 97% similar to cows

1. -Not all animals are in the sequence database
   

(Asara, J.M., Schweitzer, M.H., Freimark, L.M., Phillips, M., and Cantley, L.C., 2007, Protein sequences from mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass spectrometry, Science 316(5822): 280–285)

Can you say “junk science?”

And so, using evolutionist logic, we can infer that humans are more closely related in the fable of evolution to frogs than the T. Rex is to a chicken.  But wait a minute... they say that 58% similarity is “a direct evolutionary line!”  Wow, at 97%, that means Darwinists must believe that people must have been cows not too long ago!  Where are all the transitional fossils between Tyrannosaurus Rex and a chicken? 

Isn’t that fascinating?  Evolutionists, along with news organizations, tell only a fraction of the actual facts in order to make people have faith in the religion of evolution, because they know that 100% of the facts will expose their use of faulty logic.  Another thing they don’t tell anyone is that every scientist knows that there is NO WAY a protein sequence, such as the one discovered, could have been as intact as it is for 68 million years! 

Here are some additional resources:

Tyrannosaurus rex:  a big chicken?

Ancient Fossils with Preserved Soft Tissues and DNA

added 4/24/07 - "...You must have a mental disability to not realize the horrors that have been the result of any given creator-based religion. I noticed that most of your arguments demonstrated clouded judgment that was probably a result of intense bias on behalf of conventional religious philosophy.

[ Wow, a mental disability... thank you for that!  Have you considered it is possible that evolutionists exhibit clouded judgement as a result of intense bias on behalf of atheistic religious philosophy... ? 

Atheism is a religion, and evolution is its origins story.  There is a huge element of faith to it.  You have to believe a whole series of completely unscientific, totally unprovable things to believe in Darwinism.  Christianity certainly has an element of faith to it, but at least they admit it!  Atheists pretend evolution is science, and then try to teach it to schoolchildren.  ]

Here are some of the obvious consequences of the mistakes of religion:

[ When you say religion, I assume you're excluding the religion of evolution ]

1. Virtually ALL terrorist organizations

[ Terrorists are filled with hate, and dedicate their lives to death in an attempt to bring hell to as many people on Earth as possible.  Does that sound like something God wants in his Creation?  We tend to believe that God rather wants people to bring a bit of Heaven to Earth, to as many people as possible. ]

2. Virtually ALL major wars (including unnecessary instances of slaughter that were justified by assuming that whoever prevailed was obviously in God's favor).

[ Can you find any teachings of Jesus that would endorse any kind of slaughter?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in Heaven.  He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous...”

Matthew 5:43-45

You are right, there have been many wars based on religion.  Even though "virtually all" is a bit misleading, it is true that one of the largest wars in history was  indeed instigated by a very religious man.  Adolf Hitler was a very strong believer in the religion of evolution, and tried to apply Charles Darwin's teachings of racial supremacy on a global scale through genocide.  ]

3. Creator-based religions support a moral-dichotomy doctrine. Thinking in

black/white, good/evil has justified countless horrors, including the

A. African slave trade

B. Once again, virtually ALL major wars (surely you would agree that the

absence of a moral dichotomy would make killing the enemy feel like murder,

which is what it actually is).

C. ALL acts of hate, prejudice, and racism. "

[ A. Charles Darwin, the founder of the religion of evolution (Darwinism), thought that white people were more evolved than black people, and that certain “civilized races” would exterminate the more “savage races:”

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”

- Charles Darwin, 1896, in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex

Is it any wonder where Hitler got his ideas?  Anyone who believes the Bible knows that all humans were created equal by God.  The African slave trade was another example of bringing death and all kinds of sin into the world, certainly something we all know God does not want as part of his Creation.  

B. That is interesting that you mention murder, because if we are just inanimate matter that accidentally turned into people like Darwinists believe, floating around in a universe that accidentally created itself out of nothing, why does life even matter?  What is life, if ultimately you believe we descended from something that is not alive?  What makes murder wrong?  Joseph Stalin believed in evolution and didn't think murder was wrong.  Hitler believed in evolution and didn't believe murder was wrong.  In fact, killing and death is the cornerstone of the religion of evolution.  The strong are supposed to kill the weak, and then the fittest survive, right?  That's all Hitler was thinking.  Can you find any teachings of Jesus that would suggest that life doesn't matter, or that murder is justifiable?

