So-called Science journals caught lying about world's oldest blood cell

Researchers discovered intact red blood cells in the body of Ötzi the Iceman, a world-famous once-frozen natural mummy found in the Alps in 1991. Livesciencecalled them the "world's oldest blood cells." But clear evidence shows that other blood cells hold the real record.

Forensic researchers have gleaned a wealth of information about the Tyrolean Iceman, commonly known as Ötzi. For example, chemical traces show places he had recently been, tiny particles revealed his last meal of red deer and bread, and his boots were likely made by an ancient professional bootmaker. An arrowhead had lodged in his left shoulder, damaging an artery and likely causing his death. Just this year, geneticists sequenced his DNA, finding that modern inhabitants of the Mediterranean's Corsica have the most similar sequences.

But red blood cells from even earlier specimens have appeared under paleontologists' microscopes. Totally unexpected, the bone marrow of a T. rex recovered in 1990 from Montana had what appeared to be red blood cells. Their story was recounted in Earth magazine.

read more http://www.icr.org/article/6887/

With all of the lies and deception out there isn't it time you learned the truth, once and for all, about where you come from? I mean really?

In The Magic Man in the Sky, Carl Gallups has given us an exciting insight into the many unanswered questions of evolution theory and, based on biblical truths – both prophecies and promises, the possibilities of other worlds and realities denied by evolutionists. With his open and frank approach, supported by extensive research and information from learned professionals in their respective fields, Carl challenges believers and unbelievers to take a serious look at the subjects discussed in this book. Ultimately, Carl invites every reader to seriously consider the gravity and consequences of accepting or rejecting the truth presented. In this hour of all-but-universal darkness, a bright ray of hope and confidence shines forth from the truths of this book. In a time when lives are marked by a growing hunger for spiritual realities, Carl Gallups reveals the truth that real science and Holy Scripture are inseparably linked to verify that behind all creation there is an intelligent designer who created all that exists.

Get your copy now!

ICR Debuts YOM (Creationism) Conference in Dallas

ICR Debuts YOM Conference in Dallas

Is the study of origins really important? Important enough to invest in scientific research? The overwhelming answer heard last Saturday at the Dallas Your Origins Matter Conference was, "Absolutely!"

In conjunction with speakers from the science team at the Institute for Creation Research,Your Origins Matter (YOM) launched its public initiative in downtown Dallas where hundreds heard from experts in the field why their origins really do matter.

read more http://www.icr.org/article/6885/

Report: Men and dinosaurs coexisted

Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old.

read more http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/

Atheist Richard Leakey whines to media about resistance to "Evolution"

What do agnostic Richard Dawkins, atheist Richard Leakey, and dictator Barack Hussein Obama have in common? They're all from Kenya of course! Can anything good come out of that country?

MSNBC is reporting Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges".

Ok - we're good with that, and it's all quite sufficiently explained using the biblical model of a common created being fashioned by God only a few thousand years ago. Evolution theory gets no victory here. Leakey goes on in the article to blame humanity for what drives evolution - climate change - man made climate change no less.

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

Wait - what? Evolution theory dictates (and depends entirely on) that all currently living organisms are the off spring of extinct predecessors. Even Darwin wrote this in "On The Origins of Species". Leakey would have us to believe that extinction is "always" driven by environmental change and that man created it?

It figures. Man-made climate change (anthropogenic global warming) is a known hoax. So it stands to reason that a theory (deep-time evolution) based on falsified evidence and circular reasoning should also get his stamp of approval. All of the actual evidence is easily explained using the biblical creation model.

"Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as "Turkana Boy," the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature". - article

Creationists have nothing to fear from the Turkana Boy. Turkana Boy is our distant relative. But this is not because we evolved from the apes, but because Adam is the common ancestor of both Turkana Boy and ourselves. We should welcome the opportunity to discuss the scientific evidence through a biblical lens. Although museums and the popular media trumpet this human Turkana boy skeleton as an icon of evolution, a careful investigation reveals that the scientific evidence fully supports the biblical account. See here.

Leakey has no problem with people having faith saying...

"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."

Wait - I wonder if Leakey has ever actually read the Bible. Being a a good citizen to get a better future in the afterlife is the exact opposite of the general message given in the Bible which teaches that humanity is entirely incapable of being a good enough citizen to gain any favor at all in the afterlife.This is important because in the articles online about this Leakey mentions the book of Genesis directly.

 "If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

There it is - the hero of evolution teaching - millions of years. It's a circular presupposition which has been shown many times to have weak support. Yet it remains the number one pillar of evolution theory. Take it away and the whole atheist creation myth falls apart.

There are many scientists doing real science without ever invoking the atheist creation story. There are many scientists who could very happily debate Leakey and bring his theoretical house of cards crumbling into a heap of embarrassment on the floor. There are many scientists who could easily show Richard has wasted the vast majority of his life chasing proof that he will never find.

He mentioned some numbers in his interview. Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it." That's an interesting timeline for Richard considering his age. Leakey is 67 years old. He only has 15 to 30 years to figure it all out before his own biological clock counts down to zero. Here's hoping he finds the real identity of his maker. Here's hoping he finds Jesus.

