The Little “Mermaid”

So last weekend we were down at the lake and happened to be watching the River Monster marathon.  We saw a promo for this show called Mermaids.  It looked interesting

YEAH! I came from a monkey!

so we decided to give it a watch.  This show postulated that in addition to evolving into humans, they also evolved into mermaids.  In other woods, when the human race was evolving, some went into the woods, and others went to the sea.  Most of the show was animation of how they evolved and what they looked like in their transitional states.

The show based all of this on key evidence found from the insides of a shark.

They found a single fin – this is where the feet had bonded together through evolution.

They found a human rib cage.

They found a hand.

They found tools.

And the most incredible part…they found three skull fragments that were tiny.  They were then able to create an entire skull from it.

Of course their existence had been kept secret from us courtesy of the US Navy.  In fact…it was the Navy who was ruthlessly killing these Mermaids through some sort of sonar testing.

A few things stuck out to me while watching this show.

1. The evidence was so phony that the whole thing appeared to be a hoax.  Almost like a Blair Witch Project for the Animal Planet.  As it turns out…if you watch the credits…it was a work of fiction.  Completely not true.
2. People actually believe this to be true! The immediate reaction after the show was incredible.  People discussing the “evidence”.   All in the context that it appeared to be the real deal.

You know our stance on evolution.  If not, or you are new to this blog there are several posts that will refute the “science” of evolution.

The general reaction to mermaids demonstrates how ingrained the falsehood of evolution is in our global society.  Much like man made global warming; the science of evolution has been a perpetuated lie to show the world that God does not exist.  It is hard to contemplate how far down the rabbit whole the world has gone.  However, Mermaids demonstrates just how far down we have gone when millions of people watch it and believe it to be plausible.

But then again maybe there was something else behind it.  Maybe the entire point was to reinforce the idea of evolution even when what they were presenting was entirely false.  To further reinforce the idea of evolution.  To further ingrain it into this generation’s mind that evolution is truth thus perpetuating the notion that God does not exist.

Maybe that was their intention all along.

Dino Dan the atheist

Okay, so my kids have started watching a show on Nick Jr. called Dino Dan.  This show is about a little boy who can see dinosaurs.  He tracks

Dino Dan the Atheist?

them and takes notes.The show prides itself on it’s “dino facts”.  These are the facts that they present on the show.  The show also talks about using the scientific method to solve problems.

My kids really enjoy this show.  They enjoy watching the dinosaur’s.  I have to admit…if I were a kid and this show was on…I would have watched it as well.  Okay, okay…I did watch it with them.

So as I am watching Dino Dan with my kids and I hear them talking about dinosaurs being millions of years old.  I hear this in passing and don’t think anything of it…until my daughter draws a dinosaur and tells me that it is millions of years old.  This poses a problem.  With that timeline, Dino Dan assumes the evolutionary model of Earth.

I had to explain to my daughter that the science used to say that the dinosaurs were millions of years old (carbon dating) was not very solid,  and that the dinosaurs are probably not millions of years old.  The reason that I have problems with this show is that it presents these things as (indisputable) facts.  Even the most hardened evolutionist will have to admit that the dating method for dinosaurs is rickety at best, but Dino Dan….does not.

Herein lies the problem.  We have discussed on a number of occasions how we are constantly bombarded by society with “facts” about how the earth was created and about how we were formed.  Evolutionists have for some time been pushing their agenda in the classroom, and recently (last 40-50 years) have been winning the battle for the classroom.  Evolution, while having absolutely no evidence to support it, has burrowed it’s way into the classroom for our kids to digest as truth.  Where evolution exists…God cannot exist.  Evolutionists (and atheists) know this.  While the battle rages for the classroom, shows like Dino Dan have free reign to spew  evolutionary thought without any kind of information about creation in the show.  So your kids get the evolution viewpoint without the creation view point at the ages of 3 – 8…when they are most impressionable.

Shows like Dino Dan wrap evolution up into a nice little present that your kids will easily digest.  So that by the time they are 10 they have completely bought into the idea that earth is millions of years old.  Teaching a younger earth to them in Sunday School or at home then becomes a challenge, and at a very young age kids are faced with their first major contradiction.  Dino Dan displays the effort that atheists will go through to indoctrinate our kids at such a young age.

