Sunday, April 06, 2014

Evolution Facts


Modern scientists all over the world are now side stepping the origin debate due to the vast discoveries that point to the necessity of an intelligent and caring Creator. The emotional responses from skeptics antagonistic to such evidence is based on their fear of that sense of accountability they experience when just the mention of the name "Jesus" or "God" is brought up. The evidence of God's presence far out weighs "so-called proof" of His absence. I welcome you to discover the fingerprints that only God would have left behind.

Why I am Not an Atheist - FULL VERSION
But first of all, I want you all to know that the passion I have in writing this blog is NOT to offend anyone. I really care about you and our generation. This is born out of love and a love for the truth. Now I realize that the real reason people reject absolute truth is because they reject the God who gives it. But if I can demonstrate to you that the One and only God exists and is personal, would you listen to Him when you knew that He was speaking to you? Would you love Him, because you discovered that He first loved you? Would you respect Him for His authority, power, and goodness? Would you trust Him because you discovered that He cannot lie and does not change His mind except to show you mercy?

I am passionate because our generation has suffered from the lies told us about the origin of life from children's cereal boxes to college campuses. For over 50 years, secular humanist social engineers from the communist inspired ACLU to the elite in academia have contributed to what is considered politically correct in America. Any information about the existence of or about knowing a God who is relational is outlawed, censored, or scathed by the "thought police" in the media. Therefore, my objective is to break through the artificial glass ceilings of knowledge and present the evidence that they did not want you to hear, because it causes them to lose the power to control you. Please investigate all the resources on this site. On this site you will find factual scientific research links, audio clips and video clips to both inspire and educate. Click them all. Toward the end of this blog you will discover the message that we were born to hear. Don't miss it."The Truth SHALL set you FREE."


  • EVIDENCE LINK #2: Evidence For Design is Evidence for a Designer


    download Windows Media Player from here
    (NOTE:  If you have an I-Phone or device that doesn't play flash you will not be able to access some content on this site.)

  • The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution: The Molecular Machines of a Cell (2:17) - Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, Scott Minnich ( His Response to Ken Miller)

    I see that some of you are interested in biology. I am into all the sciences. I love biology, chemistry, physics, and geology. One branch of science lays the necessary foundation for another branch of science to provide us with a complete picture of reality. I notice that many who come to this site are fans of Charles Darwin. I like him as well. As a scientist, he had the courage to question a theory that he once promoted admitting it was based on conjecture.



    The fact that the universe did have a beginning and will have a definite end means that the universe is NOT eternal. The theory of the oscillating universe was disproved years ago. Click Here for the Proof Behold the latest scientific documents from physics and bio-chemistry on the matter.CLICK HERE Chance can do nothing because it IS NOTHING. It is entirely logical that the First Cause had to be uncaused, and therefore Eternal. We can mathematically describe infinity symbolically (as a horizontal figure-eight on paper) without understanding its full extent. Likewise it is unnecessary to understand the full extent of eternity to realize that such a realm subsists. Something exists now therefore something has always existed necessarily. That something has to be self-existent. (possessing the power of being in itself) Since the transcendent Creator subsists necessarily, atheists do not exist fundamentally.

  • Empirical Data demonstrates that the universe had a beginning. After extrapolating cause and effect, that First Cause had to be Uncaused.
  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence from Physics and Astronomy - Presented by former atheist, Lee Strobel WATCHthe FULL-LENGTH Video HERE

    Since there is no evidence that a natural law, a process of nature or random chemical reactions ever produced a self-replicating organism's preprogrammed DNA and the fact that mass is NOT the only factor in the expansion of the universe (law of conservation), there really is NO rational or valid reason to invent unintelligent substitute scenarios for the origins of life.

    A DNA sequence or genetic sequence is a succession of letters representing the primary structure of a DNA molecule or strand, with the capacity to carry information. The sequence of DNA encodes the necessary information for living things to survive and reproduce. The Genetic Code refers to the system in all living organisms by which the information in the DNA molecule is translated into protein information.

    The astounding amount of information encoded in the DNA of the simplest life is an insurmountable barrier for random processes to create this information. Dr. Antony Flew stated, "It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, ... pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

    Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the Atheists, and not on those who acknowledge an intelligent Designer. Anthony Flew, a prolific writer, philosopher, and ardent defender of atheism for well over 40 years, now believes that modern science has demonstrated sufficiently that an intelligent God subsists due to the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life, thus compelling him to renounce his atheism.

    An Interview With a Former Atheist: Why Did Your Beliefs Change? - Lee Strobel, Antony Flew


  • BEYOND THE BIG BANG - William Lane Craig Listen as he outlines the ramifications of recent scientific discoveries
    View all other Resources by William Lane Craig

    QUESTION: Why do some people feel the need to invent unintelligent scenarios for how the universe and life began when we see so much intelligent design that is visible within the universe and intelligence designed within every life-form all the way to the microscopic and molecular?

    ANSWER: They are just looking for excuses. They are trying to avoid the God conclusion, because the "god" or idol they invented (to serve their own will) failed them. So they rationalize and seek to justify their personal temper tantrum against the One and only Holy God (who they know truly exists and has a different will than theirs') by proliferating their misconceptions about God to a public that has suffered from those misconceptions. Former Atheist, Dr. Alister McGrath has now publicly announced "The Twilight of Atheism." Currently the populations of those who claim to be Atheist are on the decline. Listen Now
    Check out Dr. McGrath's New Book

  • Who Are You God? (part 1 of 4)

  • Who Are You God? (part 2 of 4)

  • Who Are You God? (part 3 of 4)

  • Who Are You God? (part 4 of 4)

    NOTE: "A scoffers attempt to make the pursuit of truth into a distraction of entertainment merely feeds their own self-deception, their own world-view of meaninglessness and their personal sense of worthlessness." - Henry Martin, H., Jr

    "A mind bent on suppressing or hindering the truth will ultimately find the lie it is chasing." - Ravi Zacharias




    All physical substances in the universe are made up of atoms. An atom is made up of electrons, and a nucleus which contains protons and neutrons. Matter is merely the collection of electrons, protons and neutrons. Between the electrons and the nucleus of the atom there is empty space. If a person removed all the space out of an atom and just calculated the amount of matter (Electrons, protons, and Neutrons) that really makes up one human - the matter in one human could be reduced to one hundred, millionth of an inch cubed. What is more interesting is that all matter is made up of waves. CLICK HERE FOR PROOF Matter also travels as a wave and there is experimental data which verifies the wave aspects of matter even at the subatomic level. Learn why modern day physicists say that matter are actual waves and sound waves are a vibration of matter.

    Lemaitre is given credit for first introducing the Big Bang theory in 1929. How much influence Einstein had on Lemaitre is not known to us. Einstein indicated that he was reticent to propose it because it was so far from the accepted scientific truth of the day.

    The "Big Bang" Theory, in essence though it may with interpretations) is that there was at one time, 18 to 20 billion years ago, a void universe. In a thousandth of a second, or less, a gigantic explosion occurred, with light flooding the void. Out of the explosion, matter from the light flung outward. Note: The biblical account of creation is described in Genesis1:1-3. If there is no gap between between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, then verses 2 and 3 would describe the void universe when light entered and and matter took shape in the form of planets, stars and galaxies.) Within the first ten minutes, the galaxies with all there suns were determined as they hurled from a central point. Astronomers claim that that experiments prove the universe is still expanding outward.

    Even matter in its outward form is composed of that which does not appear. For the most part, you and I are made up of empty space---atoms: electrons and protons swirling around in orbit determining density size and shape. The actual matter in an atom is only one trillionth of its total size. Although it may never be determined, at least in this life , how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, it would be would be mathematically possible to calculate how many people can, if only the actual matter in our bodies would be considered. If all the space within the atoms were taken out, we would suddenly disappear. From page 85, of God, the Atom and the Universe, we read: "If the average person, had all the 'space' squeezed out, how much volume do you think he'd occupy? Any of us, even a six foot-plus person, would be lost on the head of a pin. For we occupy one-one hundred millionth of a cubic inch."
    This means that the actual matter of 100 million people could all fit in a one inch by one inch by one inch box! (L x W x H) That's why thinking people throughout the world understand that physical matter is not the only thing that matters in science. The universe is designed to be understood. It's intelligent fine-tuning and laws set in motion reflects intentionallity and purpose for life's existence and points to the self-existent Designer. Even the sum of the parts is not greater to nor equal to the "Source" of the sum.

    We are composed of an invisible amount of matter, set in motion by atoms, the power of God. Paul indicates in Acts 17:28 that our very existence depends on the power of God: "…in him we live, and move , and have our being."

    If matter was made to appear from energy, the the disappearance of matter would produce the same amount of power. Megatons of power is equal to units of mass, times the speed of light to the second power. Or, as Einstein simply expressed it, E=MC^2. It was by the application of this mathematical formula that Einstein perceived God created the universe, and maintains it by the same universal law. The Einstein equation E=MC^2 was proven in the explosion of the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. It is highly likely that Albert Einstein was simply unaware of the fact of how his scientific discovery confirmed biblical truth. "For By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in the Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, by Him all things consist." (Colossians 1:16-17) Allow the scientific evidence to take you wherever it leads. In Albert Einstein's case, it forced him to make a decision and ultimately question his atheism.

    Therefore that which makes up matter is quite insignificant as compared to the One and only Being (Creator) and verbal source of such waves; who is credited for uttering them it into existence and designed the g-forces that it would take hold it together on purpose, only to create a universe and earth built with the purpose of supporting life. The fact that an electrons mass is fine-tuned at 9.10938188 × 10 to the minus 31 kilograms throughout the entire universe implies that only one and the same Creator designed it all. It is NOT realistic to assume that random chemical reactions produced pre-programmed molecules (DNA) and that chromosomes which contain the genes for organisms were the result of mutations. A mutations effect on an organism is proven to be harmful not helpful. Therefore, world-views based on the evolution of life from one common ancestor(s) or from the "molecule to man theory" - are not credible. (More about biology and genetics below)

    Click Here to Watch Video


    Over time, people forgot or ignored the importance of pursuing scientific evidence that supports organic evolution. Billions of years can not explain the vast varieties of life forms with set biological boundaries which inhibit the range of differentiation within gene pools. After taking into consideration the 7-major catastrophes (3 to 4 of them which wiped out most complex life forms on Earth), it becomes ridiculous to assume that life could ever have arisen from a primordial soup, random mutations, heat vents, under ground caverns, meteorites, or lightning strikes for the simple fact that DNA is a complex preprogrammed molecule that requires RNA another unique complex molecule for replication. A species is the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. Error Control Coding inherent in the Biology of life implies design inherent within the earth's biosphere. speciation and its other varieties are limited in scope and has never produced a new structure from mutational advance. Each life form reproduces after its own kind. Genetic Phylogeny

  • Testing the Two Models: Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation? (link coming soon)

  • THE EXHAUSTIVE EVIDENCE OF BIOCHEMICAL DESIGN (Make certain that you have downloaded real player; it is available for free download on the right-side panel of this site.)


    The Miller experiment was an attempt by Darwinists to explain how life could have arisen without an intelligent Creator. Urey began to consider the emergence of life in the context of his proposal of a highly reducing terrestrial atmosphere. Harold C. Urey, who had studied the origin of the solar system and the chemical events associated with this process. Miller, a graduate student in the Chemistry Department who had been in the audience, approached Urey about the possibility of doing a prebiotic synthesis experiment using a reducing gas mixture. After overcoming Urey’s initial resistance, they designed three apparatuses meant to simulate the ocean-atmosphere system on primitive Earth. The first experiment used water vapor produced by heating to simulate evaporation from the oceans; as it mixed with methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, it mimicked a water vapor–saturated primitive atmosphere, which was then subjected to an electric discharge. The second experiment used a higher pressure, which generated a hot water mist similar to that of a water vapor–rich volcanic eruption into the atmosphere, whereas the third used a so called silent discharge instead of a spark.

    Miller began the experiments in the fall of 1952. By comparison with contemporary analytical tools, the paper chromatography method available at the time was crude. Still, after only 2 days of sparking the gaseous mixture, Miller detected glycine in the flask containing water. When he repeated the experiment, this time sparking the mixture for a week, the inside of the sparking flask soon became coated with an oily material and the water turned a yellow-brown color. Chromatographic analysis of the water flask yielded an intense glycine spot; several other amino acids were also detected. Experiments with the second apparatus produced a similar distribution and quantities of amino acids and other organic compounds, whereas the third apparatus with silent discharge showed lower overall yields and much fewer amino acids (primarily sarcosine and glycine).
    Referenced from

  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence Against Darwinist Theory For Miller's Own Research- Presented by Former Atheist Lee Strobel

    However, Miller's experiment produced both right and left handed amino acid. The mixture of LH and RH amino acids is a poison to life. All biological proteins have 100% left-handed amino acids and amino acids are all left-handed in life. When an organism dies, amino acids revert back to a mix. Out of thousands of amino acids, only 20 are suitable for life. When left alone, a solution of all left-handed amino acids revert back to a mix. Dr. Charles Garner on Chirality and Origin of Life Research

    A control is designed as an experiment in which the subjects are treated as in a parallel experiment except for omission of the procedure or agent under test and which is used as a standard of comparison in judging experimental effects called also control experiment. The fact that the Miller experiment used so many controls demonstrates that it most realistically supports the concept of Intelligent Design. FOUR FACTS THAT INVALIDATE MILLER's EXPERIMENT


    So how can an intelligent scientist, use intelligent instruments that took intelligence to build, construct environmental scenarios within laboratories intelligently designed, to make complex organic molecules which are necessary building blocks for life but do NOT form naturally also disintegrates in all the earths predicted and actual conditions, -- only to say that life evolved randomly from non-living matter without an intelligent God's involvement? Answer: They cannot. Some usually say nothing, do some name calling, or they invent "Science of the Gaps" which says what nature is suppose to do WITHOUT any evidence that it does. See how the Miller experiment was tragically flawed starting on page 13. Their ideas are only supported on Sci-fi Channel sitcoms. (Stanley Miller's Questionable Success)

    The Miller Experiment may have indoctrinated the imaginations of a public that is continuously saturated with movies, novels, and comic strips of science fiction, but the distribution of organic compounds produced by the experiment and the high level of fine-tuning it would take to set the conditions necessary to produce and maintain the viability just one self-replicating molecule (DNA) is nothing short from a miracle. But the miracle of DNA's existence is not a mystical phenomena of chance; it is a realistic product of intelligent design or intentionalIntentional means done deliberately or by design; done with intention or on purpose; intended, willful, premeditated, deliberate. assembly.

    The Miller Experiment Made Easy

    According to Fuz Rana in a response to Kenneth R. Miller's book, "Finding Darwin’s God" he writes, "Miller’s response to Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity appears to be quite effective on the surface. Miller cites several examples from the scientific literature that seem to describe the emergence of irreducibly complex systems strictly by natural processes. If this is the case, Behe’s Design argument comes completely unglued. However, a careful reading of the original papers, in each case, turns up crucial details that Miller has neglected to convey. In each instance, the omitted “fine points” highlight the inability of natural processes to generate irreducibly complex biochemical systems. In fact, the papers he cites describe extensive researcher intervention ¾ without which the "evolution" of the irreducibly complex biochemistry under investigation would not have been possible. Ironically, when this is taken into account, Miller’s argument against Behe’s biochemical evidence for Intelligent Design actually provides powerful support for Behe’s position."
    This means that 75% of the time an intelligent scientist had to intervene with special methods in a laboratory to force irreducible complexity, because natural processes and simulations of natural processes were NOT able to demonstrate evolved irreducible complexity.

    Furthermore, the flagellum is an excellent example of an irreducibly complex function in one of the simplest life forms. Different proteins and structures work together to create a swimming mechanism. This complex interaction cannot be adequately explained by evolutionary processes. Mutations creating only one piece of the flagellum in a life form without the other pieces would not create any value to be carried on to the subsequent generations.

  • How and Why Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum

    The Origin of the Myth of Junk DNA

    Recent discoveries in the field of evolution biology has have brought both shock and anxiety to the anti-theist members of the science community and their subscribers. The more scientists learn about Junk DNA, the more they are discovering just how complex and fine-tuned the functionality of DNA and RNA are as proteins are being encoded. Junk DNA is the name given by naturalists to the portions of the DNA code that do not code for proteins. Is Junk DNA really just leftover junk from a blind, purposeless process of fully naturalistic evolution? Or does it have a function, like intelligent design theorists say? Let’s put these predictions to the test and then update our worldviews to fit with the scientific evidence.

    Part 1: Dr. Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design

  • Part 2: Dr. Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design

  • Anti-theistic Scientists Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm Now Collapses
  • Atheist Evolution Paradigm Officially Collapses: ENCODE Project Finds Mass “Junk" DNA Functionality
  • Recent articles confirm the thesis of Jonathan Wells' -The Myth of Junk DNA
  • Dr. Jonathan Wells Demonstrates How Darwinist notions about Junk DNA are More Myth than Science

    The Prediction of Ken Miller

    Anti-theistic biologist Ken Miller said in 1994 that DNA is filled with junk left over from naturalistic, random evolution:

    "…the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. - Ken Miller

    When Ken Miller was on trial he he used courtroom deception and managed to get get away with fitting in some darwinian predictions in with factually incorrect statements under oath at the Dover Kitzmiller Trial. Ken may have gotten away with his deceptive tactics in court to convince a science-illiterate judge to disregard the US Constitution, restrict academic freedom, and give license to censorship in America, but such antics is just another example of how Darwinian scientists are the ones hindering scientific progress. Even NCSE's "Frantic" Eugenie Scott Serves as Chief of Darwinian Thought Police. Neo-Darwinists like Eugenie Scott are the MODERN DAY Flat-Earthers who are more fearful of losing political power than defending good science. Their approach to dealing with scientists who challenge their world-view is identical to how the catholic church censored scientists like the Astronomer & Physicist Galileo Galilei.

    The prediction of Michael Behe

    Theistic biologist Michael Behe said in 2002 that DNA isn’t as junky some people think, because of the evidence:

    As a public skeptic of the ability of Darwinian processes to account for complex cellular systems and a proponent of the hypothesis of intelligent design, (1) I often encounter a rebuttal that can be paraphrased as “no designer would have done it that way.” …
    If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
    Hirotsune et al’s (3) work has forcefully shown that our intuitions about what is functionless in biology are not to be trusted.

    Sincerely, Michael J. Behe
    An Open Letter to Nature

    Those are the two predictions.

    So, what does the progress of science say to confirm one prediction or the other? Well, let’s see what Nature, the most prestigious peer-reviewed science journal, has to say .