EVOLUTION DEFEATED! By Its Own DESIGN! (Real Science) Carl Gallups Explains

EVOLUTION DEFEATED! By Its Own DESIGN! (Real Science) Carl Gallups Explains
Hear Carl Gallups (narrator) every Friday - 1330 WEBY AM - Gulf Coast Talk Radio
Freedom Friday With Carl Gallups
http://www.carlgallups.com

Borrowing From Atheists - Part1 - Naturalism

I shall never forget the scene. There she was, my daughter, graduating from college on the Dean's Honor List. The commencement speaker? It was none other that renowned biologist David Suzuki.

Suzuki came to be known in popular culture back in the 70's for his inflammatory description of human beings as "maggots". Here is the unwashed teacher in his own words.

That was David Suzuki in 1972. When my daughter graduated college several years ago, Suzuki took his sideshow one step further. He stood at the podium and told the people in the auditorium they were animals and that was all they were. He proceeded to explain that when he was 14 he was "horny". He fell in love with nature because he used to go out into the forests and swamps of British Columbia to "relieve" himself. Suzuki's charge to these college graduates was to protect the swamps in their spheres of influence so that future generations of 14 year old "horny" teenagers would have someplace to go to "relieve" themselves.

Modern naturalism is embodied in the belief that nature is all there is and we are all part of an evolving line of animals with no transcendental value. Darwinian evolution is our creation story and there is no grand design or purpose for us. That is the presupposition which drives modern atheism. In fact, it was Richard Dawkins who said he would not be an atheist were it not for the theory of evolution.

Dawkins also said that Christians who believe in evolution, often called theistic evolutionists, are deluded. Here is Dawkins in his own words...

So there we have Dawkins actually defending those who understand the crux of the battle. Evolution is the engine which drives modern atheism. And it is a deeply entrenched theory even in the subconscious minds of most people. Naturalism has invaded the planet like a disease and made men into wimps and women into sex objects without any real connection to their divine purpose and assignment.

How many people, given the choice between keeping their earthly body alive and starving to death, would eat another human being? Remember that God created people in a distinct event and in his own image. We are not animals according to scripture and contrary to David Suzuki. We are not food. Yet in a survey conducted for Mike Shoesmith's book "The Atheists are Wrong" one hundred percent of the atheists said they would eat another person to stay alive. This 1 - is not surprising and 2 - makes them cannibals by their own admission.

The great travesty is that about half of the "Christian" respondents said that they would also eat human flesh to keep the body alive. In essence, these people have decided to borrow from atheists in this case. Could it be that these people only falsely believe themselves to be Christian? Could it be that they call themselves "Christian" because they want the fire insurance? Just in case there really is a heaven and hell?

Christians are to maintain the long view; to set our eyes on Jesus and to always be heavenly minded. We are to walk in a spirit-led obedience perpetually. We know, or ought to, that this body will die some day and we will inherit new bodies, not defiled by sin. Yet the vast majority of people would do almost anything to keep that from happening. Christians, who are so concerned about the affairs of this world and their own bodies, are borrowing from atheists.

By blindly believing the theory of evolution in spite of the plethora of researchers who have discovered mountains of evidence opposing it you have decided to borrow from the atheists.

We are commanded to glorify God with our bodies. Yet our bodies are not much, really. They lead people around with various lusts and temptations. Yet humanity worships the human body. This should not be the case for the true believer. We are to see past death. We are to take and cherish the long view. This body will perish one way or the other. But we will live on. We all will. And our earthly tent will die and return to the ground - whether we want it to or not. So get Mike Shoesmith's book today and learn the truth about modern atheism. Do it now.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

Luke 9:24

"The Atheists are Wrong" is a treatise on the effects of modern atheism in the world. It is the mission of the PPSIMMONS Ministry to DO the Daniel 11:32 "Exploits". This includes exposing the harm done in the name of the philosophy of naturalism disguised as intellectual atheism. Learn the truth about the "falling away" and be encouraged to move forward in your calling as sons and daughters of the most high. This is the second expanded edition of "The Atheists are Wrong" by the PPSIMMONS Ministry.

EXPOSED! FRAUD AND DECEPTION! Darwinian Evolution Theory Falling Apart in Academia

Two HUGE Stories out of Baylor University this week have exposed a disturbing trend in the academic world.

Associated Press is reporting that colleges have spent billions on financial aid for high-scoring students who don't actually need the money, motivated at least partly by the quest for rankings glory.

It was a college, Baylor University, that paid students it had already accepted to retake the SAT exam in a transparent ploy to boost the average scores it could report. It's colleges that have awarded bonuses to presidents who lift their school a few slots.

And it's colleges that occasionally get caught in the kind of cheating you might expect in sports or on Wall Street, but which seems especially ignominious coming from professional educators.

The latest example came last week at Claremont McKenna, a highly regarded California liberal arts college where a senior administrator resigned after acknowledging he falsified college entrance exam scores for years to rankings publications such as US News.