C. When you say ALL acts of hate, prejudice, and racism are caused by religion, we would disagree with that.  All of those things are actually the result of sin....

pride (i am better than them)

envy (i want what he has)

desire (if i had that, i'd be happy)

anger (i want to destroy something to make myself feel better)

greed (i want more, and I will take from others to get it)

lust (i want that, and i will hurt someone to get it)  ]

Nobody is perfect.  Christians aren't perfect, atheists aren't perfect, Muslims aren't perfect.  But luckily God forgives us for this, and all we have to do is acknowledge him by thanking the only one in history that actually was perfect.  Pretty good deal, huh?  Check out the New Testament, it's all in there.  =)

added 1/28/07 - How could the Universe and the Earth only be several thousand years old if stars are billions of light years away, and their light has reached Earth, despite taking billions of years to get here?

I love this question, because it is a good one, and it comes up occasionally.  Obviously, if we can see stars, and it should take their light billions of years to reach Earth, how can the universe be less than 10,000 years old?

First off, it is worth noting that just because a human doesn't know how God did something, it doesn't mean it’s impossible.  The things humans don't understand absolutely dwarf the amount of things we do.  For instance, scientists do not know why gravity exists, despite dealing with it on a daily basis; all we know for sure is that mass is attracted to mass, and there are various laws on how it affects objects.  We do not, however, know WHY mass is attracted to mass. 

For the starlight question, there are a number of valid theories.  The one we tend to subscribe to is the one that points out that time is not a universal constant... two objects in two locations can be experiencing different rates of time.  Time isn't understood very well by modern scientists, other than the fact that it "exists," and has a role along with space, light, and gravity.  “Rates” of time are affected by both gravity and speed.  If time exists, and if 2 objects can be running at different rates of time in different locations, then obviously God could have controlled it while doing something as spectacular as creating the Universe.  If he could control it, why couldn't it be theorized that the Earth was running on a slower "clock" than distant stars in the universe during the week of creation, allowing time for the starlight to reach Earth? 

Oh, and by the way (added 12/18/07), the current estimated diameter of the observable universe is 156 billion light years, meaning that we can see an estimated 78 billion light years away.  Atheist scientists believe that the universe is around 14 billion years old.  So yes, ironically, secular astronomers believe that light that should’ve taken 78 billion years to reach Earth arrived in less than 14 billion years.  Pretty much the same “problem,” isn’t it?  Secular astronomers better be careful... if they start looking for a solution to their own starlight time travel problem they might just confirm the Bible.  And if they did, would they tell anybody?

For a more detailed (and scientific) explanation, check out the very interesting pdf: A New Cosmology: Solution to the Starlight Travel Time Problem

added 1/28/07 - It seems like Christians hate gay people.  I would not join any religion that made you hate anybody.

If there is a Christian that hates anybody, regardless of their deeds, they are not following all the teachings of Jesus.  But as we know, nobody is perfect.  Some people get caught up in the sin of hating other people, and hopefully they ask God for the strength to overcome that.  Everything Jesus spoke of endorsed love, compassion, pity, and forgiveness, so someone who judges others is no better than those they are judging.  It is common to be disgusted or appalled by sin, but you shouldn’t hate the person for it, because everyone sins. 

Also, if you are looking for someone to represent Christianity, it would be best to look at Jesus, and hopefully Christians can do a better job of representing his teachings.

added 1/28/07 - You don't believe the eye could have evolved, and yet we see animals in nature that live in dark environments that are blind, but have non-functioning eyes.  How can you not see that these "albino" animals evolved over time?  Their ancestors used to have eyes, but as they evolved they became vestigial because they weren't ever used.

If the animal used to have eyes, and now doesn't, that sounds like a loss of function, doesn't it?  As an evolutionist you need to try and figure out how the eye formed in the first place, and figure out how the DNA programmed itself via mindless process for such a complex mechanism.  And yes, of course an animal can lose function in an organ if it doesn't use something for generations, but that's not going to explain how the organ got there in the first place, or change a fish into a giraffe like evolutionists believe.