As parents we should all be aware of what our kids are watching.  Fortunately, I happened to watch a few episodes with my kids.  This is indicative of the challenges that we face going forward.  The subtle attempts to indoctrinate our kids with a doctrine that deny’s the existence of God and his role in creation.  The older our kids get the better they are to use their own discernment skills.  At the ages of 3-8 their discernment skills are less developed.  This means that we have to be their discernment and filter.  Our protection now expands beyond regular TV now to the cartoons that they watch on channels like Nick Jr.  Which is unfortunate.

The Religion of Atheism

So for one of our classes Kevin and I are reading a book called “Legislating Morality”. This book takes a hard look at morality, relative morality, and an absolute moral law given by God. In this book I stumbled across a few quotes that I thought were interesting. The part of the book where these quotes are found focus on the “deity of evolution.” The overarching point is that evolutionists are atheists by nature, thus making evolution and atheism a belief system. Atheist’s strongly argue against this point, however a conclusion must be drawn as to the origin of the universe and man, and atheists (by definition) must accept evolution as the origin of both universe and man.

The Bible of Atheism?

To illustrate this point consider the words of Charles Hodge: “What is Darwinism? It is atheism. This does not mean as before said that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is…tantamount to atheism”. This is logical and well-reasoned. If you believe in evolution, you deny the creation. If you deny the creation, you deny God. You can deny the logic presented by Hodge, but you cannot deny the direct conclusions of the fathers of Darwinism. They conclude that evolution in and of itself is a deity.
Consider the words of Darwin himself who wrote: “I speak of Natural selection as an active power or deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?… It is difficult to avoid personifying nature.”
Alfred Wallace stated that “Natural Selection is supreme”. He went on to say “There is a power not only adequate to direct and regulate all the forces at work in living organisms but also the more fundamental forces of the whole material universe”
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) stated: “I can see no reason for doubting that all are coordinate terms of nature’s great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will”.
What must be the logical conclusion of the above individuals? God is dead, or more accurately, He never existed. Intellectualism and natural process rule everything. In other words “science” and natural selection are the new deity, the new creator, the new god. According to the premier evolutionist (Darwin), evolution has replaced God.
With atheism and evolution bound to one another we can see that atheists do, in fact, have a god to worship – and worship it, the do. Because not only does it give their own creation narrative it ultimately defines moral values as well.

Consider the following:
Friedrich Nietzsche: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” He answered the question with the following “must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?”
With God (the moral law giver) dead, all absolute moral standards died with him.
Fyodor Dostoevsky stated the following: “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”. This is quite true.
Consider the following statement: “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile. But preservation goes hand in hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
The above statement fits with the evolutionist ideology. Survival of the fittest, strongest will survive. The author of this text was Adolf Hitler. The Evolutionist/atheistic ideology was the foundation for the genocide of 12 million people. People who were “weak” and needed to be weeded out. With god dead anything is permitable, including genocide. In fact, one could convincingly argue that the theory of evolution is a foundational cause for most all racism today, but that will have to wait for another post.

Atheism is its own religion. Think about it. It has its own story of creation of the universe, and its own set of moral values because of this belief of creation. Are these not characteristics of a religion? These principles are religious in nature. The Bible defines creation, and comes with a set of moral values. In this sense Atheism, is just another religion.

SHARE THIS:

Laminin: Chance or Design

So the last day or two I have been out looking at some atheist forums.  I wanted to see what atheists thought about laminin.  For a quick recap…Laminin is the glue that holds our body together, oh and the molecular structure is in the shape of a cross.  Anyway…back to the forums.  I went out to some atheist forums to see what they think.  Aside from the usual insults and superiority that most atheists had to offer the general consensus is that Laminin is merely a coincidence.

Chance or Design?

For an atheist to believe that laminin is a coincidence would make sense because it fits into their world view.  For an atheist everything in life would have to be the result of coincidence or chance.  There is no reason for things happening, they just happen.  This is their world view.  So it would make sense that they would look at something like laminin and believe that Christians see what they want to see, not what is real.

So is it chance….or design?  That is what it really comes down to.  For an atheist’s argument to hold true everything would have to be about chance.

When your eyes were created one million nerve endings left your eye to match with one million nerve ending in your brain.  This match up has to be perfect or you would not be able to see.  Think about the incredible statistic that allows you to see!  For every optic nerve there is a 1 in 1 million chance that it misses its match. That is just the beginning…I found this little tid bit…from here:

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!

Chance or Design?

How about the ribozyme?  The ribozyme is an enzyme responsible for creating a chemical reaction.  Fairly important to the creation of life…meaning that it couldn’t happen without it.  Now let’s assume that each ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long and each position there could be  4 nucleotides present.  The chances of that ribozyme assembling are 4^300.  What to see what that number looks like?