    In 1961, French biologists François Jacob and Jacques Monod proposed the idea that ‘regulator’ proteins bind to DNA to control the expression of genes. Five years later, American biochemist Walter Gilbert confirmed this model by discovering the lac repressor protein, which binds to DNA to control lactose metabolism in Escherichia colibacteria1. For the rest of the twentieth century, scientists expanded on the details of the model, but they were confident that they understood the basics. “The crux of regulation,” says the 1997 genetics textbook Genes VI (Oxford Univ. Press), “is that a regulator gene codes for a regulator protein that controls transcription by binding to particular site(s) on DNA.”

    Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view. Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear. “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive,” says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

    Rob Crowther, PhD wrote "…not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm… The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?"

    The post by Rob Crowther has more information on this story.

    If you are one of those people who thinks that naturalistic molecules-to-man evolution is as proved as is the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun, then check out the links below – ESPECIALLY the debates. Peter Atkins, Michael Shermer and Lewis Wolpert are some of the most prominent prominent proponents of naturalism and materialism out there. Watch the debates. Have an open mind. If science can be hijacked by global warmists, then it can be hijacked by evolutionists, too. We need to guard against that.

    I know there is a lot of pressure on people to just believe in naturalism, especially when their degree or career depends on a public profession of faith in the power of chance and material processes. But we have to follow the evidence – science is about evidence, not ideology. Science is about testing to see what is true, not forcing the evidence to confirm what you want to believe (e.g. – materialism). There is a difference between the religious assumption of naturalism/materialism and the scientific method of predicting and testing.

  • The development of irreducibly complex molecular machines
  •  Lignin & The Coherent Design of the Ecosystem Undermines Darwinian Predictions, but Confirms ID's
  •  Atheist and Materialist Mythical Worldview Crumbles as Junk DNA Discoveries Go Public
  •  Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells Pay Tribute to Scientific Advances Ignored by Evolutionists 

  • Watch this Video with its Description

    Miller's statement that "the argument for intelligent design has failed" misses the point of irreducible complexity. The fact that one component of an irreducibly complex system may have another useful function does not remove the barrier that the irreducibly complex system requires the simultaneous appearance of multiple cooperating components to perform a function that has not been performed in that way before. "The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa ... Miller has nothing more than the TTSS to point to as a possible evolutionary precursor. Behe and the ID community have therefore successfully shown that Darwinists don't have a clue how the bacterial flagellum might have arisen." (Reference From: William A. Dembski, "Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response To Ken Miller" 2.17.03, v.1,

  • New research by a team of protein engineers, biochemists, and molecular biologists provides direct experimental evidence that life’s molecules (and hence, life) must originate from the work of an intelligent agent.

    WATCH: The Case for the Creator

  • Even modern Humans are NOT 99.9% identical to one another, "the genes of any given individual are at least 10 to 12 percent different from those of another human." This means that the logic behind the idea that a genetic diverge took place between Apes and Humans is mere fallacy. For example an evolutionist named Morris Goodman, an evolutionary biologist from Wayne State University, and his research team claimed that humans and chimps have a 99.4% similarity. But according to Jonathan Rothberg chairman of 454 Life Sciences Corp. of Branford, Conn., which has used its high-speed sequencing technology in DNA projects said, "the chimp genome led to literally too many questions, there were 35 million differences between us and chimpanzees -- that's too much to figure out." Goodman's team examined 97 genes that collectively consisted of 90,000 base pairs (genetic letters). Goodman's genetic "comparisons" are questionable because the results he seeks are guaranteed by the method he employs. Goodman finds a high degree of genetic similarity because he compares regions of the human and chimpanzee genome already known to be identical. This technique also focuses on a single type of genetic difference: substitutions. "A better tactic would be one that compares the entire genome of humans and chimpanzees and considers all types of genetic differences, not just substitutions," said Fazale Rana, Ph.D. Another study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels in its analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA. Dr Rana and others have concluded that Humans and chimpanzees just do not prove as genetically similar as some once thought, and Goodman's proposed classification scheme seems "ill-conceived," and a tactic of public deception. Reference: Tatsuya Anzai et al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003): 7708-13. Do Humans and Chimps Belong In The Same Genus?

    Some evolutionists accuse their skeptics of "lawyering." Such comments reveal the desperation of Darwinists to convince an already science uneducated public to remain unaware of the methods of deception they use. Any scientific analysis that is based on erroneous data and assumptions is simply bad science. Atheists all over the internet who continue to repost Ken Miller's antiquated report about Chromosome 2 fusion, as if it was hard evidence of a common ancestry, are NOT aware that his report actually creates problems against the theory of evolution in fundamental ways. Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count does not change except in instances that produce genetic deformities, such as forms of Down Syndrome. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

    Multiple studies have revealed that sheep which have multiple chromosome fusions are indistinguishable from sheep which do not have the fused chromosomes. What this means is that such fusions do not create new and beneficial genetic information that causes one kind of critter, like an ape, to evolve into another kind, like a human.

    Science shows that human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information that is not found in apes, including many protein coding genes. Likewise, scientists have never shown how such complex genetic information could come about by natural processes.

    It is the genetic data that is the big difference between ape and man - not the number of chromosomes holding the data. Afterall, tobacco plants, like apes, also have 48 chromosomes yet no one is claiming that they are close relatives.

    In other words, even if human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event it would be best explained as the fusion of two human chromosomes, not from a fusion that occurred, once upon a time, in some non-observed primate ancestor.

    So what does human chromosome 2 have to do with Darwinism? Absolutely nothing!

  • More About Human & Chimp Chromosome Count and Fusion Myth's

    A NEW CHROMOSOME STUDY NOW STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS: "It suggests that NO EVOLUTION has ever occurred in male ancestry and that men’s forefather was a single individual, not a group." This is genetic evidence that Adam existed - the first human male.


    VIDEO EVIDENCE: The Scientific Adam and Eve

    (It's amazing how modern science is still catching up to the Bible)

    Furthermore New genetic research reveals a pattern for humanity’s spread that comports with the biblical account of humanity’s origin. Parasites serve as a powerful proxy for the human host because of the intimate associations between host and parasite. The new study examined the genetic diversity of the human JC virus and indicates that humanity had a recent origin in East Africa. This evidence corroborates earlier genetic studies, using human mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal DNA, that indicate humanity originated recently from a single region (at or near where biblical scholars think the Garden of Eden was located) and spread from near the Middle East to rapidly populate the Earth in a pattern consistent with the biblical text. Reference:Tomokazu Takasaka et al., "Phylogenetic Analysis of Major African Genotype (Af2) of JC Virus: Implications for Origin and Dispersals of Modern Africans," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129 (2005): 465-72. & Diseases Follow Human Origin and Spread by Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.

  • _______________________________________

    These four things required for evolution to work:

    1. An open system
    2. A source of energy
    3. A mechanism to capture energy
    4. A mechanism to convert energy into usable energy for doing work.

    3 and 4 are generally left out of the text books. If you can't capture energy you can't put it to work.

    3. How can a mechanism to capture energy develop?
    4. How could lifeless (non-complex) chemicals spontaneously develop into a complex energy capture system?

    These can't be explained by evolutionists... Catch 22 situation...

    The 5 step circular reasoning of evolutionists

    1. Work must be done in order to become more complex.
    2. We need energy to perform this work.
    3. We have energy all around us (the sun), but we need to capture and store it so we can use it
    4. We need to build a mechanism that can capture and store some of this energy so we can perform work and grow more complex.
    5. We have no energy to do this work because we have no mechanism to capture and store energy (go to step 4).

    There are only two choices... here are the formulas

    Formula A - evolution:

    M + E + T = life


    Formula B - creation:

    M + E + T + OI = life

    Which formula is correct?

    It always takes outside intelligence... always... to create complex designs... (e.g. computers, 747s, car factories or life...)

    M - Matter
    E - Energy
    T - Time
    OI - Outside Intelligence

    According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins is a Zoologists not a biologist, and he is not the authority on the evidence nor the only authority on matters related to biology. Dawkins is an evolution THEORIST not a scientist., livings systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory (an Illusion).  In the book "The Selfish Gene," the fact that Dawkins uses the word "gene" in non-standard ways has become a real issue once a person realizes that the Dawkins "Selfish gene" has nothing to do with the genes that geneticists and molecular biologists deal with. Dawkins ignorance of biology is clear as day when he uses the literary device called personification in order to attribute human characteristics to non-human entities such as genes. His anthropomorphizing of the imaginary memes is a deceptive technique to infuse purpose in a purposeless process.

    Frustrated by the vast evidence of intentional design and purpose in living things, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, have used personification as a deceptive technique to infuse purpose in a purposeless process. Dawkins' personal definition of Natural Selection as "non-random survival of randomly varying organisms" is a false definition. Today he is progressively losing credibility with members of the science community.

    Even Darwinist, Scott Todd comes out as an intelligent proponent when he stated,

    "Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” - Referenced from the Journal Nature written by Scott C. Todd - Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423
    This quote proves that Darwinists hostility to intelligent design appears to be based on philosophical objections, and not on scientific merits. However there is an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins - one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and within the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

    Atheist's try to avoid the God conclusion by saying that chemical reactions occur now and therefore have always occurred. However their semantical statment DOES NOT substaniate how life's first stage of existence assembled without the fine-tuning of a caring Creator. CLICK HERE

  • Atheism: The Religion of Fools Part 1 (listen Now)

  • Atheism: The Religion of Fools Part 2 (listen Now)


    The collapsed, antiquated theory of evolution is not defended for its scientific merits, but its philosophical ones. Evolution is the foundation of an atheist's religion, and Atheists want their superstitious religion forced on every student. If the atheists' religion was based on science, why would they want to censor scientific information from reaching the students? Answer: Because atheists cannot handle the truth that their religious belief in organic evolution has NO legs to stand on. Watch how this atheist pastor is trying to censor scientific information from reaching Americas school students. CLICK HERE

  • The Difference between Matter and Information

    People have used their belief in evolution as an excuse to separate the knowledge of God from their everyday lives. Some don't want to talk about the subject of God because the only god they ever served was "themselves." Also people do not want to admit the loneliness, emptiness, meaninglessness, and anxiety there really is in trying to play "master of the universe."
    - A Discussion

  • Is Atheism Dead? (Part 1 of 4)

  • Is Atheism Dead? (Part 2 of 4)

  • Is Atheism Dead? (Part 3 of 4)

  • Is Atheism Dead? (Part 4 of 4)


    Even after studying the notochords of Amphioxus and sea-squirts these all reproduce after its own kind and NOT into other kinds of animal. There are biochemical limits to evolution that harmful and non-harmful mutations cannot explain. DNA is so finely fundamentally structured that mutations cannot take the credit for beneficial improvements to the viability of the life-form. There are common myths about mutations atheists use to defend their evolutionary world-view that are based on incomplete data and wishful thinking. "Genetic drift proceeds at a clock-like, roughly consistent rate, regardless of exposure to drug treatment. In other words, the rate and type of protein change caused by RNA viruses remained the same whether or not the viruses encountered anti-viral drugs." There were no "new viral strains (mutations) generated in the midst of drug treatment. Instead, modeling studies show that the drug-resistant strains are already present when drug therapy begins." Certain viral resistant strains have merely preexisted, that were insensitive to drugs. The Virus Myth

  • An Immunologist Explains Why the Immune System Isn't an Example of Darwinian Evolution - Part 1

  • The Intelligent Design of the Immune System - Part 2

  • Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics is NOT Evidence of EVOLUTION...Click to see Why

  • Watch how Evolutionist Ken Miller is Refuted by the Evidence

    Commonly occurring mutations cannot explain evolution. Some had been conditioned into thinking that with enough time and large enough populations, evolution would become more likely. But even with large populations and millions of years, there are not enough mutations to drive evolution. Only rare and improbable mutations could possibly explain evolution, but this possibility rests on faith, because such mutations are so rarely seen. Furthermore, it is not valid to extrapolate from the small changes seen in organisms today, to the large changes required by the theory of evolution, because these large changes are fundamentally different in nature. The small changes seen today are either not due to mutations at all, but to selection among alleles, "OR" else are caused by mutations that cannot explain evolution in the large.

    So how is one to explain a large scale change, such as fish developing legs and crawling out of the water? With two beneficial substitutions per gene, after which evolution reaches a dead end, how are the complex interactions going to develop that will result in the development of legs and lungs? It is an apparent impossibility.
    Referenced from



    The public has been proselytized by Evolutionists about a bacteria which has been recently called one the greatest shining examples of "evolution" within an organism. Many atheist and Darwinian sites have boasted about how this scientific discovery is suppose to prove without a shadow of a doubt that ALL living things share a common ancestor with one another all because this bacteria allegedly acquired an ability to breakdown nylon for a new food source. However, as we will discover, key information is cleverly left out in Ken Miller's original analysis linking this bacteria's novel function to Darwinism. There was NO mutation in the parent DNA strand that inspired production of this enzyme. The concepts of physics, chemistry, and biology, are adequate to explain that the emergence of life and adaptation is in fact the by-product of intelligence; and not randomness. Even the existence of nylon-eating bacteria shows NO evidence that random mutations produce new genes.

    In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. This bacteria could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn’t exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont. {Kinoshita, S., Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H., Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of ε-aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172, Agric. Biol. Chem. 39(6):1219–1223, 1975. Note: A. guttatus K172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172}

    The two species that were identified as able degrade nylon compounds were the Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87 S. Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria. {Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers [review], Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54:461–466, 2000.}

    Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. But an insightful fact is that the genes for these enzymes are ALL located on plasmids: 3 plasmid pOAD2 in the Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in the Pseudomonas.

    What are Plasmids? Plasmids are a small, circular unit of DNA that replicates within a cell independently of the chromosomal DNA and is most often found in bacteria. Certain plasmids can insert themselves into chromosomes in places where there is a common sequence of nucleotides. Plasmids contain a few genes, which usually code for proteins, especially enzymes, some of which confer resistance to antibiotics. Nucleotides are the four chemical building blocks (Adenine, Guanine, Cyotosine and Thymine) that make up DNA. They are basic building blocks of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleotides are made up of a nitrogen-containing purine or pyrimidine base linked to a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose) and a phosphate group.

    Some claimed that this new enzyme arose from a frame shift mutation. But today scientists are doubting the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes because their are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. Transposase enzymes are responsible for cleavage of dsDNA (Double-stranded DNA). Transposase recognize specific sequence of nucleotides and these transposons/jumping genes inserts into DNA molecule. This insertion creates direct repeats on each side of transposons, known as insertion sequences. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. {Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421–2425, 1984.} The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is "pre-designed to adapt" when the bacterium is under stress. {Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part 1, TJ 17(1):117–127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJ 15(3):115–127.}

    1. All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Scientists such as Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long, so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

    2. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids.

    3. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does NOT look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp, and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.

    4. The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks stop codons related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). {Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:3780–3784, 1992.} What is Antisense DNA? DNA normally has two strands, i.e., the sense strand and the antisense strand. In double-stranded DNA, only one strand codes for the RNA that is translated into protein. This DNA strand is referred to as the antisense strand. The strand that does not code for RNA is called the sense strand. Another way of defining antisense DNA is that it is the strand of DNA that carries the information necessary to make proteins by binding to a corresponding messenger RNA. Although these strands are exact mirror images of one another, only the antisense strand contains the information for making proteins. The sense strand does not. Antisense DNA is also known as noncoding DNA. In the genetic code, a stop codon (or termination codon) is a nucleotide triplet within messenger RNA that signals a termination of translation. Proteins are unique sequences of amino acids, and most codons in messenger RNA correspond to the addition of an amino acid to a growing protein chain — stop codons signal the termination of this process, releasing the amino acid chain. In the standard genetic code, there are three stop codons: UAG ("amber"), UAA ("ochre"), and UGA ("opal" or "umber"); several variations to this most common set are known. The wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands. Therefore no mutation within that wild-type parent DNA ccan take the credit for the new functionality.

    5. Other insights uncovered which imply that are other mechanisms behind the change of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes: (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 :2020–2022, 1995.}
    a) The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.
    b) Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’
    c) It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.
    d) Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).
    e) The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
    f) The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.

    Ken Miller, a famous Darwinist whose work is cited by atheists, is known for making the argument that if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn't done very intelligently because the nylonase enzyme is less efficient than the precursor protein it's believed to have developed from. He also adds that hauling around a nylonase gene before the invention of nylon is at best useless to the bacteria; at worst, it could be harmful or lethal. The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction or evolution of nylonase from its ancestor without complex specified information previously present. William Dembski argues that CSI (complex specified information) requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, in his book No Free Lunch). It's not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here. According to Dembski, "Miller doesn't compute the relevant numbers." What is Ken Miller hiding? Answer: His lack of evidence.

    Ken Miller also fails to show how is it clear that in the production of nylonase had anything to do with a Darwinian process. Instead, we see something much more like what James Shapiro describes as "natural genetic engineering." And how do systems that do their own genetic engineering arise? According to Shapiro, Darwinism (whether neo or otherwise) offers no insight here.

    After looking at nylonase a bit more closely, nylonase appears to have arisen from a frame-shift in another protein. Even so, it seems to be special in certain ways. For example, the DNA sequence that got frame-shifted is a very repetitive sequence. Yet the number of bases repeated is not a multiple of 3 (in this case, 10 bases are probably the repeating unit).
    What this means is that the original protein consisted of repeats of these 10 bases, and since it is not a multiple of 3, it means that these 10 bases were translated in all three possible reading frames (the second repeat was one base offset for translation relative to the first repeat, and the next was offset one more base, etc). Moreover, none of those reading frames gave rise to stop codons. Since the 10-base repeat was translatable in any reading frame without causing any stop codons, the sequence was able to undergo an insertion which could alter the reading frame without prematurely terminating the protein.

    Actually, the mutation did cause a stop codon; but the stop codon was due not to frame shift but to the sequence introduced by the inserted nucleotide. Simultaneously, the mutation introduced a start codon in a different reading frame, which now encoded an entirely new sequence of amino acids. This is the key aspect of the sequence. It had this special property that it could tolerate any frame shift due to the repetitive nature of the original DNA sequence. Normally in biology, a frame shift causes a stop codon and either truncation of the protein (due to the premature stop codon) or destruction of the abberant mRNA by the nonsense-mediated decay pathway. Nonetheless, the nylonase enzyme, once it arose, had no stop codons so it was able to make a novel, functional protein.

    Most proteins cannot do this. For instance, most genes in the nematode have stop codons if they are frame-shifted. This special repetitive nature of protein-coding DNA sequences are so rare that biologists have never seen another example like it because it’s more common in bacteria and not more complicated organisms. Therefore when Darwinists imply (in their YouTube) that this manner of frame-shifting occurs throughout all life-forms they're simply being misleading and deceptive, because it does not. Contrary to Miller, the nylonase enzyme appears "pre-designed" in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions.