That brings up another point - vestigial organs.  Evolutionists like to pretend that lots of things are vestigial, meaning that they lost function over time as their use decreased, but are still physically present in a species.  Over time, the list of “vestigial” organs in the human body continues to be eliminated as we learn about their function.  They used to think the appendix was vestigial, but obviously we now know that it fights infection and contributes to the immune system.  But even if we find an organ that has no purpose, like eyes in a blind cave animal, that is an example of degeneration, or loss of information/function, and doesn’t explain how the organ got there in the first place.  Thus, the finding of vestigial organs doesn’t support the religion of Darwinism in the least.

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam."  - Rosie O'Donnell

Radical Muslims take all of Mohammed's teachings literally. For instance:

Koran 8.12-  When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

A muslim taking that literally would cut off heads of non-muslims.  I would challenge the lovely former actor Ms. O'Donnell to find a single word Jesus ever said that would endorse violence or hate.  Jesus taught , among other things, to love your enemies, and to forgive anyone who wrongs you.  Anyone who commits violence in the name of religion may call themselves Christians, but their hate would be going against every value of it. 

Watch out for those radical Christians!  If they do everything Jesus said, they might give money to charity or build a house for the homeless! 

There's no way ALL of the varieties of people and animals today could be descendants of what fit on the Ark, if there was really a global flood.

And yet evolutionists believe that all the varieties of people and animals today descended from inanimate chemicals.  How ironic.

Evolutionists believe that pineapples, giraffes, goldfish, and eagles all had a single common ancestor, but scoff at the idea that thousands of kinds of animals on an ark are the ancestors of everything today.  Let us ponder this for a moment.

The Bible repeatedly says that all the KINDS (phyla?) of animals were brought onto the ark, not every VARIETY.  "Kind" would be a cat, where as "varieties" would be Persian, Siamese, Turkish Angora, Manx, etc.  The existing cat genome contains genetic information for all kinds of varieties of hair colors, traits, and habits.  The first cats created could have passed these trait varieties down throughout the generations, with different cats featuring different traits... which is how we now classify the various breeds.  As another example, humans have the capability to have various eye colors in the human genome, but a human only displays one eye color during their lifetime, despite being able to pass different eye colors down to their kids.  Some varieties of humans have higher percentage chances of passing certain eye colors on, of course.  It's all about variations in EXISTING genes; evolutionists get confused when they see an animal exhibiting a trait from their existing genetic information that is beneficial to it's survival, and think that somehow the animal added new, complex genetic code into itself in order to survive.  No complex, new genetic information has ever been added to the genome of a species (since the beginning), but virtually all species will naturally select from already existing information.  This is because God gave everything the ability to adapt using EXISTING genetic information.  Otherwise, a minor food or habitat change would cause the species to go extinct.  There are limits of course.  An insect colony may become resistant to a pesticide, but ants will never become resistant to ant poison.  Selection & variation from already existing genetic information does not explain or support the theory of evolution, also known as the "rocks to rocket scientist" theory.

Another good one... "Time + Frog = Prince"

or

“Particles to people theory”

The account of the ark also describes taking 7 of certain kinds of animals, perhaps to increase variety further.  For instance, birds probably don’t all have a common ancestor, considering the difference between penguins, hawks, and ostriches.  And no, they didn't need marine mammals, marine reptiles, fish, sharks, or insects on the ark (you think insects would go extinct from water with all the eggs those things can lay?).  They just took dogs, cats, birds, and the other KINDS of animals, as well as several people, and suddenly the Ark account is much more feasible than: "my cat, my dog, and I all descended from nitrogen!"

Flood Models and Processes

If we acknowledge God in school science classrooms, we might as well teach the flying spaghetti monster in schools too.  (Actually suggested by Bobby Henderson in 2005)

Last time I checked, there's not a 1300+ page historical book written over the course of 1600 years full of corresponding accounts of the spaghetti monster, no people witnessed miraculous works of a spaghetti monster or wrote accurate predictive accounts of these works before they took place, and the most prominent historical being in the history of the world is not the spaghetti monster.  You cannot change your life for the better through belief in the spaghetti monster.  Also, the spaghetti monster is not real enough to have the whole world base the year around when it was born.  2007 years since what?  The birth of Jesus, of course.