4,149,515,568,880,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

That is 1 in that number above that the ribozyme would form.

Chance or design?

How about the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form?  According to Roger Penrose the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form is  10¹⁰¹²³ .  Want to see what this looks like numerically?

1 chance in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Keep in mind that according to mathematic principle a probability of 1 in 10⁵⁰ means zero probability.

Chance or Design?

SHARE THIS:

Another discovery that changes everything…

The tooth that could change everything...or nothing.

Scientists are at it again.  Scientists have discovered a tooth that they speculate was a Homo Sapien. Doesn’t sound like big news?  Just wait.  This tooth is said to be dated to be at least 400,000 years old. Not that big of deal?  Just wait.  This would be the earliest homo sapien ever discovered by nearly 200,000 years. Starting to get interested?  Wait for it….. It was found in Israel. And the bomb drops.  Most human origin theories (non-biblical) place the origin of humans from Africa.  According to this discovery, the origins would be closer to Israel.  Interesting?  Here is the article if you are interested.

Now if you remember from a couple of months ago I wrote a piece basically poking fun at evolutionists for this exact same thing (MISSING LINK FOUND!).  Their version, the Nebraska Man discovered in 1922. Just to recap…the Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth discovery…sounds familiar already.  An entire evolutionary model was created based on that discovery.  The only problem was that it was the tooth of a pig.

Now, I am not saying that the recent discovery in Israel is that of a pig.  What I am saying is that the “scientists” who presented the tooth, also presented a lot of speculation.  The tell tale sign…any time a scientist says further research is needed to solidify the claim…you should hit the pause button.

While we all want to look at this finding and say, “Look, we were right, evolution is bunk.  Your theories of origins are bunk! We told you so!”  It is not in our best interest to do so.  Honestly, shame on this scientist for coming forward saying that he found a tooth that disproves the current theories of origin, and changes the whole picture of evolution, followed by further research is needed to prove that though…  I somewhat understand why he would do that…additional funds to continue research.  Which he will more than likely get know.

I will be waiting for additional research to support his claim.

MISSING LINK FOUND!

I have found the missing link.  In a recent archeological expedition in my own back yard I discovered a tooth.  From this tooth I was able to recreate the missing link based on keen scientific evidence.  I have an artist’s rendering of what this missing link looks like based on the tooth.  I will be sure to post that once it has been completed.

 

If I had a dollar for every time a “scientist” had discovered the nail in the coffin of Christianity I would be a rich man by now.   Scientists are always claiming to have found evidence that disproves Christianity or something in the Bible.   Take evolution for example.   There are a number of instances where “scientists” have discovered the final piece of evidence to prove evolution.   

Ever since Darwin published his evolution model scientists have been looking for the “missing link” that would bury the idea that God created man.   What do I mean?   Since 1891 scientists have discovered the missing link.   Java man was claimed to be the originator   of humans.   [1] All that was found? A skullcap (from a gibbon), three teeth and a femur.   To add to that, the femur was found a year after the skullcap was found.

Neanderthal man, discovered in 1908, is probably one of the more popular discoveries.   The common image of Neanderthal man is that of a knuckle dragging half man, ape being. [2] The truth, Neanderthal Man is a normal human being.   He just suffered from rickets, and arthritis.

[3] Piltdown man was found in 1912.   Like Java man, Piltdown man was the discovery that would disprove the Bible.   41 years later it was proven to be a forgery.   The skull was found to be a modern skull (circa 1912), the bone fragments were chemically stained, and the teeth had been filed down.

Nebraska Man, discovered in 1922, was created from a single tooth found in Nebraska.   That’s right, one tooth.   This tooth provided for an entire evolution model and picture.   [4] The only problem was that the tooth that was discovered was from that of a pig.

One of the more recent missing link found was in 1999.   This missing link was discovered in China, and was hailed as being the missing link between reptile and bird.   Once again this discovery was proven to be a complete forgery. [5]  This finding combined the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limb of a dinosaur…all glued together by a Chinese farmer.

I can understand how something like this may have you questioning your faith.   But remember, in over 150 years they have not been able to discover any evidence of the missing link.   This is but a sampling of the biggest “discoveries” of those who reject God.   If it were me responding to this…I would lean on the most historically proven document known to man kind.   The only document in the history of the world, to be 100% correct.   A document that has upheld to centuries of scrutiny.   The document that holds the holy word of God.   I will stand by the Bible everyday of the week, and twice on Sunday.