    There is really nothing profoundly unusual about how nylon-eating bacteria have learned to alter their food source under the pressure of starvation and there is no reason to assume that this adaptation equals mutational advance.
    The bacteria P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids.) The chromosome of P. aeruginosa has 6.3 million base pairs, which makes it one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome means that only a relatively low mutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hyper mutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.

    P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872. It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. {Bacterial Nomenclature Up-to-date, Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany. , 18 September 2003.} Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge—equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change—stasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described.

    It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution. {Truman, R., The unsuitability of B-cell maturation as an analogy for neo-Darwinian Theory, March 2002; , 22 August 2003.} Further research will, continue to show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

    New research continues to uncover function for "junk" DNA sequences, thereby contravening evolution but supporting creation. Evolutionary biologists maintain that because junk DNA is an imperfection, it provides incontrovertible evidence for evolution. They reason that a Creator would not design DNA without a function. Numerous recent studies, however, have identified function for many types of junk (or noncoding) DNA. The latest study indicates that a type of noncoding DNA called Long Terminal Repeats (LTRs) Long Terminal Repeats (LTRs)-elements of endogenous retroviral DNA sequences-actually function as promoters that regulate gene activity. This discovery adds to the growing recognition of the functional importance of junk DNA and undermines one of evolution’s best arguments. Mounting evidence suggests that careful planning by an intelligent Designer, rather than undirected, random biochemical events, shaped the genomes of organisms.
    Reference: Liana F. Lareau et al., " Unproductive splicing of SR genes associated with highly conserved and ultraconserved DNA elements," Nature 446, 926-929 (19 April 2007)
    Reference: Mark T. Romanish et al., "Repeated Recruitment of LTR Retrotransposons as Promoters by the Anti-Apoptotic Locus NAIP during Mammalian Evolution," PLoSGenetics 3 no. 1 (2007): e10.


    DNA and Computers
    Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions--the information--for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

    Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis" according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of "sequence specificity" that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

    After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system-an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.

    Where did the digital information in the cell come from? And how did the cell's complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.

    Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, they also argue for design because we know from experience that systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer-from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "information habitually arises from conscious activity."

    SETI Project
    This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archaeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI's search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information embedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals from distant star systems. But closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting--by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts--an intelligent source for the information in DNA.

    DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information-whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal-always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule, provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence. {Not by chance: From Bacterial Propulsion Systems to Human DNA, Evidence of Intelligent Design is Everywhere, Stephen C. Meyer, National Post of Canada, December 10, 2005}

    Click Here to Watch Video

  • In “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. "Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." A Peer-Reviewed Analysis


    On April 19, 2007, Michael Behe answered Kenneth Miller's mouse trap response and that of an online publication regarding a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Liu and Ochman by pointing out the difference between common descent and random mutation/natural selection. He said that in the paper the workers compared the sequences of the dozens of proteins of the flagellum of the gut bacterium E. coli to each other, to other E. coli proteins and to the flagellar proteins of other kinds of bacteria. They noted plausible sequence similarities among the flagellar proteins to each other, but not so much to other bacterial proteins. So Liu and Ochman concluded that all 24 proteins of the flagellum core must have descended from a single gene for a single protein!

    As he mentions later, other people find that claim very dubious (doubtful and questionable) Behe said, "Let's concentrate on the fact that this is being touted as an answer to claims of intelligent design. As I've pointed out many times, beginning with Darwin’s Black Box over a decade ago, the argument for intelligent design in biology has little to do with protein-sequence similarity or common ancestry, for the same reason that knowing all the parts are made of metal doesn’t explain the mousetrap. Even if all those parts are made of metal, and even if they derived serially from each other or from some primordial piece of metal, that doesn’t even begin to explain how a mousetrap could be built step by step by a random process. In the same way, even if all the proteins of the flagellum derived serially one from the other, or from some magical precursor protein, that doesn’t even try to explain how a flagellum could be built step by step by a Darwinian process.”

    He continued, “Let me emphasize the point: Common descent is one thing. Random mutation and natural selection is something completely different. Evidence for common descent is NOT evidence for RM/NS. At the very best, protein sequence comparisons may say something about common descent, but they aren’t support for Darwin’s crucial claim that the startlingly elegant, functional complexity of life arose by random mutation culled by natural selection. The PNAS paper is quite irrelevant to that. The bottom line is that, despite the authors’ apparent confusion, the paper does not even try to address the irreducible complexity of the flagellum or its need for intelligent design.” How and Why Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum

    The PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) paper reaches conclusions that other workers find very questionable. Nicholas Matzke of the pro-Darwinian National Center for Science Education and Panda’s Thumb blog declares the work to be of “canine quality”, that is, “a dog.” (2) (Although a geographer by training, Matzke has acquired some skills in the area and earlier published his own sequence comparisons of flagellar proteins in Nature Reviews Microbiology.) The bottom line is that Matzke is quite skeptical that the two dozen kinds of proteins in the flagellum core could be derived from a single protein. His point is well taken. Yet neither of the scientists that Science magazine journalist Jennifer Cutraro called for comments expressed any curiosity concerning that startling claim. (3) Nor were they curious about other some pretty obvious points:

    1) What kind of amazing protein would it take to actually be able to give rise to the disparate physical parts of the flagellum?
    2) The authors of the paper find few homologies between flagellar proteins and other proteins; yet if that primordial protein were indeed so plastic, why hasn’t it been co-opted to perform many other functions in the bacterial cell?
    3) In their scenario, the prodigy protein gave rise to all the core parts of the flagellum billions of years ago, before the common ancestor of major classes of bacteria. Yet since that time it has not been heard from. A single protein which blossoms to give one coherent, astoundingly complex structure and then, its work complete, is never heard from again — that hardly seems like what one should expect on Darwinian grounds.

    Grandioser and Grandioser
    It seems that the grandiosity of Darwinian claims against ID is rapidly accelerating. Just one year ago the supposed big breakthrough was a paper by Thornton (4) showing that, if he himself personally changed a couple amino acids of a receptor protein in his lab, he could slightly alter the ligand it bound. So just last year, one worker strained to account for a couple amino acid changes to a single protein affecting one property. Yet twelve months later, the PNAS paper blithely claims to account for dozens of whole proteins with many different functions.

    All in all, this paper is a marvelous example of Darwinism-gone-wild, where imagination does almost all the work, experiment none of it. I’m hopeful that my new book, The Edge of Evolution, will provide a sorely needed reality check… It demonstrate[s] the enormous difficulty of putting together by random mutation and selection even two coherent amino acid changes, let alone a multi-protein complex.

    1. Liu,R. and Ochman,H. 2007. Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.,
    2. Matzke, N. Flagellum evolution paper exhibits canine qualities,
    3. Cutraro, J. A Complex Tail, Simply Told,
    4. Bridgham,J.T., Carroll,S.M., and Thornton,J.W. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312:97-101,

    Referenced from DARWINISM GONE WILD: Neither sequence similarity nor common descent address a claim of Intelligent Design

    On a BBC documentary titled "A War on Science," Darwinian biologist Kenneth Miller fails to refute irreducible complexity in the bacterial flagellum by citing the type 3 secretory apparatus because he misrepresents Michael Behe's research in irreducible complexity. But it gets incredibly worse. Miller egregiously twists the basic arguments of leading ID theorist, mathematician William Dembski. William Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago, has been a National Science Foundation doctoral and post-doctoral fellow. In the Design Inference which appeared with Cambridge University Press in 1998, he described the logic whereby rational agents infer intelligent causes. He has worked with Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson on a book entitled Uncommon Descent, which sought to reestablish the legitimacy and fruitfulness of design within biology. To paraphrase Miller's argument (Miller's exact words are given HERE), {when cards are dealt out in a game of poker, the hand you get is unlikely. But obviously that hand wasn't intelligently designed. Therefore, unlikely and non-designed things happen all the time, so evolution can happen even if it's unlikely, and we should never infer design.} This completely misrepresents Dembski's arguments. Dembski 101 explains that unlikely events happen all the time and that unlikelihood alone is NOT how we detect design. In fact, the first two paragraphs of the first page of the first section of Dembski’s first foundational work, The Design Inference, plainly makes this point:

    In Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi (1962, pg. 33) considers stones placed in a garden. In one instance the stones spell “Welcome to Wales by British Railways,” in the other they appear randomly strewn. In both instances, the precise arrangement of the stones is vastly improbable. Indeed, any given arrangement of stones is but one of almost infinite possible arrangements. Nonetheless, arrangements of stones that spell coherent English sentences form but a miniscule proportion of the total possible arrangements of stones. The improbability of such arrangements is not properly referred to chance.

    What is the difference between a randomly strewn arrangement and one that spells a coherent English sentence? Improbability, by itself, isn’t decisive. In addition what’s needed is conformity to a pattern. When stones spell a coherent English sentence, they conform to a pattern. When they are randomly strewn, no pattern is evident. But herein lies a difficulty. Everything conforms to some pattern or other – even a random arrangement of stones. The crucial question, therefore, is whether an arrangement of stones conforms to the right sort of pattern to eliminate chance.

    Could Dembski be any more clear? His point is that some unlikely events should NOT be attributed to design, but rather are best explained by chance. Dembski’s fundamental premise is that Miller’s random poker hand is a perfectly good example of an unlikely event which is best explained by chance. But what happens when one is dealt 50 consecutive royal flushes? What happens when the stones spell out “Welcome to Wales by British Railways”? Clearly, not all unlikely events are best explained by chance, especially when they conform to a special type of pattern. Dembski calls this conformation to a pattern "specification."

    The design inference therefore requires unlikelihood (related to complexity) coupled with specification. Miller implies that Dembski infers design by the mere unlikelihood of an event, but Miller egregiously ignores the fact that according to Dembski, we must also have specification to infer design. Dembski even uses this very example of dealing a hand of cards when illustrating an unlikely but yet non-designed event. (See how this is implied in Dembski’s essay " Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information.”) Ken Miller has put forth a patently false straw-man characterization of intelligent design arguments in order to falsely allege refutations to the public.

    (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, pg. xi (Cambridge University Press, 1998), emphases added.)

    Kenneth Millers attacks Dembski discussion about just how complex life by comparing his approach to a hand dealt out in a card game. Here Kenneth Miller created a false analogy by over simplifying the problems that Darwinism faces in accounting for the common ancestry of all life. One of the semantical tricks employed by evolutionists involves taking the present day situation and speculating that random mutations had everything to do with functionally beneficial structures in all life forms without providing their listeners with examples of mutational advance except their philosophical stance that it occurred and it is "what we've been dealt with." The topic of probability must go beyond a subjective level and move toward an objective level. Diversity within a species where color, size, and hormones cannot not stand in as evidence for mutational advance whereby new structures are being produced developing or diverging into completely different kinds of animal. He commits a bizarre hasty generalization fallacy by taking the random ways how cards are dealt without mentioning just how the statistical combination of a deck 52 cards is equivalent to the amount of change needed for one kind of animal to diverge into something different. Miller failed to address and answer statistical biological hurdles of common ancestry. Dembski showed how information could be reliably detected and measured, formulated a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information, demonstrated how information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.

    Likewise how could the immune systems of all animals have evolved? The most realistic answer is - "It could not have evolved." Each immune system can recognize bacteria, viruses, and toxins that invade the body. Each system can quickly mobilize for just the right type of defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from each invasion attempt. If the extensive instructions that direct an animal or plant’s immune system were not already programmed into the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on the earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would undoubtedly have destroyed the organism. This would have nullified and rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have started to accumulate in a slow, evolutionary sense. Obviously, for the organism to have survived, this information must have all been there from the beginning.
    "Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) is NOT a Realistic Scenario."

    Greater understanding of the function of yet another molecular motor has strengthened the case for a divine Designer. Biochemists have learned more about DNA helicases, enzyme motors that move along the DNA double helix and unwind it during DNA replication. One such helicase motor, part of the T7 bacteriophage, must work in conjunction with another enzyme, T7 DNA polymerase, in order to efficiently unwind the DNA double helix. The elegant design and machine-like characteristics of these molecular motors suggest the work of a divine "Motor Maker." Natalie M. Stano et al., "DNA Synthesis Provides the Driving Force to Accelerate DNA Unwinding by a Helicase," Nature 435 (2005): 370-73.

    Scientific advance continues to uncover examples of the repeated, independent origins of complex bio-molecules. Biochemical design — enzyme in charge of quality control. Such discoveries contravene evolution because chance events should not produce repeated outcomes. This research describes the repeated, independent origin of the muscle protein, troponin C, in various insect orders. Troponin C, a complex bio-molecule, requires an improbable sequence of events to bring about its independent, multiple origins. Such events challenge the veracity of the theory of evolution, but find ready explanation if a Creator repeatedly used the same good designs as He brought life into existence. Raul Herranz et al., "Diversification and Independent Evolution of Troponin C Genes in Insects", Journal of Molecular Evolution 60 (2005): 31-44. "Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator"

    Evolutionists "so-called" scientific theory (which says that all organisms arose from common ancestors) has never been observed, it has never been tested in a lab, nor was it ever confirmed by reproducible testing. They all realize that their theory is primarily based on their personal religious/philosophical secular world-view. It is based on faith, not on actual facts. However, there are many scientists who are in favor of an intelligently designed universe and are armed with real scientific empirical data. They are keeping the science community honest. "Many men and women have careers in science and they have made contributions within the science community that question organic evolution." Scientists do not have to accept the theory of organic evolution as true in order to make scientific contributions to various fields of science.
    "NOW learn how current evidence from every branch of science confirms the fingerprint of God over creation."

    Yet again, engineers turn to elegant designs found in nature to inspire new technology. In this case, chemists are inspired to develop a new type of surgical adhesive based on the “superglue” produced by mussels. Apart from the design found in nature, these researchers lacked the technological means to develop this unique class of adhesive. Does it make sense to conclude that the designs found in nature stem from random undirected processes when they are far superior to what man can accomplish? "Natures Super Glue"

    The following make the concept of Evolution from random mutations appear rather ridiculous. "THE HUMAN EYE"



    What is evolution? Darwin as well as his devotees used two or more different ways of defining evolution then creatively combined the terms together when using the term "evolution" in his discussions so that he could push the idea that similar looking animals arose from the same common ancestor. For many years, the public, media, universities, legal system, and school systems have become aware of the evolutionists and secular humanists methods of mass deception. You may remember that your biology teacher taught you that that the stages that an embyo goes through reflects similar appearances and thus must be taken as evidence of being common ancestors. Even though the embrological evolutionary link has been rejected by the modern science community and it is a blantent lie, it is still presented as fact in practically all college and high biology text books. Evolutionists still use embryo stages or the concept of recapitulation as a part of the evidence they used to initailly push the idea that all animals are from common ancestors to future generations of scientists. The Recapitulation Deception Randy Olson, a darwinist who turned film director of the movie “Flock of Dodos” had criticized intelligent design scientists for making making the claim that Haeckel's embryo drawings were being used in american textbooks as evidence of evolution. On Feburary 7, 2007, Olsen suffered extreme embarrassment as he was presented with hard evidence from recent high school and college textbooks that still contain the embryo stages during his movie premier. He had to backtrack and take back his comments against Intelligent design scientists.

    The fact is that morphological similarities between animals have NO genetic link at all. Morphological systematics which are based on similar physical characteristics are not genetically connected at all. We do see however repeated creation independently occurring in different parts of the world producing the same organism yet unrelated. "If" we are to assume that these animals had changed as they want us to believe, then ultimately they still want us to believe that they arose from the same common ancestor toward future populations even if the ancestry species that we do see are broken off from previously assumed ancestrally related species based on morphological appearance. Thus the argument made by evolutionist themselves confirm what intelligent design scientists have been saying all along! Changes in color or size is all the mirco-evolution that we have ever observed in animals, yet they want the unsuspecting public to accept the concept at morphologic similarities in an organism is automatic evidence that they are related somewhere historically even though the evidence points that they appear to be separate and independent creations. All we see are different species whose color and size changes yet they remain the same species within two distinct areas of habitat. Natural selection became an intellectual smoke-screen for academic distraction so that people would unwittingly accept "another" completely unrelated and unproven concept along with natural selection. Morphologic similaries are not evidence of a common ancestry within respective animals and natural selection only selects from pre-existing genes; it doesn't create new ones. Natural selection is only helping to create variety within particular kinds of animal; it DOES NOT produce variety between the different kinds of animals. Artifical Selection (the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions) may influence the population of a certain species, but it is also NOT responsible for the different kinds of animal. The Myth of Vestigial Organs

  • NOTE: The common ancestor argument is one of the most central claims in Darwinism, and yet it is supported by weak and fragmentary data such that most evolutionists have accused some intelligent design scientists of a straw man fallacy when they merely respond to Darwinists claims at face value. Such accusations have caused evolutionists to unwittingly admit that their own so-called "hard data" is considered their weak points before their own eyes.

    Phylogeny is defined as the development or "so-called" evolution of a particular group of organisms; the "alleged" evolutionary history of a group of organisms, esp. as depicted in a family tree. Listen to Darwin's Tree of Life Splinters

    Phylogenetics is the study of how various groups of organisms (e.g., species, populations) are related through the process of evolution. Phylogenetic analysis attempts to determine the ancestral relationships of known species by analyzing available data (including paleontology, biological and genetic.)

    "The sequence of events in human evolution is still largely speculative and open to interpretation, and anthropologists have yet to agree upon a phylogenetic tree of the human lineage." Reference From: "What will the neanderthal genome teach us about human brain evolution?",

    "Paleoanthropologists compared phylogenies constructed from gene and protein sequences with those constructed from cranial and dental features for two currently existing groups of primates, . . . In both cases, the molecular phylogenies differed significantly from those derived using cranial and dental characteristics. The authors of the study conclude that craniodental characteristics cannot be used as reliable indicators of primate evolutionary relationships. In light of these results, the assertion that human evolution is a fact becomes scientifically untenable. To demonstrate that humans evolved by natural processes, there must be rigorous evidence of clearly established evolutionary relationships with obvious transitions in the fossil record. This study shows that such determinations may never be possible, given that cranial and
    dental remains are the primary fossils available..." Reference From: Fazale Rana, “The Unreliability of Hominid Phylogenetic Analysis Challenges The Human Evolutionary Paradigm,"

    Many people are unaware that evolutionists themselves have admitted that there is a lack of identifiable phylogeny among earth's life-forms. Due to lack of phylogeny, evolutionists made frantic attempts to justify their failing hypothesis by submitting random press releases about "alleged" primate to human links and links among other completely different organisms to an unsuspecting public. They arrogantly assume that the public will just blindly accept their evolutionary world-view without question. Today however, the mass public has become aware of the speculative language they used to deceptively present their "so-called" facts about evolution. Here are just a few of the terms that you can highlight within their press releases: "we assume, we expect to see or to find, we hope, we think, are expected, are assumed, perhaps, we suppose, it is likely, could be, may have been, it is expected, we should see, may have...etc etc etc." (Just for fun after highlighting the speculative terms repeat the words highlighted out loud 4 to 5 times. This will help you understand that they lack real scientific facts about evolution.) The pressures that young scientists face toward advancing their science careers have compelled many to succumb to the academic peer pressure of various atheists and secular humanists who assume a seniority position within their field. However once they reach a pinnacle of seniority some are no longer afraid of the peer pressure from others in the science community. Famous evolutionists knew and admitted that there was a lack of phylogeny evidence. Click here to see quotes from Famous Evolutionists in peer-reviewed science journals about the Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny

  • Thoughts on Evolution from Scientists and Other Intellectuals

    Very minor speciation occurs in plants; however, new structures have NEVER been observed in animals from mutational advance whereby a completely new species is created. Using an intelligently designed laboratory, with intelligent scientists, utilizing intelligent instruments, in order to force a change in the biochemistry or genetics of an organism or a life-form WHICH DOES NOT OCCUR IN NATURE merely supports an Intelligent design viewpoint more and than ever. The use of scientific equipment, gene splicing techniques, and genetic manipulation on plants and animals to artificially produce changes within an organism only further demonstrates that it takes intelligence to design life. Professor of Design and Nature at Bristol University says Intelligent Design is Valid Scientific Theory

    I don't believe that biology is inherently atheistic or deist. I believe in an intelligently designed analysis of the facts, with intelligently designed instruments and computation devices, studying the patterns, interdependencies, and biochemical functionalities that are designed within the inner biosphere of living organisms that can be useful for intelligently designed solutions to problems ranging from disease to enhancing organic and inorganic structural integrity.