Even though Baylor has been caught up in this there are glimmers of truth coming out of that particular University, perhaps not coincidentally. This week The Institute for Creation Research is reporting that in a recent paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism," Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution. He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.

He then addressed Darwinism's inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body's visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.

Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems "irreducibly complex." Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.

This is exactly what researchers expect to see if God purposely created living systems, rather than if natural processes accidentally built living systems bit-by-bit—as Darwinian philosophy maintains.

Kuhn cited the work of another medical doctor, Geoffrey Simmons, who described 17 "all or nothing" human body systems. These combine with many others to form the entire human body—a system of systems—that is irreducible at many levels, from gross anatomy to biochemistry. For example, just as a woman would die without her heart, she would also die without the vital blood biochemical hemoglobin.

But even an intact heart and hemoglobin need regulation. A heart that beats too fast or too slow can be just as lethal as having no heart, and a body that produces too much or too little hemoglobin can be equally unhealthy. Thus, the systems that regulate heartbeats and hemoglobin must also have been present from the beginning.

Kuhn wrote that "virtually every aspect of human physiology has regulatory elements, feedback loops, and developmental components that require thousands of interacting genes leading to specified protein expression." Thus, "the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis."

Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.

Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human "would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection." However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies "that fadeth not away." See here for full article with references.

Atheistic Evolution Theory Destroyed by Science - An Overview on Creationism

(photo - creation.com)

In the grand scheme of things, refuting any one particular transcendental belief system like Christianity over Islam is irrelevant unless one deals first with the foundations of modern materialistic atheism. In Mike Shoesmith's recent debate against four atheists it was evident that a great gulf of ignorance exists as to the very understanding of what atheism is on the part of the atheists themselves. A surprising amount of time was spent coaxing the four into finally admitting that modern naturalistic atheism is nothing more than the philosophy of naturalism - the positive assertion that nothing exists apart from nature. Once that definition is established, corralling the atheists into a very small cage, their position is easily refuted.

Logically speaking, atheism once intellectually defined is indefensible. It forces the adherent to eliminate even the remotest possibility that the supernatural exists. Such a fallacy, the converse fallacy of accident, makes such a leaping claim based solely on either the desire to be in control through intellectual means (nature can be carnally understood therefore nothing supernatural exists) or by virtue of a lack of experience extrapolated to the entirety of that which can be experienced - as though after dipping a cup into the ocean one declares that the contents of the cup are all that could ever exist, purposely ignoring the ocean directly in front of them.

The evidence, as pointed out by Richard Dawkins, is based almost entirely on biological evolution - atheism's 800 pound straw man. Because species within a kind are shown to change, adapt, or speciate over time this observation (predicted by the Bible coincidentally) has been co-opted into the atheist mindset to be proof that no gods are needed for life to exist. Essentially this is what we have going on here. As Dawkins has repeatedly said - "Evolution is the engine which drives modern atheism".

Yet if speciation, adaptation, or whatever one chooses to call it is the real topic of conversation then even the most hard-line creationist is an evolutionist. We as creationists do not deny the science - we embrace it. We know that speciation is real science because it has been and continues to be observed scientifically. Yet when we observe the reality of different species of equine or canine we simply look to the Bible and say "ah yes, just as Noah brought 2 of every kind onto the ark we can safely predict that all the species we see today would come from that event". All dogs, for example, come from a mating pair of wolves and when we examine the equine kind we see it hitting the reproductive barrier when horses mate with donkeys and produce the mule - a universally sterile creature.

Likewise for the hero of modern atheism - bacteria. When bacteria are observed to speciate over many generations because of natural influence it is heralded as proof of atheistic evolution yet what we are really observing is one form of bacteria becoming another form of bacteria without offering any reason at all to suggest a prediction that microbe-to-man evolution is even remotely possible. Not only is this postulation not science it is an insult to those who actually take science seriously.

Please watch this short video from chess-master and scientist Johnathan Sarfati explain in greater detail the connection between atheism and evolution.

SPECIATION: Darwin's Strawman and Evolution's most EPIC Fail

Mike Shoesmith here. In a recent debate between myself and four atheists evidence was given for microbe-to-man evolution that was typical, boring, and certainly nothing new. They trotted out the old tired hero - bacteria! They claimed that speciation has been "proven" - case closed. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

Very few people in the arena of philosophical ideas have never heard of Darwin's finches; birds with different size beaks which serve different purposes depending on various demands placed on them by their surrounding habitat. Ever since then these adaptive natural selection traits have been documented and even observed in cases where reproduction happens quickly.

One of these is the hero of modern atheistic evolution theory. Bacteria reproduce quickly and therefore can be observed over many generations. The process of speciation happens when traits develop in subsequent generations to allow a bacterium to perform tasks it could not previously accomplish. This may involve digesting a food source when introduced into a foreign environment. This is the case with nylon-eating bacteria. E-coli have recently been caught in the act of speciation and yeast bacteria have been a source of great adaptation ability. Yet none of this comes as any surprise to creationists. In fact we owe a great debt of gratitude to those folks out there who went to such great lengths to prove speciation since that is exactly what the Bible predicts and exactly what we would expect to happen following the flood!