 1.      Richard Massey, “The “Missing Links” Of Evolution,” Christian Evidences – 19 ^th Century Mid-West Lectures, (2001), http://www.kc-cofc.org/39th/Lectures/2001%20Manuscripts/RichardMasseyMissingLinks.PDF (accessed October 7, 2010)

 2.      “Science: Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time 97, no. 20 (1971),   http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944380-1,00.html (accessed October 7, 2010)

 3.      Susan S. Lukesh and R. Ross Holloway, “The non-fraud of the Middle Bronze Age stone goddess from Ustica: a reverse Piltdown hoax,” Antiquity 76, (2002), 974. Ebscohost.   http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=10&sid=f174706e-e868-4cbb-93cc-1e36b1641f98%40sessionmgr4 (accessed October 7, 2010)

 4.      Gary Parker, Ed.D., “Origin of Mankind”, Institute for Creation research. http://www.icr.org/article/183/ (accessed October 7, 2010).

 5.      Hillary Mayell, “Dino Hoax was mainly made of Ancient bird, study says”. National Geographic, (2002).   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html (accessed October 7, 2010)

What else can be said?

Probably one of the more hotly contested topics discussed (when it comes atheist versus Christian) is that of evolution versus creation.  So many have discussed this topic, that as I was sitting thinking about  a post topic I wondered if there was anything I could add to the conversation.  Think about how hot this topic is.  School boards deny the teaching of creationism because it is based on faith.  School boards allowing evolution because it is based on “science.”  Hollywood has even taken up the banner with movies like Expelled and Religulous.  One has to wonder…why does the debate continue?  I think this is a fair question. 

The Bible offers a fairly simplistic explanation for how the universe began, “In the beginning God created”.  Nothing extraordinary…except for the fact that God created everything.  He had his hand in everything that was created.  Now, there are many different camps inside of Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis.  Some will look at 7 days as being a flat 7 days.  Others will look at the verse in the Bible that a day to us is 1,000 to god, and suggest that each day was 1,000 years…7 days = 7,000 years.  I am not going to focus on that difference here. 

What I would like to focus on is the response one might receive when having a conversation with someone who believes in evolution as opposed to creation. 

Most Evolution supporters will make the following statement “Overwhelming evidence supports this fact”.  If that is the case why is it then a theory?  Case and point look at this link.  Notice anything?  The first sentence of the second paragraph describes evolution as a fact.  My question then is why describe it as a theory as well (in the first paragraph)? 

ALL evolution defenders will tell you about the transitional form.  This is commonly known as the missing link.  Everyone has seen the picture of the chart showing the transition from monkey to man.  The truth is that there has been no evidence found that supports the theory of transitional forms.  This is the lynch pin of evolution.  Without it evolution can never be proven.

I find the idea of a “transitional form”  fascinating.  Man evolved from monkey.  Did that evolution stop?  Think about it.  If evolution is the reason that we are here, where are the living transitional forms from monkey to man?  Unless evolution just said…”okay I’m done” once man had taken present shape.  I mean, evolution has to be ongoing.  Meaning that the evolution of the monkey would be ongoing as well.  If this was the case (evolution) where is the living missing link?  If evolution is ongoing as evolutionists would describe, then surely evolution would be continuing for monkeys (and other species) as well.  Where is it?

Another fascinating question is “how”.  It is possible to “how” the evolution theory to extinction.  How?  By simply asking “how did that happen?” If you ask this question enough one must admit at some point the ultimate conclusion that evolution is nothing more than an improbable theory, not a fact as it is portrayed by many.

The fact of the matter, both Evolution and Creationism are a matter of faith! Evolution is NOT science… In fact, Creationism is technically more scientific!  In order for something to be “science” one must be able to observe and record the phenomena and reproduce it with a differing variables… (this is the very definition of the scientific method that most of us learned about in middle school).  No scientist has observed the macro-evolutionary process happen and they certainly have not been able to recreate the generation of life, nor have they been able to cause the mutatation of any species into another! However, if one accepts the biblical principle that there is a God, then it is plausible (even probable) that He then recorded His “observations” in a record that most Christians would agree is reliable and infallible… So, again, the Christian understanding of creation is technically more scientific than the theory evolution could ever hope to be!

Yeah, I know….when compared to some of the other articles written online this seems pretty simplistic.  I don’t have to be convinced that creation is right, because I know that it is.  Atheists that tell you that creation can’t be proven because it requires faith are deluding themselves.  It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.  Evolution involves too much chance for me.