    After medical researchers single out an active ingredient within medication then make it suitable for application within (for instance) a human host sometimes they overlook and fail to investigate the interdependent influences of enzymes and hormones that affects an active ingredients success in its source. For this reason patients suffer from harmful, and sometimes progressively crippling and rehabilitating side effects because scientists made assumptions of common ancestry primarily based on structural similitude or they took for granted the remedies embedded within unique life-forms (they assume a common ancestry with) yet disregarded the unique role of its supporting enzymes in pharmaceuticals that can damage the kidneys, liver or other vital organs.

    A rational (from design approach) works better than a directed evolution approach because it doesn't require high-throughout, which is not feasible for all proteins, doesn't have a high amount of DNA recombinations must be mutated and the products screened for desired qualities while not all desired activities can be easily screened for and its is also not an expensive blind random process. The intelligent scientist uses detailed knowledge of the structure and function of the protein to make desired design changes.

    The experimental demonstration of historical contingency in E. coli raises significant questions about the validity of evolutionary explanations for life’s origin and history. Even though evolution shouldn’t repeat, it appears as if it has numerous times at a biochemical level and an organismal level.

    Biological convergence not only questions the validity of biological evolution, it points to the work of a Creator. As Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D. point's out in The Cell’s Design, "designers and engineers frequently reapply successful strategies when they face closely related problems. Why reinvent the wheel? It’s much more prudent and efficient for an inventor to reuse the same good designs as much as possible, particularly when confronted with a problem he or she has already solved.

    The tendency of engineers and designers to reuse the same designs provides insight into the way that a Creator might work. If human engineers, made in God’s image, reutilize the same techniques and technologies when they invent, it’s reasonable to expect that a Creator would do the same. If life stems from the work of a Creator then it’s reasonable to expect that the same designs would repeatedly appear throughout nature. Use of good, effective designs over and over again would reflect his personal prudence and efficiency as a divine Engineer." Purchase " The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Designer's Artistry"

    Fruit Flies
    Darwinist and Atheists have tried to convince their followers that scientists were able to create a speciation scenario from the same species by dividing them into two chambers in an attempt to reproducing eight consecutive drosophila generations by having a different type of food source within each chamber. One chamber contained a starch based food source and the other chamber contained a maltose food source. They claimed that after eight generations the drosophila (fruit flies) which consumed the different food sources did not appear to reproduce among themselves when naturally put in contact with each other.

    This is another perfect example of double speak that turns into double think. Darwinist uses mental slight of hand when mentioning genetic drift, mutations, and gene flow to theoretically justify the concept that animals arise from common ancestors; however, ultimately his so-called scientific proof of a new species does not fit the concept and definition of evolution that they are trying to sell. First of all the genes within a fruit fly DID NOT mutate or show genetic drift. There is NO evidence of mutational advance creating new structures in the slightest. We find animals and insects all the time in nature that appear identical yet they do not interbreed naturally; however, could procreate if forced to within laboratory settings.

    Darwinists will typically accept pre-arraigned laboratory scenarios that are used to mechanically create a new species merely because they do not procreate in nature, but they seem to be less likely to mention to that same public that they can use that same laboratory environment to bring the male and female fruit fly's together just as we have been able to do with sea snakes. Darwinists have merely invented a verbal loophole in order to semantically fulfill the definition of a species. (Not able to reproduce with previous generation.)

    Assortative mating (also called assortative pairing) takes place when sexually reproducing organisms tend to mate with individuals that are like themselves in some respect (positive assortative mating) Most of the time there is a difference within the pheromones released during the mating process. The only thing the fruit fly experiment demonstrated is that whatever an organism eats can affect the body scents and chemicals released by an organism. Nowhere did the structure or the genetics of the fruit fly alter. An organisms food source is directly connected to its ecosystem, it more realistic to predict that the fruit flies that best relate the environment and other Fruit fly are best to mate. Again the inconclusive analysis from the talk-origins website demands that the reader speculate or just accept their assumptions. Furthmore maltose directly influences the mating pheremones within insects. No new species of drosophila was created.

    The problem is that the variety of fruit fly's, like dogs, obtained through breeding programs is an example of the variation possible within the fruit fly genome, but there are natural limits to variation. "The Limits to Biological Change"

    Darwinism predicts that there are no taxonomic limits to variation. However, every breeding experiment of the last 100 years that attempts to see how far variation can go (E. coli, drosophila, etc.) always encounters limits beyond which further change is not possible. Thus, the fundamental prediction of Darwinian theory has been consistently falsified in a century’s worth of experimental testing. Dog breeding, itself, encounters these limits as well as fruit flies.

    The bottom line is that fruit fly breeding, and the observed limits to variation within fruit flies, falsifies the most important prediction of Darwinian theory (variation between the different kinds). Even if these two sets of fruit flies do not reproduce in nature, the Darwinist will want us to assume that mutational advance takes place without any evidence that it does. There are irreducible complex bio-chemical safe guards that are pre-programmed within the DNA itself to prevent the affects of mutations preventing changes. You will also discover on my web site scientific evidence for repeatable creation, which should not be expected if Darwinism is true. The Edge of Evolution



    Theistic Evolutionists believe that God uses speciation and mutations to develop new species of animals. Evidence shows that speciation is limited through breeding and therefore any difference in size or color is NOT a new organism. Also without physical evidence for mutational advance whereby new structures are developed creating a completly difference organism, we are only left with God created each species. That creation event appears sudden in the fossil record - not progressive. There actually is ONLY evidence of a God who created life; there is NO evidence of a god that used evolution to "develop" life.

    The Proof
    Theistic Evolution is a Contradiction {page 6} Also The Refutation of Theistic Evolution

    Theistic Evolution's Ambiguity Destroys Itself


    "The latest studies on this issue have revealed that evolutionist propaganda about a "98 %" or "99 %" similarity between man and chimp is totally erroneous."
    The FACT that the foundational trunk and root structure of the human evolutionary claims about origins were based on fraudulent research, fallacious reasoning, double-think, and incomplete data - all the branches and leaves that we are told about today of "so-called evidences" of human origins from primates are fundamentally invalidated, because all new "evolution evidence" is based on that prototype of error. "Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree. Evolutionary biologists are increasingly appealing to epicycles like horizontal gene transfer, differing rates of evolution, abrupt molecular radiation, convergent evolution (even convergent molecular evolution), and other ad hoc rationalizations to reconcile discrepancies between phylogenetic hypothesis. Darwinian biology is not explaining the molecular data; it is forced to explain away the data. Even the PBS pro-darwinism program titled "Judgment Day" paints a rosy picture of the data, when the data isn’t good news for Darwinism.
    Referenced from:

    A large amount of fallacious research presented which is based on imaginative assumptions disguised in ambiguous language (such as the information posted throughout DOES NOT strengthen the evolutionary viewpoint of an atheist's universe or that of the theistic evolutionist.
    (Reference: Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%," Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).

    "If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes (Telomeres) contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions."

    Mice and humans both have about 30,000 genes - and share 99% of them! - but the mouse genome is shorter than that of humans (2.5 billion letters compared with 2.9 billion) Athough 1,200 new genes have been discovered in the human genome because of mouse-human genetic comparisons this creates a dilema for evolutionists who have used genetic percentile comparisons to justify how apes and humans are direct ancestors when mice appear the closer relative based on the logic of their argument. The mere assumption of common ancestory is circular reasoning and is not evidence for such a process of divergence from one another. (Reference:

    "Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No one would suggest a nematode is 75% human? Another good example is that during the sixties, American doctors tried to use chimpanzee organs for transplants in humans, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. An interesting footnote that shows how complex this issue really is, humans differed from most other animals, including chimpanzees, in a small but possibly vital way. In most animals, the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecules called sialic acid. In humans, a genetic mutation means this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. Proteins and membrane lipids that have sialic acid take part in many processes. They help cells stick to one another. They may also play a part in disease susceptibility. This might be a reason why Chimpanzees seem far less suspeceptible for infectious diseases like malaria and cholera. This might be one factor in those chimp to human transplants in which organs were rejected."
    (Referenced from marksaaa99.htm and
    from /cuchimpdna.html)

    A more recent "Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions."
    {Referenced from Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13}

    80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different. This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics. Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms.
    (reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )

    ALLEGED: The True Story of How Yellow Journalism & Lies, Not Evidence, Popularized Evolution at the Scopes Trial

    Yellow Journalismor the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. In yellow journalism there's heavy reliance on unnamed sources, unabashed self-promotion, use of faked interviews or faked scenarios of events, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from "so-called" experts, a lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings (such that of ape-men). By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion. was a major technique big city newspaper publishers used to promoted their papers. H.L. Mencken, as well as, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst were American newspaper publishers who used melodrama, romance, and hyperbole to sell millions of newspapers. History points out that H.L. Mencken used yellow press deception tactics when covering the famous Scopes monkey trial. He used exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, and sensationalism. Learn how atheists and secular humanists in 1925 from the ACLU, academia, the science community, and print media fabricated this premeditated this Mock Trial based on phony premises and predetermined narratives in order to artificially manipulate public opinion in that day without legitimate scientific evidence. Learn the truth under-reported history of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial that paved the way for evolution to be talk and mandated in our public schools. Ironically the Darwinists and Evolutionists who sought to institutionalize the theory of Evolution were the very ones who used pseudoscience and fakery to introduce it to the public. Atheist and Secular Humanist evolutionists are in a constant state of panic as the mass public comes to realize the fact that, at its inception, Darwin's theory in American culture was based on pseudoscience and mere conjecture.

    Even today, a varying array of reporters science blogs (such as PZ Meyers), online science journals, and reporters in CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, THE NEW YORK TIMES, NBC, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE POLITICO are guilty of yellow journalism on a regular basis. It's for that reason these news networks and publications are losing subscribers, and are continually losing credibility and the market share attention of thinking people.

    Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.
    Evolutionists now admit that they were mistaken about the common evolutionary argument between Ape and Human DNA

    A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

    The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4

    Specific examples of these differences include:

    A) Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
    B) At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
    C) While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
    D) The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
    E) Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3

    These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.

    In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.

    Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an ‘indel’. Indels can be of virtually any length.

    The Britten2 study looked at 779 kilobase pairs to carefully examine differences between chimpanzees and humans. He found that 1.4% of the bases had been substituted, which was in agreement with previous studies (98.6% similarity). However, he found a much larger number of indels. Most of these were only 1 to 4 nucleotides in length, although there were a few that were > 1000 base pairs long. Surprisingly, the indels added an additional 3.4 % of base pairs that were different.

    There is NOT Enough Time For Humans to have Evolved from Apes

    While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.

    Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

    A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’8 To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons6, 10, 11 have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!10

    Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference.6 However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.

    The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered. References
    1. Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241-246.
    2. Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.
    3. Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134.
    4. Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13.
    5. Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434.
    6. Heyer, E., Zietkeiwicz, E., Rochowski, A., Yotova, V., Puymirat, J., and Labuda D. 2001. ‘Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutation in deep-rooting pedigrees.’ Am J Hum Genet 69:1113-1126.
    7. Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314.
    8. Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J., and Deninger, P.L. 1996. ‘DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement.’ Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4360-4364.
    9. Parsons T.J., Muniec, D.S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, N., Alliston-Greiner, R., Wilson, M.R., Berry, D.L., Holland, K.A., Weedn, V.W., Gill, P., and M.M. Holland. 1997. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat. Genet. 15:363-368.
    10. Sigurgardottir, S., Helgason, A., Gulcher, J.R., Stefansson, K., and Donnelly P. 2000. ‘The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region.’ Am J Hum Genet 66:1599-1609.


    QUESTION. In a high school class, a leaflet was distributed saying that new research on chromosomes shows that humans and chimpanzees differ surprisingly little; that the great apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, that essentially every band and sub-band observed so far in man has a direct counterpart in the chimp chromosomes. The leaflet says that our common ancestor probably also had 48, but, during our evolution, two of these fused to form what is now chromosome No. 2 in humans. The question is: Is this new evidence of evolution of man?

    ANSWER. The leaflet states some facts which are correct, but it adds assumptions which are only suppositions, e.g., the assumption that evolution is fact and the assumption of some hypothetical, unidentifiable “common ancestor.” We have to keep in mind that man has 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs, the chimpanzee has 48 chromosomes in 24 pairs. Regarding chromosomes of chimps and man, the late Professor Jerome Lejeune, of Paris University, was a world authority. Professor Lejeune stated that chromosomal research clearly demonstrates that the genetic differences between man and each of the three great apes are so great as to provide conclusive evidence that man did not evolve from his closest kin, the apes. There are as many chromosomal differences between man and each of the apes as there are between any one ape species and another. In Australia in 1978 Professor Lejeune stated: We now know, thanks to the work of one of my assistants, that the chimp has two chromosomes more than we have. The chimp has two chromosomes which are separated. Man has a big chromosome which is made by the joining of the analogous two chromosomes of the chimp. My interpretation is that, where Professor Lejeune mentions two chromosomes of the chimp, he is referring to two pairs. Then two pairs of ordinary chromosomes in the chimp have the equivalent of one big pair of chromosomes in man. He explained that the joining of the two chromosomes is head to head, which, until recently, had been regarded as impossible. When they are thus joined, the genetic information of the second chromosome in the chimp is read in one direction, but its fused counterpart in man is read in the reverse direction. The reading of the information in the chimp’s direction may give one sense, but, when read in the human way, it gives a different significance.

    If a gene contains 1,000 or more nucleotides, and if a nucleotide directs the position of an amino acid, and if one amino acid out of position can cause biological havoc, let us imagine the effect of the reversal of a chromosome containing thousands of genes. When such immensity of genetic information can be read forwards (for a chimp) and backwards (for man) without biologically wrecking the chimp or the man, it suggests clever design by a super-intelligence.


    Professor Lejeune affirmed that research since 1971 has shown that the Darwinist idea of evolution by gradual change is genetically impossible. He is definite that the only way anything could have evolved is by sudden and complete breaks. That means evolution by big jumps, so we are looking at the “hopeful monster” idea again. Having established that man, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan are equally far apart, and none of them could have evolved into another, Lejeune concludes thus: A simplified theory might suppose that all four came from a common ancestor, through different species that were separated long ago, and that the common ancestor was not an ape at all, but some small mammal.

    The scientific position is clear: Science observes man and three species of ape, and science pronounces that man could not have evolved from any ape. That is all that science can tell us. Scientists can hypothesize all sorts of things if they desire evolution. So some scientists (and some teachers) are hypothesizing that evolution of man did happen and that man and chimp have evolved along separate lines from an unknown “common ancestor.” In body structure there is some rough similarity between man and chimp, so it is not surprising that there is a considerable similarity in chromosomes. However, even if the only difference were in that fused chromosome in man, that would involve some thousands of genes of human genetic information as opposed to chimpanzee information; and that constitutes a world of difference. Lejeune reminds us that our bodies are human because the genetic information that molded our bodily material is human information. “Otherwise,” he says, “we would be flies or chimpanzees.” If you want to believe in evolution, you have to abandon evolution by gradual steps. You must believe in sudden and complete breaks. You have to accept evolution by “monsters” which (instead of dying as all monsters do) survive and launch new species; and you must believe that these “hopeful monsters” have been happening so frequently as to produce the innumerable species that have ever lived on earth.

  • ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics

    So frequent a happening could not stop now. Your pet mare’s expected foal might be something not a foal, but a something never before seen on earth. To be consistent, you must not be surprised if, someday, your own child is not the expected baby but something other than human, never before seen on earth, and that this little monster will survive, but be unable to breed with humans. Lejeune has said that, to start a new species, there have to be at least two of these. Before your own monster can breed a new species, a second monster has to be born about the same time, one of opposite gender, with complementary reproductive organs. Evolutionists like to hypothesize back into the dim, untestable past. If you play that game, you must ask yourself: Might it not happen, just as easily, in my own suburb, in my own home, at any time? I know, and you know, that it will not happen.
    { This portion on the human Ape Chromasomes is an excerpt from Wallace Johnson in his book "The Death of Evolution" found at } Chimps and Humans Differ in the way they use its genes which shows empirically that they show NO evidence of sharing a common ancestor.

    A person can either ignore the real evidence for a fine-tuned universe and continue the get their science education from science "Fiction" movies, only to ask "what if?" (OR) a person can ask "What is?" by studying all physical and empirical evidence even when it points to a Being as the Uncaused source of the beginning of time, space, and matter. Why can we study one mitochondria and see no genetic link between similiar appearing life-forms? Why are the processes of photosynthesis and cellular respiration so different throughout the kingdoms of life? Why do organisms share so many similarities on the physiological and anatomical level, yet differ in the ways their genes use proteins? How can we explain the differences between organisms? Why are biochemical pathways arranged the way they are? Why do organisms produce so many offspring when only a tiny fraction will survive which has nothing to do with genetic defects? How do organisms fill their ecological niches when symbiotic relationship and immune system characteristic are preprogrammed within each organism? These are all questions that evolutionary theory DOES NOT answer; however, a designed creation does. A belief in universal common ancestors is unnecessary when finding answers to biological processes, environmental issues, health problems, or making predictions in laboratory experiments.