Noah was not commanded to load up two of every "species" on the Ark. That would require a boat much larger than the one built. Knowing that speciation would occur Noah was commanded to load only two of every "kind". Two dogs for example, probably a wolf-like creature, have been speciating ever since. Likewise for all the rest of the land-dwelling creatures of the day. Even dinosaurs - though we're looking at smaller versions of those today.

So to all the evo-heads out there trying to prove microbe-to-man evolution by showing evidence for speciation - thanks for giving us even more assurance that the Bible is true and atheism is silly.

Finally here's something to ponder - if all the videos on youtube which strawman the argument by proving speciation and saying it proves Darwinian evolution were deleted from youtube's servers today - that would require the largest defrag in history. Hehehehe. Thanks for reading.

The Nylonase Fallacy - Addressing the Myth

(photo - islandcrisis.net)

Nylonase is one of the heroes of modern evolution theorists. According to the claims, bacteria have developed the ability to digest nylon; a material which has not been available until relatively recent times. But is nylonase worthy of the exaggerated claims made to promote it as "evolution observed"?

Bacteria are asexual microorganisms that can rapidly reproduce. While it would appear that bacterial offspring are effectively a clone of the parent, this genetic homogeneity would reduce a bacterial population’s ability to quickly respond to changing environments. Instead, bacteria have numerous mechanisms for introducing genetic variation into a growing population. These mechanisms, combined with their rapid reproduction and large population sizes, enable bacteria to quickly and effectively adapt to a variety of environmental changes.

Believe it or not, these rapid changes have also been observed in people though not exactly the same. In a mere matter of a few weeks, climbers of Mt Everest experience rapid adaptations in their body’s ability to carry oxygen. At 20,000 feet there is half the available oxygen in the air as there is at sea level. So through the act of acclimatizing the person’s red blood cell count doubles. This allows for double the load of oxygen to go through the body and compensates for the lack of oxygen in the air. Without taking the proper measures and waiting the required length of time to allow the body to go through the adaptation process at 20,000 feet the climbers’ lungs would fill with fluid and the person would die further up the mountain.

Even with the adaptation Everest climbers still need assistance from oxygen tanks they carry with them. However there are some people, through repeated Everest climbs, who don’t require any oxygen tanks at all to reach the summit of the tallest mountain on earth. Their bodies have made more lasting refinements to anticipate future attempts. On 8 May 1978, Reinhold Messner (Italy) and Peter Habeler (Austria) made the first ascent without supplemental oxygen, using the southeast ridge route. On 20 August 1980, Messner reached the summit of the mountain solo for the first time, without supplementary oxygen or support, on the more difficult Northwest route via the North Col to the North Face and the Great Couloir. He climbed for three days entirely alone from his base camp at 6,500 metres (21,300 ft).

Like bacteria, which also make rapid adaptations because of rapid reproduction in environmental condition changes, these humans never exhibit any reason to believe that they ever have been, or ever will be, anything but human. Whether we’re talking about nylonase or E. coli, or any other bacteria we’re always talking about bacteria. They may adapt, change, mutate, or whatever other label one may wish to give it, but whatever the outcome they will always be bacteria.

The Bible predicts this ability to adapt within the created kind. Noah didn’t bring two of every animal onto the ark. He brought two of every “kind” – a broad sampling of animals represented on the earth. These kinds have been mutating and adapting within their created barriers ever since; giving us the wide variety of species we observe today.

Gametic isolation prevents the microbe-to-man evolution myth taught under the guise of science designed to promote the Star Trek fairy tale atheism some believe will someday do away with belief in supernatural realities like heaven and hell, judgment and eternal punishment. There’s the motivation – the narrative for it all.

The new religion sounds very intellectual, very nuanced and out of most people’s reach. So society has given the thinking elite carte blanch – the public trust – the keys to the hope of humanity’s future. They’ve been permitted to hoodwink the masses into believing they are no more than animals that ruin the planet with their parasitic lusts and destructive use of force. They commit fraud in the text books and decry any public inquiry. They take public money to promote lies and deceit.

Evolution theory, with bacteria as its hero and science-fiction as its narrative, is long overdue for its own gate. Like Watergate and Climategate, evolutiongate could be just around the corner.

On Racism, Evolution, and the Bible

When most people quote the works of Charles Darwin they will most often reference the book "On The Origin of the Species". Conveniently most people either leave out the rest of the title or else they simply do not know it. It goes like this:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

The title changed to "On the Origin of Species" in the sixth edition. Darwin's book title unfortunately lends itself handily to the practice of racism among human-kind and has done so with many people like Hitler who famously taught that Jews were inferior enough to not even be considered human. Genocidal maniacs have oft quoted the standard evolutionary bias toward superior races or, as Darwin said, the "favoured" ones.

The Bible teaches a very different dynamic - one that embraces all of humanity under one racial umbrella. We are all products of one mating pair - Adam and Eve. All people, no matter their color or formation of the eye, have a common father and mother. There are no favored races since there really is only one race of people - the human race.