However, the spaghetti monster is equal in credibility to the theory of evolution.  We have never seen evidence of either one, foolishness accompanies both (have you ever heard of Richard Dawkins?), the ideas of both were created by the whim of a single man, and neither one should be taught to children.

And so, if we teach evolution in schools, we might as well teach the flying spaghetti monster in schools too.

If God made the Universe, then where did God come from?

If the universe accidentally formed itself out of matter like evolutionists believe, where did the matter come from?

Evolutionists think they catch Christians on this one, even though the same faulty logic can be applied to their own theory of origins.  The creator of the universe is infinite... evolutionists believe it is matter, Christians know it is God.  When you believe in God, you know that he isn't restricted by bounds of time, thus making him infinite.  If you're an evolutionist, you have to believe that matter is infinite, despite being confined by time.  Or maybe matter created itself out of absolutely nothing, which would mean that we are the descendants of nothing!     Both origin theories are incomprehensible to humans; the difference is evolutionists pretend to understand it.  Christians are smart enough to know that only God can comprehend such things.

Only an evolutionist can look outside at life in nature and imagine that it all came through the mindless process of nothing.

Bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics is proof that evolution takes place in nature, and therefore discredits the idea of Creation in the Bible.

Evolutionists are often confused about this one, because they think bacteria are gaining new genetic information when they adapt to resist antibiotics.  To the contrary, bacteria become resistant through horizontal gene transfer of ALREADY EXISTING information, or a loss of information... which prevents the antibiotic from attaching properly to the bacteria.  So, using already existing information, or losing information, is how bacteria adapt.  This fails to support evolution's idea of new information being added, or how the information got there in the first place.  I would also point out that if evolution were true, bacteria should be morphing into fish any day now.  Last time I checked, all single-celled bacteria reproduce into more single-celled bacteria.  Imagine that.

Guess what - I adapted an immunity to Chicken Pox!  But dang, so did my parents.  I guess we're not evolving after all.

see also:  http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Belief in God is based on belief, not facts.  Evolution is real science.

Once upon a time in a magical land, long long ago, inanimate matter with no genetic information turned into a living organism, complete with a complex system of DNA, with genetic code that could fill over 1,000 pages!  The complex system of DNA got coded all by itself, by some unknown, unprovable process!  This first, random, living organism is far too complex for humans to replicate, but it all happened accidentally!  We have no proof that this has ever happened, of course, despite all of our scientific research.  Then, the single celled organism turned into a more complex multi-celled organism, magically, by adding even MORE complex genetic code to itself randomly!  We have no proof that this could ever happen either, despite all of the research we do on single-celled organisms, since no single-celled organism has reproduced into anything more than a single-celled organism.  Now, plants and animals are constantly adding new, complex code to themselves magically, and so fish turn into monkeys, lizards transform into birds, and cows magically morph into whales in the enchanted land called Earth!  We have no proof of any of this, but let's teach it to children in public schools and universities using everyone's tax dollars!

Yes, that sounds like science to me.

And yes, religions tend to have an element of belief to them, especially the religion of evolution.

Languages evolve, computer software evolves, businesses evolve, civilizations evolve.  Living organisms are no different.

Wow, you just named a bunch of things that were created by intelligent beings.  I guess I don't really have to argue with you there.

Just kidding, I'll argue with you a little bit.  I guess I'll start by saying:  prove it.  Here are the 3 basic phases of evolution, generally speaking.  Lets see if anyone can prove any of them actually occur.

Step 1)  Life (single-celled organism) forms from inanimate matter.  Status?  Never happened, ever, in the history of observable science.  No proof there.

Step 2)  Single-celled organisms morph into more complex, multi-celled organism.  Status?  Never happened in the history of scientific research.  Still no proof.  There’s not even such thing as a 2, 3, 4, or 5 celled organism.  (And no, colonies of like organisms don’t count)

Step 3)  Complex organisms gain new genetic information as they adapt, and increase in complexity.  Status?  Never happened, ever.  This one, however, confuses evolutionists. 