    Evolutionists don't want the average person to know that they base their "science" on unproved conjecture. But now they are acting frantically as their house of cards is falling down, and we can now see the little men behind the black curtain. Evolution paleoanthropologists now admit: "we know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes." Those words were not taken out of context. They hid behind credentials before the media then arrogantly declared "so-called" evolutionary discoveries without an observable scientific model for their own theory. The Face Off

    We have all seen the series of extinct creatures that supposedly lead from ape to man. Evolutionists confidently declare that while there may be a lot of details missing from the story, the basic outline is fairly complete. This all seems rather impressive. Marvin Lubenow, offers an important observation:

    "What is not generally known is that this sequence, impressive as it seems, is a very artificial and arbitrary arrangement because 1) some fossils are selectively excluded if they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme; 2) some human fossils are arbitrarily downgraded to make them appear to be evolutionary ancestors when they are in fact true humans; and 3) some non-human fossils are upgraded to make them appear to be human ancestors."
    {Referenced from Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker, 1992), Page. 21}

  • Early Man and Human Fossils: Archaeology Evidence Exihibit A

  • Early Man and Human Fossils: Archaeology Evidence Exihibit B:

  • Why the cambrian explosion yields a mortal blow to gradualism: New Discoveries Affirm Genesis Events and Timing

    The fact that there are fossils indistinguishable from modern humans extending back 4.5 million years ago is a perfect example of how the evolutionists process of deception works. The fossil, Kanapoi (KP 271) is dated approx. 4.4 million y.a. It cannot be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically. Evolutionist William Howells has a problem with it only because he says "it's too old to be human"

    "The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested it might represent 'Australopithecus because at that time allocation to the Homo seemed preposterous, 'although it would be the correct one without the time element.'"

    Evolutionists will not acknowledge fossils when they are found "out of date" according to the "theory." The reason is that it runs counter to their "belief system," so it 'must' be a mistake, so they say. However as we uncover THE FACTS, it is the theory of Evolution that's been the one big mistake.

  • Human Fossil Failure: Archaeology Evidence Exihibit C:

  • Why is it Scientifically Rational to Question the Geological Column


    Darwinism Dethroned by Geological Evidence & Anomalies

    However old the Earth actually is, the geological record contains irrefutable evidence of catastrophes that have affected this planet. Anytime you witness widespread evidence of death and destruction fossilized in stone you can be sure that a disaster caused by water had a part to play. Catastrophes happen today and they happened yesterday. Now ask yourself, what natural disaster could fossilize clams (both great and small) so rapidly that they were unopened and found up in the mountain ranges around Mt. Everest? What's the most realistic natural event that could rapidly bury countless numbers of life-forms all over the world so quickly that they fossilized together before they could decay?

    Answer: A Massive Flood.

    Since fossilization and petrification doesn't take as long as Evolutionists and Atheists wanted us to believe, there is no reason to dismiss reality for the sake of keeping an outdated and antiquated theory alive. After connecting all the dots of evidence and geological anomalies, become aware of the evidence that evolutionists have ignored, misrepresented, or have tried to have censored from public awareness.



    The Rising Neanderthal Scandal

    Let's begin with a press release that sent shock waves into the science community in 1999. In a controversial paper published in the Geographical Review, Jerome Dobson, a geographer at Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has suggested that the Neanderthals could have been a kind of modern human who suffered from chronic iodine deficiency and cretinism that caused the thick, curved bones, large heads, ridged eyebrows and heavy muscles that are typical Neanderthal characteristics. For years scientists have known how the level of nutrition a child receives when it is young determines its bone structure development as an adult. A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects Darwinists over the years wanted the public to believe that the neaderthal was a different species of human, but not human.

    In a sense Dobson became as a that little boy who announced, "The Emperor has No Clothes" when he actually examined the Neanderthal remains and declared them to be 100% human with an iodine deficiency. As a Geographer, he had "first-hand experience meeting people groups from all parts of the world who exhibited the same conditions as the Neanderthal skeletal bones. Dobson noted that the map of sites where Neanderthal remains have been found corresponds fairly closely to a pattern of cretinism common in the "goiter belts" of Central and Alpine Europe until well into the 20th century, when iodized salt was introduced. "Neanderthalism" may have ended only when modern humans figured out how to bring iodine inland, he said. Seaweed, marine fish and shellfish are nature's prime sources of iodine.

    Darwinian Paleontologists loyal to the "emperor" Charles Darwin, began ridiculing the geographer saying that he that Dobson was talking outside his field. One such person was Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis, who is considered one of the nation's leading authorities on Neanderthals, and therefore had much to loose if Dobson's theory about Neanderthals are confirmed. But sometimes a picture is worth thousand words. Would you like to see a modern day Neanderthal? I am convinced that some of those in the science community would rather the public not see evidence of the strength of Dobson's argument. You will now see the connection between the Neanderthal remains excavated and those with the exact same condition throughout the world. Now this is how a Neanderthals skeleton appears. Exhibit AA Now the comparison between neanderthal & human: Exhibit BB, Exhibit CC It is not necessary to invent a new species of humanity. Such logic has become the rationale for all the genocides and holocausts of the world. When the science community perpetuates such stereotyping they only perpetuate surpremists attitudes into the next generation just as Hilter did when justifying his form of ethnic cleansing. No one ought to be marginalized or victimized due to their appearance.

    There seems to be a disconnect between scientists who make discoveries to improve human life and those scientists indoctrinated by Darwinism who invented scenarios of human development based on previous assumptions such as the time sequence that an "alleged" hominid arose. Thus they have pretended that their hypothesis were a well established facts. Ironically Darwinian scientists have a difficult time changing their own minds about traditional beliefs about the Neanderthal. These scientists do not want the public to become aware of the serious conflicts being discussed within the science community about our ancestral connection with those titled Neanderthal. In schools was lead to believe that the Neanderthal was not human at all human. Now new scientific evidence is confirming the geographer’s original assessment of the Neanderthals humanity. Researchers today say that the Neanderthal DNA Sequence Can Be Rebuilt

    We were lead to believe that they were sub-human. However some interesting genetic facts have surfaced that Charles Darwin would not have had access to in his day.

    1) The Neanderthal has the very same language genes as modern Humans. According to Jeff Wall, PhD, a researcher with the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, The mitochondrial DNA represents "just a fraction of the information." Mitochondrial DNA mapping is less challenging but also less informative than mapping the DNA on chromosomes. Wall is a researcher with the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics who develops mathematical methods to analyze genetic data said, "The real answer is going to require the kind of data they have gathered now but not yet published," he says.

    On September 4, 2009, Jeffrey Norris wrote for the University of California in San Francisco's Science Cafe about the Neaderthal DNA. Richard Green, PhD, has made a career of studying Neanderthal DNA at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. As he made his presentation before UCSF, his remarks about the neanderthal based on of the predetermined assumption that the neanderthal is a mere hominid and related closer to a chimp than modern humans. However Green grudgingly noted a few specific chromosomal genes of interest to researchers. One is FOXP2, which plays a role in speech. The human gene differs from the chimp gene, and so far, humans and Neanderthals appear to share the same variants of this gene. A few other genes thought to encode uniquely human attributes also were the same in the Neanderthal samples but his team chose not to elaborate on those details publicly. It is interesting to note that in the article Green calls humans today - "hominids." Even as evidence begins to point to the neanderthals humanity, some Darwinian scientists appear to be so threaten by the possibility that they would rather call every human being on the face of the earth a hominid than to admit neanderthals were a small group of humans who suffered from extreme genetic isolation.

    In fact, July 2009 the Svante lab reported Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA studies from five individuals in the journal Science. The researchers observed limited DNA diversity. This indicated that the Neanderthal population in Europe was small, and may have included fewer than 3,400 females, they reported. This further supports the idea that the neanderthals were susceptible genetic challenges just as had occurred in ancient cultures which suffered from the effects of voluntary or involuntary inbreeding.

    However, Wall said, "If you have even two percent of Neanderthal genes finding their way into the modern gene pool, then we know they may have interacted in the same area for a substantial period of time. If you look at the whole genome, you’re going to find it." But if Neanderthal's interbred, then they were humans who would have obviously had fertile offspring in order to pass its traits.

    "There's a huge difference between a few percent and zero percent," Wall says. "Zero percent would suggest that they never coexisted or that they could not reproduce." (Reference:

    2) The Neanderthals have DNA that are 99.5 to 99.9 percent identical to humans. Ironically as they peered more deeply into the DNA of unrelated individuals, researchers made a startling discovery - large segments of their DNA, from thousands to millions of units, varied greatly, a phenomenon called copy number variations, or CNVs. The discovery means that the genes of any given individual are at least 10 to 12 percent different from those of another human. Therefore the those called neanderthal might as well be a person of different race of human. The Genetic Evidence

    3) The Neanderthal had a larger brain size than modern humans. Now for the catch 22. A larger brain capacity means that the Neanderthal had more intelligence than modern man; therefore according to very perspective paleontologists use when dating a fossils age, we must have devolved. But if the larger brain capacity was the result of a disease (as is reflected by the previous photos then the Neanderthal is 100% human with a Cretinism. Otherwise the modern science community would be stereotyping and grouping those people with certain health challenges as a lower class of life-form. The stubbornness to venerate the Neanderthal as a transition in the path from ape to man has led some science writers to conclude that the Neanderthal were the normal ones and modern humans are the odd ones. That’s exactly where Erik Trinkaus went with his research after an interview with Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience who posted on 08 September 2006 12:05 pm ET.
    He had published his findings in the August 2006 issue of the journal Current Anthropology - Titled: Scientist: Humans Strange, Neanderthals Normal
    (Referenced: )

    Meredith F. Small, Columnist of LiveScience's Human Nature, reported about some of the latest genetic discoveries challeging the traditional darwinian perspective. In her article, "The Scariest Thing about Neanderthals," she discusses the implications that researchers Carles Lalueza-Fox of the University of Barcelona, Spain and Holger Rompler of the University of Leipzig in Germany announced last week that Neanderthals had the same distribution of hair and skin color as modern human European populations. She said that ever since their fossils were first discovered in 1829 (and later called "Neanderthal Man" by William King, who was part Irish, by the way), these (so-called) hominids have been relegated to the status of cave men and women. Neanderthals were shorter and more muscular than the other humans living at the same time, had bigger noses and projecting brow ridges, and no chins.

    Meridith then acknowledges that these ancient fellow Europeans were also culturally sophisticated. They buried their dead, built shelters, made tools, used fire and hunted. The may have had language (DNA sequencing has also revealed they carried the FOXP2 gene which is linked to language ability). And they had brains 100 cubic centimeters larger than people today. She admits that the topic of the neanderthal is theatening because the neanderthal have appeared so much like the average european according to genetic discover despite the over-rated, exaggerated mitochondrial DNA analysis which was based on a fragmentary sample size. Evolutionist are clearly troubled and feel challenged by this latest information as they discover that the neanderthal is proving to be not only human, but also very european! Referenced from:

    In 1987, scientists published the results of a study that compared a certain kind DNA found in the part of cells called Mitochondria. Mitochondria are an organelle found in large numbers in most cells, in which the biochemical processes of respiration and energy production occur; they are the cells energy producers. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from mothers and is passed on from generation to generation. Today, geneticists realize that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) plays NO ROLE in determining how we appear. Scientists have tried to use mtDNA to construct a tree of human origins where the neanderthal was suppose to fit as an ancient relative. The scientists looked at groups of people from all over the world and discovered that the mitochondria of all humans are identical, which means that at some point in human history all humans originated from one women, just as the biblical record testifies in genesis. In fact, we now have genetic evidence that Proves Adam & Eve Existed. This means that all humanity are descendants of the very same ancestors regardless of their racial appearance. The reason we all possess similar mtDNA is because Eve is the mother of the whole human race. According to scientists who still hold racist attitudes against the African people, an African's genetic diversity or an Africans vast difference in appearance from whites (Caucasians) must mean that Blacks (Africans) have been around longer and thus have had longer for their genes to change from generation to generation from the primate. Since mtDNA has nothing to do with appearance or physical traits, these out-dated racist scientists cannot make the argument for common ancestry with apes based on those results. All they have have left are their old diehard racist neo-Darwinian aspirations to elevate the notions of a superior white race.

    The Darwinists Story changes as Evidence for the Neanderthals humanity increases
    In 1999 Potts agreed with Trinkaus that the Neanderthal was a different species. But an amazing thing happened after Dobson submitted his findings challenging the hominid status of Neanderthal. New questions were raised and new answers were given by Darwinian paleontologists in order to explain away their own lack of evidence. Some of his questions were, "After modern humans supplanted the Neanderthals, where did the modern humans get their iodine?" "If the two competed for the same scarce resources, why is there little evidence of even random encounters, let alone warfare? Trinkaus suggested that Neanderthal interbred with modern humans. But that idea unwittingly strengthened Dobson’s case all the more. Only those of the same species can interbreed.

    Potts picked up on this and did some damage control to defend the traditional view of the Neanderthal. Potts wondered why, if interbreeding is the answer, no examples of it have been found until now. Answer: I believe they only had two options to either admit the Neanderthal was actually a human with an iodine disease or just say that Neanderthals interbred with modern human. Most chose to say they interbred so they could have an excuse any time genetic and anatomical evidence pointed to the Neanderthals humanity. Potts said, "Although there is plenty of evidence the two species coexisted, there is no evidence that they cohabited."

    But how far will they take the notion of the Neanderthal being a new species of human? Some within the science community would hope that the public forgets about the contradictory data that challenges the traditional evolutionary model of human origins. Let’s look at the firestorm of conflicting reports from the world of science.

    Andrea Thompson, a LiveScience Staff Writer, reported on October 30, 2006 that Humans and Neanderthals Might Have Interbred. In her article she does a report with the very same Erik Trinkaus who once challenged Dobson seven years prior. Trinkaus believes that Neanderthals interbreed with modern humans even though they were a different species. Unfortunately, as this article points out, "Prior to this study, the [Neanderthal] remains were largely forgotten because 'there was serious doubt as to their age,' Trinkaus said. When the remains were discovered in a Romanian cave in the early 1950s, prior to carbon dating, they were not embedded in a rock layer that might indicate their age. Because the bones essentially looked like those of an early modern human, they received little attention inside Romania and were unknown outside the country." Trinkaus and other darwinian researchers are loosing credibility and the well informed public are losing patience with such scientists like Trinkaus who hyperbolize their research in order to prop up an outdated, antiquated theory of human origins.

    (After comparing the entire Neanderthal sequence that we had to the human sequence, we saw that both were very, very close to each other, from 99.5 percent to almost 99.9 percent identical.)

    Wait a minute! If the Neanderthal was a different species of human, how could they have interbred with humanity? Only those of the same species can interbreed. This new evidence signals a death-nail in the coffin in calling the Neanderthal a new species of human. Edward Rubin is a gene expert of the U.S. Government's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Rubin was recently able to examine actual DNA from a Neanderthal leg bone from Croatia. The report never presents the scientific evidence for why the bone fragment was give a date of 32,000 years old. Richard Potts, director of the Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program does the very same thing in 1999 when he "assumes" that Neanderthals started to exist during a period that dates back 230,000 years ago then on the basis of the date assumption, he lays another assumption that they must have survived.

    You can see the circular reasoning for yourself from his quote from this article in The Japan Times, June 1, 1999
    By GUY GUGLIOlTA, The Washington Post. "Dobson's critics say his explanation is too facile (simple). 'Potts pointed out that Neanderthals existed for 200,000 years in a variety of environments, simply too long and too large a geographic area to say it's all explained by a single pathology.'"

    The response would be, "Why does the explanation have to be so complicated and based on mere assumption?"

    Mr. Rubin says among the findings is that Neanderthals were genetically the closest relatives to modern humans. "By comparing the entire Neanderthal sequence that we had to the human sequence, we saw that both were very, very close to each other, from 99.5 percent to almost 99.9 percent identical," he added. But the million dollar question is, "Why not officially declare the Neanderthal human because genetic data now confirms it." We know now that they have same genes of taste that humans posses.

    Mitochondrial DNA has been used to track ancestors because it can only be passed down by way of the mother. On the other hand, nuclear DNA is a conglomeration of chromosomes inherited from two parents. Certain scientists decided that they could use the mutation rates of mtDNA as a steady clock in order to theoretically estimate the time period a common ancestor lived. Scientist sought to compare the mtDNA of humans living today and the mtDNA of the neanderthal in order to determine when they shared a common ancestor based on the rate of mutation. For example, let's say that two mtDNA's differed by ten mutations and that the scientists assumed that the mutation rate to be one in every hundred thousand years. That would mean that common ancestor lived ten thousand years ago. After comparing the mtDNA of modern humans from all over the world with that of the Neanderthal, Evolution researchers proposed that the common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals must have lived 500,000 years ago. Since that date of "alleged common ancestry" turned out to be too long before the most recent common ancestor of all living people, namely eve, it suggested that Neanderthals died out contributing their mtDNA to modern humans. However today these arbitrary evolutionary mutation rates are now in question, we now know that neanderthals must have interbred with the rest of humanity because we observe the exact same genes in the both of us.

    It was the darwinian scientists and not the data that determined the dates Neanderthals were supposed to have diverged into humans. How do they really know what dates to set? Answer: They don't. It is just a wild guess based on a belief that it just happened that way. And the public was led to believe the dates were based on firm evidence. After scientists sequenced amplified DNA from the neanderthal directly they came up with unexpected data which showed that research presented the Nature International weekly Joural of Science paper suggested that "modern humans and Neanderthals shared a common ancestor more recently, and may have interbred after their separation." All of these results point to one conclusion: the Neanderthal sequence in the Nature paper looks far more like that of modern humans than any other data would suggest is possible. Of course, there's a simple and obvious explanation for that discrepancy: the sequence is from modern humans. Therefore in order to prevent more damage to the traditional concept of neanderthal they said that their must be human contamination. (Reference:

    Conclusion In Part
    I believe that the reason so many Darwinian scientists never thought to ask themselves whether the Neanderthal was human is because, they feel like so much time, effort has been invested, and government and private grant money has been spent to admit they have been on the wrong track for so many years. Recently researchers now have now admitted that the Neanderthals were "not so stupid" after all. They just appeared different. Intellectual pride can make people quite stubborn sometimes and leave their students completely deceived.