There is an interesting story in scripture which deals directly with racism. Moses had a black Ethiopian woman as his wife. Moses' siblings did not approve. An argument arose and here is how it went:

¶And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Numbers 12:1

Moses' brother and sister were exhibiting some racism against Moses here for marrying a black woman from Ethiopia. What did God have to say about this? He wasn't pleased.

And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

Numbers 12:9

To further illustrate this point, Miriam became leprous right in front of them. Aaron begged Moses to have the LORD heal her an He did. It was a powerful lesson for them. The LORD despises racism because in the beginning God made two - male and female. All peoples everywhere are the product of the union between Adam and Eve. Racism is an unnatural attitude and is anti-biblical.

There is no reason why two people from any people-group an earth should not marry and produce children. Perhaps this world would be a lot less racist if we would embrace the truth about all of this instead of relying on evolutionary mythologies to validate racist ideologies held by tyrants and psychopaths. Neither the Bible nor biology supports it and it is time, once and for all, to dispose of this evolutionary tenet. It is evil - and God is not pleased.

Did Humans Cause Dinosaur Extinctions? - plus video - Dinosaurs - Man - Evolution and The Bible

ICR

Like elephants and a few other animals, rhinoceroses are among the last of the large animals called "megafauna." Rhinos exist in African, Indonesian, Javan, Indian, and Sumatran varieties.¹ They are also among the rarest animals in the wild.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature declared the Western Black Rhino officially extinct this year. The Northern White Rhino, also from Africa, may be on its way out as well, and the last Javan Rhino in Vietnam may be gone for good.²

Poachers are notorious for killing the large animals in order to harvest their highly valued horns, which some believe have medicinal properties, including use as an aphrodisiac. The horn is made of the protein keratin, the primary component of fingernails and hair.

This confirms what researchers generally observe about the extinction of species: The primary cause is interaction with humans. When mankind moves into an area, some of the first animals to face destruction are those that are the most threatening, such as the megafauna. Thus, recent centuries have seen the demise of such giants as Haast's eagle³ and the moa, a giant flightless bird.⁴

"The current extinction crisis is caused primarily by human impacts upon wild populations," according to UK biologist Rosie Woodroffe, who wrote on the declining populations of large carnivores.⁵

Rhinos are not carnivores, but in addition to being valued for their horns, they are large and can be dangerous if they are frightened or challenged. Thus, it stands to reason that if humans primarily cause the current extinctions of megafauna, then they may have caused past extinctions as well.⁶ That could help explain the plethora of legends, found in all cultures, of heroes killing dragons, which were probably dinosaurs in many cases.⁷

Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? One very likely factor—among others, such as climate changes after the Flood—is the same reason the black rhinoceros and so many other megafauna have died out: People moved in and eliminated them.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH REFERENCES

The Ingenious Way That Bacteria Resist Aging - plus video -EVOLUTION - Settled Science - or - A Magic Man In The Mud?

ICR

Bacterial cells are singularly long-lived. They keep dividing for what seems like forever. But because they are made of biochemicals, their DNA and proteins should suffer damage similar to what any other cell endures, including animal cells. What keeps bacterial cell components from wearing down?

Microbiologists have been trying to find out how these single-cell organisms handle chemical damage, which relentlessly accumulates due to friction and uncontrolled chemical reactions. So far, the results have been confusing, but a new analysis appears to have confirmed that bacteria have a remarkably well-engineered damage-reduction program.

University of California, San Diego biologist Lin Chao led a computer analysis of prior experiments.¹ His team's work, published in Current Biology, cited a 2005 study showing that bacteria do age and that the cells do accumulate damage. But a subsequent study clearly showed no evidence of aging in the same bacteria species. Chao's analysis asserts that both are true.

His team proposed that when one bacterium divides into two cells, more of the damaged biochemicals end up in one than the other of the daughter cells. After many generations, a single population of bacteria ends up as a mixture in which cells filled with accumulated damage live side-by-side with "rejuvenated" cells.²

Chao said in a university press release:

So for a single celled organism that has acquired damage that cannot be repaired, which of the two alternatives is better—to split the cellular damage in equal amounts between the two daughters or to give one daughter all of the damage and the other none?²

"We think evolution drove this asymmetry," he said. But he did not explain how. He also said, "Because you have this asymmetry, one daughter by having more damage has aged, while the other daughter gets a rejuvenated start with less damage."²

Of course, the species as a whole will survive longer if each generation could redistribute damaged parts. But allocating so many tiny parts is a horrendous logistical problem.

Since no problem ever solves itself, either an intelligent person continually selects and removes the damaged biochemicals, or an intelligent engineer encoded an internal apparatus that identifies and transports the tiny offending chemicals into one daughter cell and not the other. There is no evidence that engineers live inside bacteria, so the latter option fits best.

While it makes sense that a dividing bacterium would give more damaged biochemicals to one cell than another, it makes no sense that "evolution"—which by definition excludes intelligent causes—could "drive" such a strategy. Strategies always come from strategists and never from nature.