When an animal adapts to its surroundings, or displays variations in traits, they are using genetic information that already exists.  An organism carries lots of genetic information for its species with it, and passes that information down to offspring.  In fact, it carries genetic information for a variety of traits, although it doesn't necessarily display all of them itself.  For example, a brown haired woman and a black haired man can have a blonde child.  That blonde child can marry a red-head and have a black haired child.  Some humans are immune to poison ivy, but that doesn't mean all their kids will be.  However some of their grandchildren might display the trait of immunity to poison ivy.  Some humans are less than 4 feet tall, and yet two people who are less than 4 feet tall can have children that grow to be 6 feet tall.  Everyone carries variations in traits with them and passes them down, without necessarily displaying the trait themselves.  Evolutionists see adaptation or trait variances from ALREADY EXISTING information, become confused, and claim that somehow NEW information is being added to the species.  They then assume that fish morph into humans over time.  In reality, all living things use already existing information to survive in a given environment.  Often, animals and people adapt within their lifetime to changes in habitat. 

Keep an eye on that goldfish of yours, it might turn into a monkey and trash your kitchen. 

Steps 1 and 2 of evolution are completely unprovable/impossible, and evolutionists claim that step 3 happens, with absolutely no evidence of it, because they are confused.  I guess they have to pretend they have something going for them, or else they wouldn't be able to teach it in schools.

Why would God have made so many religions?  Which one is right?

God didn't make so many religions, he really only made one.  There are many forms of Christianity, but they all have the same underlying belief.  As long as you follow Jesus they are just different approaches to it, and none are necessarily wrong.  Participate in the one that helps you to stay with God.

As for all the religions of the world, guess what -  if there's free will, people can come up with all the religions they want to!  If someone says they want to worship Korgon the Magic Fire Wizard, they can say that... although it probably won't be very beneficial, or last thousands of years.  The craziest religion I've ever heard of is called Darwinism.  It's downright nutty!

see:  http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/whatis.html

*News Story* - Praying for People is Bad for Them (April 2006)

The John Templeton Foundation spent $2.4 million over a ten-year period to find out how prayer affects heart surgery patients.  The patients were divided into 3 groups:

- People who were told people would pray for them

- People who were not told people would pray for them, but were prayed for

- People who nobody prayed for

The people who were asked to pray for the heart surgery patients did not know the patients personally.  The results of the study concluded that “praying for sick strangers has absolutely no effect on their health. In fact, it found that patients who had undergone heart surgery and knew that people were praying for their recovery had more health complications as a result.”

“According to this study, we may conclude the following:

-- Praying does not help the patient at all.

-- Telling patients that people are going to pray for them does have an effect, but not a good one.”

            - Some Misled Individual, Medical News Today

Wow...  Can you imagine God looking down on this and deciding, “Well, I’m going to partake in this study to test the power of prayer with percentages.  I’ll go ahead and help the ones that are being prayed for by complete strangers, and let the poor people who nobody seems to care about suffer by themselves as a part of this disgusting test.”

I can’t imagine God thinking that either.

What kind of person expects God to be a part of some idiotic experiment to test prayer?  Are these people serious???  They tell groups of people to go pray for someone they don’t know...  “but don’t pray for the people in group C, they are not to be prayed for when undergoing this life-threatening heart surgery.  We are going to test prayer using focus groups and percentages, so they will be left to fend for themselves.”  Is this not the dumbest thing anyone has ever heard of?  Why would God NOT help the people used as guinea pigs, that nobody else cared to pray for?  And what if someone was praying for people in the “non-prayed for” group, without telling the people running this ridiculous test?  SO STUPID.

There is a perfect passage in the Bible addressing such ridiculous things:

Then [Satan] brought [Jesus] to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. For it is written:  ‘He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”

And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been said, ‘You shall not test the Lord your God.’”

Luke 4:9-12

If Jesus told Satan not to test God, maybe these misled individuals shouldn’t either.

________________________________

Also check out http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp.  There’s enough information and links there to scientifically refute any claim of an evolutionist.

** Videos **

Expelled the Movie with Ben Stein (Watch the Trailer)

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 1 of 6

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 2

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 3

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 4

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 5

The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 6

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 1 of 7

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 2

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 3

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 4

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 5

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 6

Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 7

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

http://www.illustramedia.com/productions.htm