    The facial and bones structures seen on the Neanderthal may not have been common to most europeans or darwinists themselves but that is no excuse to reject their humanity. There are people today with the very same features today that darwinists have called neanderthal. The very same protruded eyebrows are seen all over the world. CLICK EXHIBIT E1 CLICK EXHIBIT E3

    When Scientists utilize an antiquated theory to color the their archaeological finds they will eventually become frustrated when the hard data contradicts their predictions and rationale. Preconceived notions have always played an essential role in the study of fossil man; in fact, the entire subject of anthropology has been based on finding evidence to support a preconceived theory rather than based on evidence from which a theory is drawn. The interpretation of evidence has been intimately associated with the personality and persuasive ability of the individual proposing the interpretation. It is remarkable how often the initial interpretation of new evidence has confirmed the preconceptions of those responsible for the discovery. The discipline has thus tended to be dominated by ambitious men and, here again, the principle operates that the more fragmentary the evidence, the greater the degree of speculation -- a principle often augmented by sheer force of argument. For example one of the remarkable features present on the neanderthal are their protruded or heavy eyebrows. Protruded brows may not be a common european trait but it does not justify that we consider human skulls with such an endowment as a primitive human. This following picture is of a Munda woman from the Chota Nappur Hills, India. The heavy supra orbital torus (eyebrow ridges) common to Neanderthal skulls does not necessarily mean that they all looked ugly or "primitive". Now compare this neanderthal's skull with this picture of this modern woman. CLICK EXHIBIT E2 This picture comes from (From Coon 1965; The Estate of Carlton S. Coon)

    Those with distinct facial features or uncommon skeletal stuctures should not be marginalized by arrogant members of the science community. Furthermore there is no reason to invent new species of humanity in the past based on skeletal analysis when those very same features exist in the human population today.
  • New Research Shows Humans Closer to Neanderthals Than Chimpanzees - Neanderthals were 100% human

    Let's continue with some of the latest developments regarding the Neanderthal Scandal. In 2010, an article came out in the National Geographic about the latest Genetic finding about the Neanderthal. Die hard Evolutionists hid behind their degrees in order to promote the idea that Neanderthals were "not human" at all (just a primative species of human that could not therefore mate with others. It is no wonder that many of the so-called experts on the neanderthal delayed releasing the current genetic findings which proved and confirmed our predition that new research would arise confirming that Neanderthals were and are indeed human as anyone of us today showing that the Neanderthal positively mated with those called modern human's today. The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that "modern" humans—or Homo sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors. "That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study." "'They've finally seen the light ... because it's been obvious to many us that this happened,'" said Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, who wasn't part of the new study. Trinkhaus adds that most living humans probably have much more Neanderthal DNA than the new study suggests. "One to 4 percent is truly a minimum," Trinkaus added. "But is it 10 percent? Twenty percent? I have no idea." (Referenced from:

    Even though the article makes some assumptions about human the dates of the existence of when modern humans arrived appear in history the jury is still out. As a result of this recent discovery reported in December 2010 about the earliest modern human remains ever documented among the scientists estimation is a sign of what is to come as the fossil record turns evolutionary theories of human origins on its head as the tooth was located in rock layers that were considered much older. According to the JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli archaeologists say they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man. A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said Monday they found teeth about 400,000 years old. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half that old. I predict that this evidence will, will either challenge the dating methods or dating theories revealing affect floods and geological catastropies pose to the location and assumed dates of organisms alive today. Human Evidence Pre-Noah Flood Pt. 1 & Human Evidence Pre-Noah Flood Pt.2

  • The Neanderthal Hominid Hoax: Neanderthals were no different than us today

    Peruvian bound skull
    Courtesy of the Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

    The Shaped Skull
    No, this is not an alien hominid. Head-shaping has been practiced for centuries world-wide in aristocratic ancient Greek and Roman families, among North, Central and South American Indians, in Africa and in Europe. Deformation of the skull is the best-documented form, largely because archaeological skeletal remains clearly show its presence. In areas of Holland, for example, tight-fitting caps worn by women throughout their lives created a unique head shape. Up to the eighteenth century, a regional group of French people placed a constricting band on children's heads causing a circular depression around the skull. In Hitler's Germany, anxious parents massaged babies' heads into the favored long shape of the master race. Skull #2 , Skull #3 , Skull #4

    Genetic deformities effecting the human skull are an exeption to the rule and not the norm. Such mutations are harmful, not beneficial. Inbreeding, radiation, and genetic disease that appear among humans today have also occurred in the past. Some anthropologists have mistaken a genetic disorder for a new species of mankind and misdiagnosed the age of strata on the basis of a skull with "so-called primative looking features. It is dishonest for scientists to use skulls that are of European descent as an example of a modern humanity as if it were a litmus test for intelligence or what ought to be considered human.

    Discover the Latest Evidence Below
    Modern Human Man's Medical Condition Discredits Darwinism and Evolutionary Fossil Evidence

    Currently anthropologists are discovering the powerful genetic affects that inbreeding has on the anatomy of humanity. This man is from Hunan, China. The Reporter and the genetics experts from Provincial People's Hospital found Chen Conghua also labeled as "monkey man," at Huangnidun village and Liaogongwo village in Gongxi county. Chen Changping, a local cadre, said that the man's father is a psychopath and he had recently become extremely unstable when facing strangers. According to a reporter from Rednet, villagers said that Conghua has an unfortunate family of which his mother and brother are retarded in mind. "His family is in the serious conditions and they can't even feed themselves." Xu Wei, the Genetic expert from Hunan people's hospital said, "His parents are disabled people, so their children are probably abnormal ones."

    Communist China's own forced family planning laws are directly responsible for the rise of incest villages. One July 1, 2002, Time Magazine reported, "For two decades, the government has tried to control population by limiting most rural families to one child, two if the first is a girl. Because boys are prized in rural areas--they can work the land and give more support to their families--this has led many couples to abort female fetuses, kill newborn daughters or neglect them to death. The result: China, according to the World Health Organization, is short 50 million females. The first wave of children born under the policy is reaching marriageable age, and there are far too few brides to go around. The most desperate bachelors have taken to marrying relatives. In a few places, the practice has become so common, the communities are referred to as incest villages. China is not the only nation suffering from the effects of incest. Incestuous relationships between family members have been on every continent in the world and genetic compromise is inevitable. Naive scientists assumed that birth defects and retardation are more common within the offspring of first cousins and siblings in China and rural villages around the world.

    However, after the sexual revolution in America in the late 1960's to early 1970's, the culture became largely influenced by musicians who spoke and sang about "free love" and the abolition of moral absolutes. Many abandoned the biblical standard of husband and wife and rejected the bible's basic social guidelines for the family unit in Christ. No longer were a large number of people interested in being abstinent until marriage, but instead, experimented with multiple partners. Soon the STD rates in America hit epidemic proportions. Large numbers of children would soon grew up fatherless or unaware of the identity of their fathers, because women and men were practicing promiscuity (sex before & outside the confines of marriage) both secretly and openly. Children who grow up ignorant of their fathers, become adults who are not aware of the identity of their siblings and first cousins. Genetic defects and retardation will continue to occur within families whether a man and women are aware they are siblings/cousins or not. Liberal social engineers hesitate to publicly face the fact that another withering effects of the sexual revolution America is incest among citizens. Today, the rise of children born with autism, central nervous system and development conditions could be powerful evidence that incest is leaving a long lasting genetic mark on our modern civilization. The Washington Post Reported, "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year reported that 1 in every 150 American children has an "autism spectrum disorder," which includes conditions from the severe and disabling to the mild and [it is] often-overlooked." They further reported that some states have experienced huge increases. For example, in California, the number of children getting services for autism tripled from 1987 to 1998 and then doubled between 1998 and 2002. In Minnesota, diagnosed autism increased from two cases per 1,000 schoolchildren in 1998 to 6.6 cases per 1,000 in 2002. The Demographic Winter: The Failure of the Sexual Revolution in America and Europe

    It is now apparent that some people may be so conditioned to accept Darwinism as a philosophy that if this man had died a year ago and was buried without a stitch of clothing on six feet under the ground, the evolutionists of the science community would be in uproar clamoring that they have found the most complete skeleton of the so-called "missing link" in their press releases. His condition is seen scattered throughout the fossil record. Whenever evolutionary paleontologists see such a find they typically use it as an index fossil and justify it by assuming that the rock strata is older due to alleged primitive features of such "human-like" skeletons. Such scientific circular reasoning from evolutionary paleontologists are obstructing the progress of science. By studying the DNA on humans, geneticists have been able to trace back human origins to an unknown point in time where was an Adam and Eve. DNA Proves Adam & Eve Existed
    {Referenced from:}

    Many of the human fossil deemed hominid could realistically re-diagnosed as products of inbreeding and not an example of common ancestry with apes. According to Razib Khan, he has talked about the problems that may occur as a result of long term societal inbreeding in the past. In short, in a society that is predominantly outbred isolated cases of cousin marriage are not particularly deleterious, but in many cultures systemic inbreeding results in tunneling and narrowing of lineages into discrete effective population pools where stochastic effects start to loom large. He added that the number of unique ancestors in inbred clans starts drop in relation to what one would predict in a panmictic context. Deleterious recessives masked in the ancestors are then expressed much more frequently as the copies of duplicate defective alleles reunite and manifest their peculiarities. The coefficient of relationship between first cousins is only 1/8, but, that does not include the added proportion contributed by these more distant common ancestors. In any case, Armand Leroi surveys the inordinately high frequency of the disease of microcephaly in Pakistan, and places the blame on inbreeding. Unfortunately, Pakistanis in the North of England are also plagued by this disease. Check out visual examples that demonstrate how inbreeding has direct influence on the anatomy of offspring.

    On a different note some skulls were reshaped on purpose. Deformation of the head is not physically harmful since the skull is a solid case with uniform walls. However, to shape the skull into the prevailing cultural aesthetic, the application of pressure must be initiated at birth when the baby's skull is soft. Even in the modern times human skulls are being being reshaped. Head flattening was practiced by a number of North, Central, and South American Indian tribes, particularly before European colonization. (View this painting by Paul Kane historically documented. Charles Darwin, a nineteenth-century "scientist," failed to take into consideration how cultures manipulated skull shapes. Modern women with heavy eyebrows Many anthropologists assume that modern human man skull must all appear European in shape. Some have even labeled certain skulls as hominid (a transition between ape and man) that have features identical to modern humans. This is a growing scandal that the science community will have to deal with. All we have to do is open our eyes and see how our bodies are shaped differently around the world. The shape of the our skull directly influences the appearance of our face and how our head shaped. Some people have foreheads that are upright, slanted, rounded, arched, or high. Some people have short faces, protruded faces, wide faces, long faces, narrow faces, or chiseled faces. Some of the backs of peoples heads appear very flat, high towered, slightly rounded, overarching away from their neck, or side wide bulbed shaped. Regardless of the shape of our skulls we are all unique and individually beautiful and we are all 100% human. Darwinism has a history of justifying stereotyping and developing racist evaluations of cultures and people on the bases of skull shape. This will be dealt in the next section. Once the fact that humans have a history of reshaping their skulls and possesses the very same features seen fossilized is combined with the partial and fragmentary evidence of reconstructed "hominid skulls" it demands that we question the plausibility of a human's evolutionary link with apes.

  • Has Science Shown that we are Related to Apes? - Answer: NO

  • The Evolution of Man and his many Hoaxes


    Homo Floresiensis - AKA ... THE HOBBIT Another scandal rising.

    Now the so-called hominid titled the Hobbit was discovered to be a 100% human even though it was located on the island of Indonesia: a victim of either cretinism or was a pygmy human with microcephally. See the video below. Some people may have an inability to use iodine or access iodine-rich foods. Hobbit was 'a cretin' Fossil may be early example of hypothyroidism. Dalton, Rex. "Pacific 'dwarf' bones cause controversy." Nature 452.7184 (March 13, 2008): 133(1). Academic OneFile. Gale. Regent University. 2 June 2008

    According to CBC news reported Thursday, May 18, 2006 The "Hobbit" fossils of a tiny human found in Indonesia aren't those of a new species, a primatologist proposes, but actually someone with a genetic illness that causes dwarfism. Paleontologists announced the discovery of what appeared to be an adult female less than one metre tall in 2004. This skull cast and cast of the endocranial cavity (endocast) of a modern adult human who suffered from microcephaly. It provides evidence that the LB1 skull from Flores could also have been a microcephalic adult."
    This picture was courtesy of John Weinstein and The Field Museum from CBC news. View the skull

    The team considered the skeleton, named LB1, to be a member of a new species derived from Homo erectus. Prof. Mike Morwood, of the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, proposed the species designation Homo floresiensis. But the fossil became known as the "Hobbit" in the press, after the diminutive characters in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings series. Other bones found at the site suggest LB1 belonged to a population of early dwarfs, with a body mass, brain size and short legs similar to those found on other isolated islands, Morwood's team said.

    Lee Berger is a paleoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. According to Berger, the estimated brain size of the early Palauans is about twice the size of the hobbit brain. Several other features, including the shape of the face and hips, suggest that the Palauan bones should be classified as Homo sapiens. If the interpretation of the Palauan remains is correct, the find may add more fuel to the debate over whether the Flores hobbit is a unique species, Berger said.

    Aside from being tiny, the Palauan bones show that some of these people lacked chins and had deep jaws, large teeth, and small eye sockets, according to the paper. Some of these features were considered important in originally distinguishing the hobbit as a unique—and archaic—species, Berger said.

    But the Palauan remains suggest these features may just be a consequence of insular dwarfism, a shrinking process that some scientists attribute to the stresses of a small island environment. How? Palau lacks indigenous terrestrial mammals and large reptiles that early Palauans might have used for food. Archaeological records indicate fishing was NOT a local activity until about 1,700 years ago, around the time bigger bones appear in the caves.

    The early Palauans' limited diet, combined with a tropical climate, absence of predators, a small founding population, and genetic isolation, may have produced "these very odd features and very small body size," Berger said. Behold the kind of evidence some in the science community cannot provide and would rather censor from the public. They would rather provide you with hand sketches and conceptual models. Would you like to see a photo of what Darwinian scientists are calling a Hobbit? In reality they are such as 100% human as any one of us. Now let's view some comparisons with actual photos of those with an Iodine deficiency. Notice their smaller stature than average human Exhibit A1, Exhibit B1, Exhibit C1, & Exhibit D1
    Notice the thick bone structure, the pronounced eye brows, smaller stature. The evidence is now confirmed. (The Hobbit is discredited)

    Even though this hard evidence shows that dwarfism has occurred in modern humans, William Jungers, an anthropologist at Stony Brook University in New York and a former National Geographic grantee, stands by his conclusion that the hobbit is a unique species. Isn’t it amazing to see what conflicts that must occur within the science community when a grantee (financial supporter) will only guarantee money to researchers who will come to their predetermined conclusions instead of accepting the data at face value? When the evidence does not fit a Darwinian view funding is withdrawn. Perhaps we are now uncovering the hidden motives why some with academic reputations will on purpose censor scientific data – peer pressure and money.

    In a pathetic feat of desperation, Evolutions felt forced to join forces with Bigfoot hunters and SCI-FI movie promoters in putting together promotional video such as “Saving Flora: The Search for the Real Hobbit and Monster Hunters because the evidence was not there. Even the Science Community has now rejected their so-called “evidence.” Scientists scuttle (disprove) claims that 'Hobbit' fossil from Flores, Indonesia, is a new hominid: New evidence highlights FAILURE to respect good scientific practice
    "There has been too much media hype and too little critical scientific evaluation surrounding this discovery, and it is simply unacceptable that papers should be published without providing proper details of the specimens examined," Dr. Martin says. "The principle of replicability is fundamental to good science, and it has not been respected in this case." This quote comes from Robert D. Martin, PhD, Field Museum Provost and world-class primatologist, say that the bones in question do not represent a new species at all. Click to see how Hobbit "Media Hype" has recently become a Money-Making Scheme for Indonesian Economy

    Recently, some evolutionists have suggested that foot prints to which they attributed to Hobbits had a larger foot size compared to their height than the "average" human. (To evolutionist, the standard litmus test for something considered modern human is normally a specimen with European features and proportionalities. Therefore, they assume that the hobbit is not human. Evolutionist William Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York stated, "Arches are the hallmark of a modern human foot,"..."This is another strong piece of the evidence that the 'hobbit' was not like us." Such scientists fail to mention the fact that larger feet size to stature ratios are common in this day among many island cultures such as Palu, Tonga, and Figi. Futhermore the trait known as "flat foot," (a condition where the arch of the foot collapses, with the entire sole of the foot coming into complete or near-complete contact with the ground,) is common in both Indian and Island cultures. It is a common trait which is relativly uncommon to most europeans. Again arrogant scientists sterotype cultures and people groups in order to sell their speculations publicly. Scientist such as Mike Morwood, have a habit of presenting speculative dates in which they assume "modern people" first arrived in a given area, then instantly consider it solid fact to the point where they'll ignore and discredit realistic hard evidence to the contrary. To the embarrassment of members of the science community, large foot size is NOT a crediable criteria for labeling these small statured remains hominid. Big feet in Polynesia: a Somatometric study of the Tongans

    Unlike the Palauan bones, the hobbit fossils include a skull with an exceptionally small braincase. Its volume is much smaller than that of small-bodied peoples living today on other Pacific islands and in the forests of Africa. It is also smaller than that of the early Palauans. Some scientists argue that the unusually small brain volume of the hobbit makes it not a unique species but rather a small-bodied Homo sapiens with microcephaly, a genetic disease that causes small brains and other abnormalities. (Referenced from: Ancient Bones of Small Humans Discovered in Palau John Roach writes for National Geographic Magazine; March 10, 2008Referenced from:

    The Evolutionist's Hobbit of Lying

    In this video clip above titled "The Mystery of the Human Hobbit" you will notice how each generation of the Indonesians island of Flora steadily gets larger with every consecutive generation meanwhile the oldest member of the tribe is dwarfed in size. (Toward the end of the documentary it cleary challenges the notion of human hobbits) They all have the very same human DNA, and you will see how certain features may have developed in people as a result of being isolated genetically from the mainland and nutritional deficiencies which would effect members of the older population that were not privy to outside trade and genetic diversity as they are today. See photos of how nutrition can effect the human one structure here at A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects Nevertheless they are 100% Humans (Homo Sapien). Please pay attention to the protruded eyebrows of a man Professor Yokab measured at 5 ft 2 inches. Some racist scientists would label him primitive purely based on his appearance if he were mere skeletal remains buried in the ground, yet he is clearly a modern human and normal. This video also points out how Darwinists have have frequently mistaken archeological specimens that only appear primitive in evolutionary terms but is actually abnormal and MODERN!
    Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture

    The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

    Homo Erectus
    According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

    Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus.

    The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197

    The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus.)

    The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198
    How Evolution paleontologists work hard to cover up and ignore the fossils which contradict previous held timetables for evolution from humans to apes.
    (Referenced from
    197 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992, p. 83.
    198 Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19 October 1984, p. A11.)

  • Click HERE for more information about Homo Erectus

  • {Now see this Video Clip below of this South American tribe's diversity} A Bazilian Natives Eye Skeletal Brows

    Notice features in the aborigine that Darwinists are calling "archic" man and see how these people were mistreated.