Such an ingenious design could only have come from an ingenious Designer.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

DNA Study Contradicts Human/Chimp Common Ancestry - plus video -Evolution's DIRTY LITTLE SECRET - of Species, Kinds and The Story

ICR

Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.

Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than "98.5% identical," a commonly quoted statistic.¹ Yet humans don't look or act 98.5 percent identical to chimps. Thus, something other than genes must be involved, and this has been overlooked in evolutionists' efforts to establish chimp-human ancestry. In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology [similarity] frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology.²

"Indels" refer to insertions (in-) and deletions (-del) of genetic material, but they are simply DNA sequence differences.

Publishing in the open access journal Mobile DNA, the research team led by McDonald tested the hypothesis that the "substantial INDEL variation that exists between humans and chimpanzees may contribute significantly to the regulatory differences between the species."¹McDonald said in a Georgia Tech press release:

Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.³

The team's analysis of indels confirmed exactly what Bible-believing biologists have been saying for years. The indels and other variously named non-gene DNA are not "junk DNA," and they are critical to the formation of each living creature.⁴ Biblical geneticist Jeff Tomkins wrote in 2009:

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions [including indels]," which areessential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes.⁵

The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different!⁶ It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do thedifferences enter the conversation?

Regulatory DNA—not just genes—is essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It's impossible.⁷ Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

Original Article with references.

New Study Shows Enzymes Couldn't Evolve - plus video - 3. THE UNIQUENESS OF MAN and Evolution - An Embarrassing Conundrum (VID 3 in a 7 part series)

ICR

According to evolutionary theory, chemicals must have somehow organized themselves into cellular life, presumably long ago. And that means that enzymes must have formed themselves, too.

But enzymes are highly engineered miniaturized machines. Even intelligent human scientists armed with the most sophisticated technology cannot reproduce their design and manufacture—so, logically, neither can unintelligent chemicals or the laws that govern them. The title of a recent scientific report asserted that a particular enzyme evolved. The study results, however, clearly demonstrate that this enzyme was purposefully created.

The investigators compared the three-dimensional structures of similarly shaped enzymes that are found in different species of bacteria. One enzyme splits water and combines the resulting hydrogen atoms with sulfur in a process that captures chemical energy. The researchers compared it with another class of enzymes that also splits individual water molecules, but then combines the hydrogen with a carbon-based molecule.

The enzyme that manipulates sulfur—called a CS2 (carbon disulfide) hydrolase—is required because its bacteria inhabit sulfurous volcanic waters in Italy. The studies confirmed that the core structure of the CS2 hydrolase, like that of similar enzymes, is critical. The scientists wrote in Nature, "Any change in this area of the protein [enzyme] adversely affected protein activity."1

On one hand, evolution's story requires that, at some point in time, something altered what would become the enzyme core again and again, as each structural piece evolved into place over eons. On the other hand, science shows that altering the enzyme core in the slightest is impossible without making the whole structure useless.

The researchers also found that CS2 hydrolase is distinct from enzymes with an otherwise identical core because it has an additional long, narrow tunnel through which only CS2 can pass. The tunnel "functions as a specificity filter," ensuring that no similar molecule such as carbon dioxide enters.1

The researchers found a clue in the DNA that suggested to them an idea of how the enzyme could have evolved. The DNA that codes for the tunnel portion of the CS2 hydrolase gene is surrounded by unique sequences, indicating that this DNA portion may have been added to the main enzyme's DNA. Perhaps some unknown cellular mechanism "stitched in" this extra bit at just the right place among the bacteria's 1.8 million DNA bases, adding the tunnel portion to a CO2-converting enzyme through "lateral gene transfer" and thereby forming CS2 hydrolase.2,1 If so, could this process properly be called "evolution"?

No—if the gene jumped from another bacterium to this one, it did not evolve because it already existed elsewhere. But in order for a lateral gene transfer to even work, in addition to the enzymes themselves, another mechanism had to already exist that could recognize, accept, and insert the foreign DNA in just the right place. Only then could it retrofit an enzyme in just the right way to enable the bacterium to live on sulfur.

Where's the evidence here for evolutionary innovation? Pre-existing DNA and pre-existing DNA transfer and splicing programs appear to have existed from the beginning.

The authors asserted that CS2 hydrolase "emerged owing to the evolution of a new quaternary [final protein] structure."1 But this ignores the facts that no new DNA actually "emerged," and the proper placement of transferred DNA required just the opposite of evolution—purposeful design.

CS2 hydrolase did not evolve. In fact, experimental science shows that this enzyme functions today only because of its precise and specific arrangement of parts. And like any machine with multiple, interconnected parts, whether biological or man-made, all the correct parts assembled in the correct configuration were needed from the very beginning.3

Original Article with references.

Dam Detonation Illustrates Noah's Flood - plus video -PPSIMMONS ANSWERS THE "THINKING ATHEIST" (Noah's Ark)

ICR

On October 26, strategically placed explosives breached the Condit Dam in Washington state in order to reopen the White Salmon River to salmon and other aquatic animals.