    When governments apologize for past abuses of a eugenics program and for conducting ethnic cleansings within populations of people groups, we are not only seeing a living example of how our fellow humans with distinct features are destroyed, but we are also witnessing the hypocrisy of those same govenments who still teach that humans share a common ancestory with apes. Both the Aborigine, African and South America Native are 100% human. Not only is Darwinism based on fragmentary skeletal evidence, it has been the driving force to justify racism and human mistreatment.

    African Pygmy Ota Benga was specified to be the "primitive species as evidence to theory of evolution" and he was placed in a cage with monkeys for display. Actually he was only one of the thousands of pygmies slaughtered by evolutionists.

    Pygmy Conference: In 1906, a Congolese Pygmy named Ota Benga was put on display at the Bronx Zoo. While such an exhibition seems inconceivable today, the Pygmies of central Africa are still being marginalized and exploited. As recently as July 2007, Pygmies in the Republic of the Congo were being housed in a tent at a zoo and forced to scrounge for firewood to cook their food as tourists watched. Ota Benga: The Story of the Pygmy on Display in a Zoo

    Pygmy Ota Benga as a youth 1904.

    "Every effort was made to help him blend in (even his teeth were capped to help him look more normal), and although he seemingly had adjusted, inwardly he had not. Several events and changes that occurred there caused him to become despondent. He checked on the price of steamship tickets to Africa, and concluded that he would never have enough money to purchase one. He had not heard from Verner in a while, and did not know bow to contact him. Later employed as a laborer in a tobacco factory in Lynchburg, VA, he grew increasingly depressed, hostile, irrational, and forlorn. When people spoke to him, they noticed that he had tears in his eyes when he told them he wanted to go home. Concluding that he would never be able to return to his native land, on March 20, 1916 Benga committed suicide with a revolver (Sanborn, 1916). In Ward's words: "Ota ... removed the caps from his teeth. When his small companions asked him to lead them into the woods again, he turned them away. Once they were safely out of sight, he shot himself . . (1992, p. 14).

    To the end, Hornaday was inhumane, seriously distorting his situation, even slanderously stating that Ota ... would rather die than work for a living" (Bradford and Blume, 1992, p. 220). An account of his suicide was published by Homaday in the 1916 Zoological Bulletin. Even at this late date, Homaday's evolution-inspired racist feelings clearly showed through:

    the young negro was brought to Lynchburg about six years ago, by some kindly disposed person, and was placed in the Virginia Theological Seminary and College here, where for several years he labored to demonstrate to his benefactors that he did not possess the power of leaming; and some two or three years ago he quit the school and went to work as a laborer (emphasis mine, 1916, p. 1356).

    In Hornaday's words, Ota committed suicide because "the burdern became so heavy that the young negro secured a revolver belonging to the woman with whom he lived, went to the cow stable and there send a bullet through his heart, ending his life.

    How did Verner's grandson, a Darwinist himself, feel about the story? In his words,

    the forest dwellers of Africa still arouse the interest of science. Biologists seek them out to test their blood and to bring samples of their DNA. They are drawn by new forms of the same questions that once vexed S. P. Verner and Chief McGee; What role do Pygmies play in human evolution? What relationship do they have to the original human type?. . . (Bradford and Blume, 1992, pp. 230-231).

    It’s truly sad to see at what lengths scientists will take their theory even though their human origins evidence is fragmentary to non-existent. This goes to show you how Darwinism was not accepted for its scientific merits – but its philosophical ones. On the right hand side, see how the philosophy has inspired the worst in us. How Darwinism Inspired Atheists

    More Coming soon ... The Neanderthal has No Clothes


    Atheists and Evolution-minded scientists have tried to spoon-feed people about their doctrines of "science fiction," but now they are losing credibility as the public becomes aware of the recent scientific discoveries and its implications or Click HERE for free audio updates about those latest discoveries. Evolutionists and secular humanists do not want the average person to realize that the entire storyline about Humans arising from Apes was a complete Hoax from the very beginning up to the present. Just click the branch of science you want.
    EVIDENCE LINK #4: Discoveries Discussed, Questions, and Other Topics

    The overwhelming evidence of a Living God who holds people accountable for their actions can be experienced on a daily basis, and as a result drives self-proclaimed intellectuals to live in the imaginary world of science-FICTION. Alternate universes, Multi-universes, Wormholes, Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Generation, Chance, Transitional Forms in the fossil record, and Primordial Soups are all figments of a skeptics imagination that cannot be tested, cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, and are all NOT seen in the REAL world. There is NO realistic substitute for a transcendent God and we have no excuse to deny Him.

    "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," Romans 1:20

    "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." Psalms 14:1

    1) the irreducible complexity of all living organisms;
    2) the mathematical precision discovered in the operation of the universe as opposed to chaos;
    3) the programmed symbiotic relationships among organisms and the preprogrammed resistance to diseases within the DNA of life-forms which exist in a world where the organic naturally breaks down from complex to simple compounds;
    4) the fact that we never see life arising out of nonliving matter in the real world;
    5) the fact that since natural selection only selects from preexisting genes means that the process is not responsible for new ones; A) B)
    6) the fact that life comes from life and reproduces after its own kind as genesis describes, thus scientists have called it the law of biogenesis;
    7) there have been NO man-made or nature-made examples where life every arose from nonliving matter;
    8) there are NO transitional forms in the fossil record to even suggest that organisms ever were spawned from a common ancestor;
    9) and there are other real world examples, all pointing to the existence of a God who possesses thought, emotion, volition (will); who alone has the ability to create and sustain, and is self-aware - transcending time, space, matter, scope, and power.



  • The Atheist Universe of Francis Collins Collapses

  • Is there Good Evidence for Atheism? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Could the Universe Have Simply Popped into Being? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Can A "Beginning-less Universe" Exist? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Does the Nature of the Universe Argue for God? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Can You Argue Against the Case for Atheism? - Dr. William Lane Craig

    (More about Biochemistry and Genetics Evidence)

    According to ICR, "Evolution is the religion of naturalism, the anti-thesis of supernaturalism. It purports to answer all the "big" questions of life. "Who am I?" "Where did I come from?" "Where am I going?" "What's the meaning of all this?" Claiming that science equals naturalism excludes a Creator from science by definition. Even if that Creator exists and has been active, such a notion is unscientific. This religion of naturalism, that we are merely the result of blind random forces is logically compatible only with atheism. It has resulted in life without accountability to a Creator and has led to a licentious society full of great heartache, for evolution thinking underpins racism, abortion, infanticide, mass murders, euthanasia, incest, promiscuity, divorce, suicide, Social Darwinism, etc. While science and technology have accomplished great things, often by evolution believers, the concept of evolution itself has lead to nothing useful." {Referenced from dated 02-09-07}

    EVIDENCE LINK #5: Does God Exist Scientifically?


    When scientists use the term "chance" as the cause of the universe, it is ultimately an argument for self-creation. What is chance? It is just a word we use to explain mathematical possibility. If a person says that they five lbs or cents of chance on one side and then trying to determine how much chance they would have on the other side, chance itself would still be nothing. Yet we have generations of people who calmly except the idea that the universe was created out of nothing by chance. That is intellectual madness. Spontaneous generation has been disproved and chance is an argument based on "no thing." Chance has no power, because it has no being. Creation by chance is analytically false, manifestly absurd, totally irrational and has no intellectual foundation whatsoever. For something to create itself it would have to be there before it was. To say that the universe created itself would be verbal irrational nonsense. That idea violates the law of non-contradiction, because it would have to be and not be at the same time. Chance can do nothing because IT IS NOTHING. It has no weight - no height and no extension. Chance has no ability to create, chance has no ability to design, chance has no ability to organize, chance has no power of being in itself. And yet superstitious scientists have attributed to that which has no being to have enough power to create the whole universe. Only whatever is uncreated can be responsible everything that is created. Chance has no purpose, and yet we see so much of it around us. Something exists now; therefore, something must have always existed. Somewhere, somehow there must have been something or someone that has the power of being eternally within itself; otherwise, you would have a period where there was nothing and that nothing - "POOF" - made something. Its the rabbit out of the hat scenario - which is irrational and absurd. Chance is nothing. Only a transcendent God can fill the shoes as being that Uncaused "first cause" of the universe. He alone is the uncreated one, because He always was and always will be. Both matter and energy cannot account for itself. Since Chance is Nothing - Atheism is nothing. So what are the chances the universe was created by chance? Answer: Not a Chance!

    The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution: One Big Bang? or One Big God.

  • Back to Physics and Biochemistry Evidence


    These video clips below, demonstrate that it takes more faith to be an Atheists and Evolutionists than to believe that a transcendent intelligent Creator was behind the universes existience. The skeptics of God are the ones who have to prove that He (God) had nothing to do with the order and design that we see around us. Superstitious is defined as showing ignorance of the laws of nature and faith in magic or chance. Atheists and evolutionists are superstitious, because they have faith in chance. It is pure superstition to believe that all the order and design within our universe, the preprogrammed DNA molecule within all living things, and the fine-tuned conditions in place to support the unique life forms - were the result of accidental chemical collisions or a chaotic explosion.

    The fact is, it doesn't take any faith to believe there is Creator God, for the same reason that when I look at a building, I don't have to have faith that there was a designer behind its existence. Even though I may not see its designer, the mere existence of an intelligently designed structure testifies that someone greater in class than the building had something to do with it, because it is axiomatic or self-evident. All we have to do is open our well-crafted eyes and open our well-structured minds to investigate the world around us.

    Biomimetics and the Design of the Eye: How Science is Dependent on Intelligent Design Implications

    The burden of proof is fundamentally on the Atheist to prove their faith that a designed universe and preprogrammed life that is visible, arose from random chemical chance from a universe proved to have had a beginning. Here Atheism is doomed to be relegated into the annals of superstition, because it demands one's faith in an all powerful nothing, packed with luck created itself and everything else with no intelligence and no purpose. Adherents to this secular doctrine are ultimately commanded by their "experts" to call the living reality of design, purpose, and the high level of fine-tuning that exists in the universe and life an illusion. That is the Atheist's delusion. All they have left is Science fiction that takes for granted the existence of preprogrammed life only to imagine that it all arose from one common ancestor birthed in some primordial soup that they don’t have evidence for. That is why the Bible makes so much more sense and why modern science is still catching up to it.

  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence Against Darwinist Theory - Lee Strobel

  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence from Cosmology - Lee Strobel

  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence from Physics and Astronomy - Lee Strobel

  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence from Biochemistry - Lee Strobel

  • The Case for a Creator: Evidence from DNA - Lee Strobel

  • Is the Supernatural Real? The Evidence for Supernatural - Lee Strobel, JP Moreland

  • Is there a supernatural realm? - Lee Strobel

  • The Case for a Creator: Analyzing the Fossil Record - Lee Strobel

  • Does Science Point to a Creator? The Case for Intelligent Design - Lee Strobel, Stephen C. Meyer

  • Does Science Point to a Creator? The Legitimacy of the Intelligent Design Theory - Lee Strobel, Stephen C. Meyer

  • Does Science Point to a Creator? Lee's Perspective on the Matter - Lee Strobel

  • Does Creation Make a Case for the Existence of a Creator? - Lee Strobel, Kirk Cameron

  • Are Evolution and Intelligent Design Exclusive? - Barry Lynn, John West

  • When and How Did the Universe Begin? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • What Are the Requirements of the Big Bang Theory? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Where do Objective Morals Originate in the Universe? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • How Does Jesus Help Prove to the Existence of God? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Is there Good Evidence for Atheism? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Could the Universe Have Simply Popped into Being? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Can A "Beginning-less Universe" Exist? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Does the Nature of the Universe Argue for God? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Can You Argue Against the Case for Atheism? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Can Good Come From Suffering and Evil? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Are There Logical Reasons to Believe that God Exists? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Is the Universe Too Precise to Be Randomly Formed? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Can the World Have Morals Without a God? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • Do Pain and Suffering Disprove God's Existence? - Dr. William Lane Craig

  • What Can We Learn About Heaven While on This Earth? - Randy Alcorn

  • What Does the Bible Teach About the New Heaven and the New Earth? - Randy Alcorn

  • Where Is Heaven? - Randy Alcorn

  • What Will Heaven Be Like? - Randy Alcorn

  • Do You Think Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in School? - Lee Strobel

  • An Interview With a Former Atheist: Why Did Your Beliefs Change? - Lee Strobel, Antony Flew

  • An Interview With a Former Atheist: What Is God Like? - Lee Strobel, Antony Flew

  • There is No Conclusive Evidence of the Common Origin of All Life. - Lee Strobel, Jonathan Wells

  • How Did the Universe Begin? What Is Its Source? - Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Jay Richards

  • The Laws of Physics Are Balanced On a Razor's Edge For Life to Occur. - Lee Strobel, Robin Collins, Jay Richards

  • The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution: The Molecular Machines of a Cell - Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, Scott Minnich


    (Real Player required to view)


    /Eyes Glazed Over/ /First hand accounts of Hell!/ /The Judgment of God/ /Salvation Mix/

    Once you realize that God exists, you have got to come to Him on His terms and not your own. When the Bible or I use the word "He" for God, this pronoun is only used to reflect God's person-hood (possessing intellect, a will, and emotion) - as opposed to some kind of impersonal force or "it" that can be manipulated. All throughout scripture, the Living God expresses both genders within His nature, but God is referred to as "he" because He is relational and He wants to be known. His holy name is Yahweh. But though Jesus Christ you can call Him - FATHER. The Heavens declare His Glory and the Earth shows forth His handiwork. That's why we really have no excuse to deny Him, ignore Him, or reject Him. God is unstoppable and unavoidable.

    As Creator God, He inherently owns everything. As the Designer, He has the right to define who and what we are. He is God, we are not. He does not accept or regard our advice or opinions about how He should run things. The Heavenly Father is too perfect to be improved upon, and He is too eternal to cease to be as perfect as He now is. He is not the one who needs to change - we are the ones who need to humble ourselves, listen to Him from His word - the Holy Bible. The Bible is the God-breathed constitution of the Kingdom of God. It is historically reliable, prophetically accurate, and unquestionably authoritative on the mind of God, the condition of man, the doom of sinners, and God's salvation plan. Some people try to contradict the Bible, simply because God's word contradicts how they want to live. But God is not mocked, whatever a person sows in their life they will also reap. The God of the Bible is too authentic and real to allow you to approach Him or know Him on your own terms. He is also too loving to leave us in the sinful state that we are.

    Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day by saying, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." (Matthew23:23)

    We will be discussing those weightier (or more important) matters that get so neglected which God wants emphasized namly Justice, Mercy, and Faith. Why? Because in order to know God you must understand that He is Just, He is Mericful, and He is Faithful. When I say to you that God is faithful, I am saying that God can be trusted and that God can be relied on.

    In Hebrews 11:6, God's word says, "But without faith [trust] it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder to those people who diligently seek Him."

    The entire purpose of this blog was to establish the fact that HE IS. Now I want you to know that He is a rewarder to those who diligently seek Him. You will never begin to have a strong or healthy relationship with someone until you have extended trust their way. Likewise, your relationship with God begins when you have extended trust God's Way by placing your trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Right now He is calling you to follow Jesus Christ ALL the way.

    If you truly want to know God personally, you have got to come to Jesus Christ, who NEVER called people to look within themselves for the answers, but who calls all humanity to repent from (change their mind about) a lifestyle of rebelling against God. Please understand ... we have ALL broken God's law, and are ALL guilty before a Holy God, and face a judgment to come. (The Ten Commandments were NOT ten suggestions.) If God judged you by His Ten Commandments, could you honestly say that you or anybody would be found innocent? For example He commanded:

  • 1. "You shall have no other gods before Me."
    (Did you ever replace God with something else?)

  • 2. "You shall not make any graven image."
    (Have you ever worshiped man-made images such as pornography?)

  • 3. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
    (Have you ever treated God's name with disrespect or taken it lightly as a curse word? - That's called Blasphemy.)

  • 4. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
    (Did you set apart time for God when He asked for it?)

  • 5. "Honor your father and your mother,"
    (Have you ever disrespected your parents to their face or behind their backs?)

  • 6. "You shall not murder."
    (Jesus said that even if a person has hatred in their heart against someone, God considers it murder.)

  • 7. "You shall not commit adultery."
    (Have you ever had sexual relations with someone or something outside the confines of marriage between you and your spouse of the opposite sex? Jesus said that "even if a person has ever lusted sexually in their heart after someone that they are not married to, God sees it as committing adultery. God invented the marriage covenant to be a Holy union between a Man and a Woman. Homosexuality is a perversion and rebellion against the order of God. And God loves you so much that he sent Jesus on Earth to take away that sin and every other sin as you confess it to Him, surrender your life to Him, and receive His forgiveness today.)

  • 8. "You shall not steal."
    (Have you ever stolen something that belonged to someone else, cheated, or every taken advantage of someone?)

  • 9. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
    (Have you ever told a lie, have you ever taken the credit for something that you did not deserve, or have you ever put up a front to cover up your dishonesty and bad conduct?)

  • 10. "You shall not covet..."
    (Have you ever lusted something that belonged to someone else or is your life driven by greed and selfishness?)

    God's law is like a mirror. If you break it in one place, you're guilty of breaking the whole thing. Based on the Ten Commandments we are all guilty as charged. We all know when we are being evil, bad, wild, and living on the edge of Hell. A subtle smirk appears on the face, the eye winks, and then a proud defiant attitude emerges that says "I will have my own way." We all know that look when we see it, because we all know by instinct that apart from God's grace - we are rebellious, sinful, and disconnected from the One and only Holy God. Many of us have been like fugitives on the run, trying to avoid the law of God, all the while knowing that one day, we will each have to answer for our crimes against Him.

    For thousands of years, God has been communicating to humanity that He is the great God and a great King who really loves us. The kingdom of God is not a democracy. In a kingdom, the people do not choose their king; the King chooses its citizens. A King is automatically Lord, because He owns everything. That's why the Creator calls Himself "the Lord God" in the book of Genesis. (Genesis 2:4) He wanted everyone to understand that He is the King and Owner of everything from the very beginning. When a King speaks - it immediately becomes Law.

    God did not ask for our advice or opinion when He designed the universe. Once He designed the world, it was perfect. He gave it to Adam (the first human) and commanded him to have dominion over it, subdue it, be fruitful, and multiply. The Lord God gave Adam this command after placing Him in the Garden of Eden. "16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)

    Our Beginning and God's Original Purpose
    Adam (the first human Being) is the beginning root of the human family tree physically and spiritually. Even geneticists verified that somewhere in the history of humanity there was a scientific Adam and Eve that we are all related to in some way. Adam and rest of humanity were NOT the result of long am evolutionary time-line from Apes. Adam was created by God. He was created without sin. Adam and Eve were morally and physically flawless at creation. God created Adam to be the first of His kind. In fact when God created Adam He spoke to Himself:

    "Then God said, "Let Us make man (people) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His Own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

    Humans are the only members of creation that were created to be stewards over all living and non-living things on this earth, and humans were originally designed to know, honor, serve, and love God. We are the only members of creation with the capacity to grasp an awareness of all creation and intelligently create order on a chaotic earth. The Earth was not created to have dominion over humanity, God created Adam and the rest of us to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and take dominion in His name.