Upon detonation, the lake immediately began draining, but a video posted on a National Geographic website clearly showed that instead of clear water, fast-moving mud emerged from the torrent below the damaged dam.1 The time-lapse video also showed loads of silt sinking, settling, and flowing away with the dark fluid.

Given the small-scale nature of this event, what effects might a much larger torrent have?

The muddy water from this controlled dam breach resembled, though to a lesser degree, the more catastrophic mudflow that resulted from the uncontrolled 1982 breach of the Lawn Lake dam, which spilled debris and transported truck-size boulders into Colorado's Fall River.2 It deposited layers of mud and sorted sediment in flatter downstream areas. Eyewitnesses said that the front of the flood resembled a lumbering wall of mud that produced a terrible, thunderous roar.

If these local flood events, both controlled and uncontrolled, did this much damage, imagine what the earth's surface endured when the Flood of Noah's day completely covered it. Enormous sheets of mud and sediment would have scoured the surface. When the momentum decreased, the sediment load would have dropped out. Multiple massive, transgressive, and regressive mud-transporting phases would have formed layered deposits over the course of a year—the time specified by the Genesis record.

The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens showed that the earth itself can produce muddy catastrophes greater than man-made floods. Fast-moving mudflows caused more damage than any other aspect of the volcanic explosion.3

How could Noah's Flood have buried countless creatures in sediments that later dried and hardened into fossiliferous sandstone and mudstone? First, as the Condit Dam breach showed, fast-moving water becomes fast-moving mud. Second, a worldwide flood would leave behind worldwide sediments. Today, continent-size and trans-continent-extensive sedimentary layers stand as monuments to the mud transported and deposited by the Genesis Flood.

Original Article with references.

White House Confirms PPSIMMONS Alien Video - we really ARE alone

In January 2010 PPSIMMONS produced a video called "The Anthropic Principle" wherein we detailed the anthropic constants which make our planet uniquely suitable for human life. This week the White House confimed our video in an official statement - according to them we really are alone.

So rare are the conditions which make life possible - earth appears to be completely alone in the entire universe. So special is our planet in the universe because there are far more reasons to see a dead planet than a live one - thus giving evidence of a divine creator who intervened in the gigantic odds against such a planet as ours existing at all.

Here is the official government statement on the existence of alien life from Nov 7/2011:

"The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our
planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member
of the human race," Phil Larson from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy reported on the WhiteHouse.gov
website."In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any
evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye."

So in spite of the voluminous works of fiction and billions of dollars spent looking for alien life not only have they never found any but, according to the WH, they have never found any trace of evidence to support the existence of life other than our own, special, unique planet. Here is our video. Enjoy.

Dinosaurs Ate Rice

ICR

Just what did dinosaurs eat?

One way researchers are finding out is by studying coprolites, or fossilized dinosaur dung. And as it turns out, some dinosaurs ate rice plants. But if flowering plants like rice did not evolve until millions of years after dinosaurs lived—as evolution maintains—how could dinosaurs have eaten them?

Some coprolites contain phytoliths, which are uniquely shaped microscopic crystals manufactured by various plant tissues. Most phytoliths are made of silicon dioxide, the same chemical that comprises sand. Scientists examining these tiny grains can often discern from which plant they came.

For example, in 2005, researchers found phytoliths from grass, palm trees, conifers, and other flowering plants in (probably sauropod) dinosaur coprolites from India.1 "It was very unexpected….We will have to rewrite our understanding of its evolution….We may have to add grass to the dioramas of dinosaurs we see in museums," palaeobotanist Caroline Strömberg told Nature News at the time.2

Recently, Strömberg and two of her co-authors from the 2005 study described coprolite-encased phytoliths that are so similar to those made by certain modern rice plants that those found in dinosaur rocks "can be assigned to the rice tribe, Oryzeae, of grass subfamily Ehrhartoideae."3 They collected these samples from the same Indian rock layers, the Lameta Formation, that contained their 2005 finds.

This find joins others that have shown that rice, grass, palm trees, and conifers from dinosaur rocks were essentially the same as their living counterparts. It's as though millions of years of plant evolution never occurred.

The Lameta formation includes sedimentary layers interbedded with volcanic rock layers. It is huge, covering a large area of India.4 The Flood described in the book of Genesis is the best explanation for this scale of upheaval, showing that the fossils found there resulted from the Flood.

Thus, these coprolites show that rice plants existed before the Flood. Either rice had diversified from an originally created grass that was common to many other grasses, like wheat and bamboo, or God created rice grasses separately from other grass kinds. Studies show that rice grasses do not hybridize with other grasses.5 These dinosaur-eaten phytoliths add weight to the idea that rice was a distinct creation from the beginning.

According to Scripture, God created all the grasses, plants, and grazing mammals, along with any grazing dinosaurs like sauropods, by the sixth day of the creation week. As far as what the fossils have shown, Scripture is right.

Original article with references.

Did Astronomers Find an Evolving Planet?