    As Adam's descendants all humanity shared the same inheritance that Adam possessed. God's purpose for humanity has always been to colonize Earth with Heaven. (Matthew 6:10) Through Adam, we were given a kingdom where God is the King, and we are the lesser kings that represent His system of things on Earth. In the book of Genesis God calls himself the "Lord God" and in the book of Revelations, God calls Himself the King of kings and the Lord of lords. (Genesis We were originally created in the image of God. All humans were designed to reflect God's glory, character, and will. In fact, Jesus presented an element of the model prayer that we should ask from God. "Father, Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven." You see, God's will is done in heaven, but it's not always done on earth. That's why there is evil in this world today.

    When Adam, the first human, sinned by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, it severed his relationship from God and we also lost the kingdom of God. God designed everything good. Then we ruined things. Ever since Adam declared independence from the kingdom of God, all humanity was born with a sin nature and to this day we have inherited a broken world. Instead of having dominion over the earth, the things on the earth now have dominion over mankind. People are now controlled and ruled by all sorts of plants, alcohol, drugs, animals, pornography, food, entertainment, and a god-hating, sinful soul. Not only did we lose God's kingdom and fellowship with Him, we also lost the image of God within our human nature.

    Not only did all humans receive Adams physical DNA but his spiritual DNA as well. When we are born, we are born into Adam's sinful blood line. When Adam sinned, his spiritual bloodline became tainted as well. Until a person receives Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior God, sees them as cut-off members of Adam's sinful and fallen race. Adam sinned by breaking God's law and that same disobedient, selfish, rebellious, proud nature that Adam possessed - we now possess as well. We are all natural born law breakers. The same judgments that Adam received from God - we also received. God has placed His law within our hearts and we are all born with an internal knowledge of what is good and what is evil. That internal knowledge is called our conscience. So that when He is speaking to us, we are 100% accountable to Him.

    As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know." 18 "There is no fear (reverence) of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

    Just look at all the religions around us. People all over the world have manufactured gods in their own image. The reason that all these so-called gods and philosophies seem the same is because they were all born out from the self-centered human lust for pleasure, power, and independence from the Lord God who is personal and holy.

    The great number of religions in the world is NOT evidence that mankind is more spiritual, but it is evidence that we humans are more rebellious. These world religions all try to have a relationship with god on their own terms and attempt to create gods that never contradict: their selfishness and lusts, their generational traditions, their political ambitions, their lazy and idol lifestyle, their self-aggrandizement, and their time-tables of convenience.

    Many people prefer distant gods better, because those gods will not hold them accountable for the wrongdoing they commit and won't really care what they ultimately want to do. No wonder we see so much evil in the world today. Mankind’s self-serving, man-made beliefs are to blame. Those beliefs come from the rebellious sinful heart of people. Their god's are lies because they only serve the persons own self-interests and their so-called gods are not even self-aware individuals. The people who create the idol are ultimately in charge. But God calls them "a work of errors." (Jeremiah 51:17-18)

    Their gods are too distant to be really known, and too impersonal to even care or get involved with their lives. The gods of world religionists reflect to condition of the heart (soul) of its followers disconnected and vastly unknown. “The heart of man is deceitful and wicked no one understands it." (Jeremiah 17:9) That's why some people believe that all the world's religions are basically the same; because, they all serve the very same god of "self. " Therefore whether a person people is an atheist, pagan, or a polytheist they serve the same "god." The reason practically all religions and philosophies depict God as "distant and cannot be known" is because those who purported such belief systems never discovered or knew God in the first place.

    However, the God of the Bible is personal and has continually made attempts to get our attention individually, and He has historically made a distinction between Himself and everything else. Jesus said "if anyone be my disciple (or follower) let him deny Himself and take up his Cross and follow Me.

    Jesus Christ did not come to give us Religion!
    Jesus Christ never came to give us a religion; He came to give us a kingdom. Genuine Christianity is not and has never been a religion; it is a KINGDOM.

    Jesus said, "My kingdom, doesn't consist of what you see around you. If it did, my followers would fight so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews. But I'm not that kind of king, not the world's kind of king." (John 18:36, The Message)

    "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20b-21)

    Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)

    For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

    For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:11)

    "...For He is the Living God, And steadfast forever; His kingdom is the one which shall not be destroyed, And His dominion shall endure to the end." (Daniel 6:26b)

    "Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:14)

    How great are His signs, and how mighty His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation. (Daniel 4:3)

    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." (Matthew 6:33)

    "And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelations 19:16

    Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Revelations 11:15)

    Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His Kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.' (Daniel 7:27)

    From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4:17)

    Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand (or the Kingdom of God has arrived). Repent, and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15)

    but He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent." (Luke 4:43)

    Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

    "For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us;" (Isaiah 33:22)

    God answered Samuel, "Go ahead and do what they're asking. They are not rejecting you. They've rejected Me as their King." (1 Samuel 15:26)

    I am the Lord, your Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King." (Isaiah 43:15)

    "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no other God'"." (Isaiah 44:6)

    "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:7-8)

    "I am God, the only God there is. Besides Me there are no real gods. I'm the one who armed you for this work, though you don't even know Me" (Isaiah 45:5, The Message)

    When He tells us to repent, it is not a suggestion or a request; it's the command of a King! We better obey His command to change our thinking about our sin and forsake a lifestyle of rebellion if we are ever going to inherit His kingdom and have eternal fellowship with Him. When Jesus' body hung on the cross, it simultaneously became used as God's sponge that absorbed all the sin, iniquity, and transgressions of those who trust in Him as their Lord and Savior; at the same time, He used it to absorbed the full wrath and displeasure of God that they deserved for sin. But when His body died - both their sin and their judgment that they deserved died with it. On the third day, Jesus Christ rose from the grave to become their Lord (Owner), Savior, and King!

    When Jesus died, He shed His blood. The blood ran down through time and it covers all who accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. When this happens, we are taken out of Adam's old tainted blood line and reborn into Jesus' pure, holy, innocent, sacrificial blood line. That's why we ALL must be born again. (John 3:3 & 1Peter 1:23) When we are born physically into this world, we were all born into Adam's sinful race and prone to sin and were cut-off from fellowship with the One and Only Holy God. When we are born-again, we confess that Jesus Christ is now our Lord and Owner and believe from the core of our being that He was raised from the dead and receive the witness of the Holy Spirit who makes us come alive before God. Those who enter the second birth now have a covenant into Christ's blood line. In God's eyes, there are only two human family-lines: those who belong to Adam's sinful bloodline and those who were born into God's family through Jesus Christ. WATCH: The Authority of a Covenant with God

    He is the only God who demonstrated an earthly care about us by sending His very word clothed in human flesh. Jesus Christ was that same word that God used in the creation of the universe and this world, and it became flesh and dwelt among us. Our beginning began with Adam, and God sees us through Adam. Jesus was sent to be our mediator between God and man so that we can be declared righteous before the Holy God through Him. Righteousness is actually a legal term which means rightly positioned or aligned with the authority of a Kingdom or government.

    Only until we have obeyed His command to repent, and place our trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord will we be in right-standing with God. Only then will God see us through His righteous Son, instead of rebellious and sinful Adam.

    That's why Jesus said, "I AM the way - the truth - the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him. " (John 14:6-7) Jesus also said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? God is One essence and omnipresent (everwhere at the same time). He was simultaniously God with us on Earth in the body of Jesus and God above us in Heaven. That's how and why Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. That's also why receiving Jesus as Lord is the ONLY way to God.

    So the question is NOT: 'Why is Jesus the only way to God?' The real question is - Why is there even ANY way to God at all? In light of our sinful state before the Holy God, why should there be any way to a right relationship with Him? Only God can reveal God. He loves us too much to leave us the way we are.

    Just believing in God’s existence does not save your soul nor prepare you for heaven. God says in his word in James 2:19, "You believe that there is one and only one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!" But what good does that do them? Answer: Absolutely nothing. Salvation is a supernatural work of God. God ultimately does the saving. God's work of salvation happens when you first repent (renounce, turn away from a lifestyle of sinning) and surrender everything you are to Jesus as your highest authority (Lord) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead. Call on His name today, and you will be saved and free from the power of sin and satanic control. (Romans 10:9-10)

    God activity takes care of those who are in His kingdom in every way while on Earth just as He does in Heaven. Through Adam, we lost the Kingdom rule of God within us. The Father's original intent was to give us His Kingdom, but first our relationship with God had to be restored, so that we could inherit the Kingdom of God. God is spirit and eternal and therefore cannot die. God wanted us to become kings so bad that before the foundation of the world, He planned to put on an earth-suit called humanity, so that He could die physically in order to condemn sin in the flesh, so that now we could be called His sons and daughters of the Living God. This same Jesus: rose from the dead in three days victorious over death, hell, the grave and rendered all satanic influence powerless.

    Right now much of humanity is being ruled by their evil desires, their sin, their past, their five senses, their addictions of every kind, their disobedience against God and man-made philosophies. Everyone has been looking for the kingdom of God in all the wrong places. We all have suffered as a result.

    But "whoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL be saved." (Romans 10:13) If any man or woman be in Christ, he or she is a NEW CREATURE, old things have passed away behold all things have become brand new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

    When Jesus was raised from the dead, He gave the Kingdom of God back to those people that believe on His name. He came to restore to us the dominion that Adam lost.

    " knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because "All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Peter 1:18-25)

    "This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:11-13)

    "Then God said, "Let Us (the One triune God) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4)

    That (Jesus) was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right (authority, power, capacity) to become the children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

    Jesus, as the Word of God is just as eternal as God the Father is. The Word was God, and He was at the beginning with God. A word is an exposed thought. Words are idea containers. Jesus came to express God's original ideas and thoughts to all humanity. The book of Colossians says that "Jesus is the image of the invisible God the firstborn over all creation." Since Adam was patterned after or created in the image of God, all humans (male and female) were actually designed to look like Jesus. Before Jesus was called "Jesus" in His earthly ministry, He was called "the Lord God." The word firstborn is a hebraism that reflects how Jesus Christ owns all that the Father has and possess all that the Father is.

    The name Jesus in Hebrew means God (Yahweh) is Salvation or the Salvation of God (Yahweh). The Bible says clearly that "Jesus IS the Christ" the son of the Living God. He was NOT "a christ among many." Jesus Christ was 100% God within a 100% human body. Man did not become God; God became humanity in order to deliver people from their sins and restore their fellowship with God. Just as the earth was created through Him, we ALL must go through Him to be saved and safe from the holy wrath of God to come. The Father loved us ALL so much that he made a provision to take away our sin so that we can have eternal fellowship with Him. (Matthew 16:13-17)

    Jesus said, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:35-36)

    "For by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in Him should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven." (Colossians 1:16-20)

    "For every living soul belongs to Me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to Me. The soul who sins is the one who will die." (Ezekiel 18:4)

    Your soul is the real unseen you, which thinks, wills, feels, and initiates action. It’s the core and essence of your being. The Bible teaches that we are a spirit, we possess a soul and we live in a body. Once we leave our earth suit (our body) we will either be forever with God in heaven or forever cut off from God in hell. Hell is a realm absolutely void of the love of God. Death actually means to be cut off or separated. Just as a body separated from its spirit is dead; a soul disconnected from God is also dead. God loved too much to leave us the way we are. (1Thes. 5:23, 1Cor. 5:1)

    "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

    "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)

    The word "believe" in the original language of the bible means "to hold on to for dear life" or "to place the weight of you life on." It is more than just a confidence in Jesus Christ; it means to be dependent on Christ Jesus as your Lord. Jesus is the King.

    God loves you but hates your sin because it is treason, and it will destroy you physically and spiritually. Sin is breaking or disobeying God’s law. Sin simply means rebellion. All humanity is guilty of breaking God’s Law (the Ten Commandments).

    God only takes to His heaven those He owns. Unless a person is born-again, he or she cannot see nor enter the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3) When you surrender the title deed of your soul to Jesus as the Lord your God. You are switching your family line from Adam to Jesus. Your relationship with God is no longer based on conforming to His perfect law, but conforming to His Son.

    God’s word is also like a mirror in that it reflects what we really are and it most accurately displays how depraved and wicked we are by nature. Just turn on the TV news. You will see daily proof of how sinful and wicked humanity really is and how our sin even makes life on earth a living hell. At death, some people will go the actual place called hell (the place of perpetual torment, utter loneliness and darkness forever) because they reject the mercy of God. (Matthew. 8:12 & Mark 10:43-44)

    Since God is holy and just, He must punish sin and the evils that people commit. Even if every man-made law in the world made rebelling against God legal and a social statement, the Living God would still hold every person individually accountable for his or her own sins, selfishness and pride. (1 Peter 1:16 & Isaiah 59:2) Either we allow Jesus Christ to pay for our sins or we will have to pay for them eternally.

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

    Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

    "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; for by the law is the knowledge of what sin is. But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:19-26)

    If God is Good and Real, He MUST Punish Rebellion and Sin --- and He does.
    Hell is NOT a place invented by a sadomasochistic god who loves to see people suffer and squirm throughout life only to send them to an eternal torment for his entertainment. God did not create evil and the problems of this world. Our sin nature is the problem. Our sin literally affects everything on this planet. Its negative influence has touched everything from human strife to the weather itself. God is not responsible for the bad behavior of people who reject His will and forget His promises.

    Hell is a place designed and reserved for God’s wrath. It is a place that is completely void of the love of God. It was designed for fallen angels and rebellious spirits. One day, each of us will have no use for these physical bodies and leave them behind. And we all will answer to that One and only Holy God, who designed us on purpose and with a conscience which knows right from wrong. We ALL will have to answer for all the choices we've made, the things we have said to others, and what we did with the time spent on earth. Since God designed the Earth and the universe and owns it all, He IS the Final Authority in position to declare what we really are and God IS the Ultimate Standard in the position to judge all that we do. We will all have to give an account for how we managed things on His earth. He said that we have all sinned against God and must repent (turn around) and trust in Jesus Christ (God's Salvation for all humanity). A rebel on earth will be a rebel in heaven. God did not tolerate rebellion when Satan was cast out, and He will NOT tolerate it with us. Just as a good doctor would never be tolerant of cancer in his patients, a good God would never tolerate our disobedience and sin. God, who is good, made Jesus to become sin for us so that we could NOW be called the "righteous of God" in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

    The real question in that moment will NOT be: "'How many good deeds have you done or how much evil did you avoid doing?'" The only question that will resonate from God will be, "What did you do with My Son Jesus Christ? Did you run to Him when you knew He was calling you, or did you avoid Him every chance you got? Did you surrender the weight of your whole life to Him as Lord or did you wage an unholy war against Him as Satan did?

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.” (Romans 1:18-19)

    Jesus took on Himself the wrath of God that we deserved so that we could be in the right position relationally with the One and only God. On the third day that same Jesus rose from the dead so that those who believe on Him or place the weight of their life on Him will experience God’s mercy and forgiveness.

    “But God demonstrated His love toward us that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

    "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins." (Hebrews 9:22) Remission means to be Forgiven; pardoned; “the taking away” of a debt or obligation. God said, "It is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul." (Leviticus 17:11)

    Jesus said, "This is My blood...which is shed... for the remission (the taking away) of your sins." (Matthew 26:28)

    You cannot really love God or love your neighbor as yourself until you are in right alignment or right-standing with God through the Jesus Christ who calls Himself King of kings and the Lord of lords.

    "that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)

    When we belong to the Lord Jesus Christ we won't be standing on our own on judgment day, because He will be simultaneously our Advocate and our Judge. In that terrible day Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,”

    "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Corinthians 5:10)

    "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1)

    “He who has the Son has the Life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the Life.” (1 John 5:12)

    Sooner or later we will all have to face God individually. All our excuses won't matter. Life is short. Don't waste it by living a life against the One and Only God who loves you. That keeps me vigilant, you can be sure. It's no light thing to know that we'll all one day stand in that place of Judgment. That's why I work urgently with everyone I meet to get them ready to face God. God alone knows how well we do this, but I hope you realize how much and deeply I care. That is why is makes so much sense to turn back to God and CRY OUT TO HIM FOR MERCY FROM DEPTHS OF YOUR HEART - RIGHT NOW:

    "Lord Jesus save me, forgive my rebellion, selfishness, and pride. I broke your law. May the blood you shed on the cross and your death be payment for all my sin. From the heart I believe You are the Son of the Living God, and You rose from the grave. I surrender everything I am and ever hope to be on you. Live your life through me and I will live for you. Today and forever You are my Owner, my Savior and my King. Fill me now with your Holy Spirit. Amen."

    Today if you turned around to renounce your sinful lifestyle and you surrendered your life to Jesus as your resurrected Lord (Owner) and Savior, He forgives you of your sin and just adopted you into His family. The Holy Spirit of God will help you to be more like Jesus. The Holy Spirit is Not a thing or an it that can be manipulated. The Holy Spirit is a person with mind, will, emotion; He is God in person. He is the Governor of God's Kingdom. He is as much on this earth as Jesus was. The Spirit of God works in us to have a desire for God and gives us the power to accomplish His will for our life. God's Holy Spirit will prepare His people for the return of Christ. That same Jesus who left Earth will come back in power and great glory to rule as King of kings and Lord of lords. Get ready - get ready - get ready!

    You can click the name "Jesus" above to receive free material about the REAL Jesus and please click HERE to receive my personal letter to you about what to do next in your new walk with the Lord. You will learn what to look for when finding a good church. Also what organizations and groups to avoid. God every true Believer in Jesus will gather together with Christians somewhere and be under a godly pastor at a Bible-believing/ Bible-teaching ministry. Make plans to connect with others in Christ today. Remember that every day can be an adventure with God as the resurrected life of Christ sustains you, preserves you, and works through you in order to heal a broken world. If you received Jesus as Lord, you are now apart of the LARGEST family on Earth. Feel free to E-mail me at anytime by clicking CONTACT ME INSTANTLY. I will sent you another special FREE Gift if you leave me your mailing address. Thank you!

    A Prayer from a Disciple of Christ



  • The Evidence for God and the Person of Christ

  • Requires download RealPlayer from here in order to view


    GOD TV
    (Watch Live TV Online. Free registeration for free access!)







    Other Great Research Links
    Skeptic's Corner
    Having fun with Skeptics
    BE THINKING (Thought Provoking Audio)

    God's Story

    If you would like to support this ministry through PayPal, why not consider making a secure donation today. Thank you for joining forces to make a eternal difference in the lives of thousands every week worldwide for Christ.




  • SEO - search engine submission and optimisation