ICR

A Hawaii-based astronomer announced at an October 19, 2011, NASA meeting the discovery of a young-looking planet forming near the star LkCa 15. "You can actually see the planet forming, as the process is happening right now," Adam Kraus, of the University of Hawaii's Institute of Astronomy, told the Associated Press.1 But how does he know that it is forming?

Though a related university press release didn't show original photographs,2 in the AP report Kraus described what he and colleague Michael Ireland saw through their uniquely equipped telescope: "We see this young star, it has a disc around it that planets are probably forming out of and we see something right in the middle of a gap in the disc."1 Kraus and Ireland's research is scheduled to be published in The Astrophysical Journal.3

According to AP, the planet-like object "is estimated to have started taking shape about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago." But even if that object is a planet, what observations support the theory that it evolved from particles found in the dust disc? The answer is none, because the supposed evolution of planets has not been observed, but assumed. These assumptions were then used as the basis of "scientific models of how planets form."1

Not only was its evolutionary history assumed, but the physics of dust clouds prohibits planet formation. The problem is that such small particles bounce off each other when they collide, instead of sticking together.4 A few years ago, University of California Santa Cruz planetary scientist Erik Asphaug described difficulties modeling the critical early period of dust accumulation that supposedly leads to pre-planets called "planetesimals." He asserted that "dust grains coagulate," then wrote:

However, too great a turbulence disrupts agglomerates faster than they form….Not only must turbulence be low, but the gas must go away before the growing planetesimals spiral in.... Decoupled [separate] solids spiral towards the Sun at an estimated 1 AU [astronomical unit] per 10–1000 years, so there is not much time!5

Thus, even the models of planet development are packed with problems. So why did the AP's report of "scientific models of how planets form" fail to say so? In truth, "the problem of accreting meter-scale planetesimals is far from solved."5 But this is only a problem for planetary evolution—not planetary creation.

These astronomers may not have observed a planet at all. If it is a planet, what is the evidence that it is forming today, or that it formed by natural processes in the past? It might instead simply be in the process of falling apart or breaking down like everything else in the universe. Whichever is the case, these astronomers did not watch any planet forming!

And since a natural formation of planets defies physics, the creation of planets remains the best hypothesis to explain their existence.

Original Article with references.

New Study Can't Explain Blue Stragglers' Youth

ICR

Blue stragglers, according to NASA, "are older stars that acquire a new lease on life when they collide and merge with other stars."¹ But a new study calls into question whether stellar collisions can account for these remarkable stars. And blue stars burn their fuel so quickly that they actually look young.

Since their discovery, evolutionary astronomers have sought a way to explain how these stars can even exist. They burn fuel so fast that they should have burned out billions of years ago. American astronomers Aaron Geller and Robert Mathieu published in Nature a description of their model for how older stars could have acquired a "new lease on life" by siphoning matter from nearby gas giant stars through "mass transfer."²

They investigated stars within a cluster called NGC 188, found in the constellation Cepheus. It contains 21 blue stragglers, 16 of which are binary stars that closely interact with nearby stars. The researchers suspected that the blue stragglers' partners were white dwarfs, which would be small, leftover remnants of larger red stars that the blue ones had drained of fuel. Such dwarfs are too faint for direct observation, but they have sufficient mass to cause their partner stars to wobble.

Of the 16 binaries, 12 had rotational periods right at 1,000 days and were thus called "long-period" blue stragglers. The study authors ran a statistical analysis that showed "the theoretical and observed [mass] distributions are indistinguishable."² In other words, their theory that other stars "fed" these 12 blue stragglers matched well with what they observed.

But did this reconcile the relative youthfulness of these binary blue stars with their assumed billions of years of history? The answer is no. The authors wrote, "Blue straggler stars…should already have evolved into giant stars and stellar remnants,"² and their new observations do not solve this deep-time problem.

Blue stragglers should burn through all their fuel in "a few million years at best."³ But these NGC 188 stars are supposed to be seven billion years old. So, to make them fit that age, these authors maintain that they were not initially blue stars, but instead burned fuel at a normal rate for billions of years. Then suddenly, within the last one million years, all 12 of them began siphoning extra fuel from their binary partners so that they only look young right now.

However, nothing explains the many blue stragglers that are not binary stars and yet exist near and far throughout the universe. Could they have received recent "youthfulness" through collisions with other stars?

In an article summarizing the Geller and Mathieu paper, University of Cambridge astronomer Christopher Tout wrote, "Thus, in this cluster [NGC 188], a collisional origin for blue stragglers is much rarer than expected, and the authors' study casts doubt on whether it occurs at all."⁴ The modeled scenario in which blue stars form by collision did not match observations.

So, isolated blue stars could not have received their young looks from a binary system, since by definition they have no binary from which to siphon fuel. They probably didn't receive their youthful appearance from collisions, either, according to these results. And though the binary blue stragglers may have siphoned fuel from nearby partners, the idea that 12 of 16 only did so recently—after an imagined 7-billion-year wait—defies reasonable odds.

Thus, the best explanation is still the most straightforward one—blue straggler stars look young because they are young.

Original Article with references.