The atheist alternative to God: Exactly ZERO

The laws of physics could have created the universe from nothing, according to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss in his recent book.¹

To support this idea, Krauss and other Big Bang scientists appeal to the well-known phenomena of “virtual particle” creation and annihilation, also known as a quantum fluctuation. These subatomic particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-defined energy. The greater the energy of the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last.  Without HUP, another Big Bang might occur at just about any time...

The universe itself is the result of such a fluctuation, according to Krauss and other evolutionary physicists. Of course, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding fluctuation time would be vanishingly small. Evolutionary physicists argue, however, that if the total energy content of the universe were exactly zero, then a universe resulting from such a quantum fluctuation could persist indefinitely without violating the HUP.

Exactly Zero is all that is required.

In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy in the universe (gravitational potential energy, the relativistic energies of all particles, etc.), add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero.

However, if you are not already committed in advance to the Big Bang theory, it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Zero chance, shall we say?

Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence.

Why do atheistic physicists naively assume that rules like the HUP would even apply when describing the universe’s creation? Since the HUP is known to be valid only within or inside our universe, it is not at all clear why they would assume that the HUP would even apply when discussing our universe’s creation. One can engage in all kinds of speculation here, but such speculation is not science.

These supposed higher laws of physics must have an existence apart from the universe. But this presents a dilemma for the atheist like Carl Sagan, who famously said “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”²

Despite the impressive academic credentials of those promoting the “universe from nothing” idea, the scenario is utterly unreasonable, and no Bible-believing Christian should be intimidated by these “vain imaginations.”

Christians believe in a great God who created all things ex nihilo (out of nothing).
Atheists are forced to believe in an Exact Zero that created all things out of nothing.

 
(selections from Jake Hebert, A Universe from Nothing? Acts & Facts, July 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

1. Krauss, L. 2012. A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press.

2. Sagan, C. 1985. Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books, 1.

Humanzee? No, scientific bias!

The story is that there is "nearly identical” similarity between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. Does good science support this?

It turns out that a wide assortment of key secular human-chimp DNA research publications have something to hide. All analyzed cases of reported high human-chimp DNA sequence similarity are based on biased data selection and exclusion techniques. DNA sequence data that are too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned are omitted, masked, or completely excluded. Furthermore, gap data within DNA sequence alignments are typically omitted, further biasing similarity estimates. These are the findings of a report by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman in the April 2012 issue of Journal of Creation.

Humanzee? No... Photoshop!

These highly selective data-discarding techniques, fueled by Darwinian dogma, lead to the commonly claimed 98 percent similarity in DNA between human and chimp. Based on the reanalysis of DNA similarity estimates using discarded data in leading secular research publications, it is safe to conclude that genome-wide DNA similarity between human and chimpanzee is not more than 81 to 87 percent identical. These numbers are in good agreement with the range of estimates obtained by independent research at the Institute for Creation Research.¹

One must keep in mind that the chimpanzee genome is larger than the human genome by at least 8 percent (based on current data). Therefore, overall genome similarity between human and chimpanzee is most likely lower than 81 percent.

You may remember the "New Math". This is the "New Science" - if you have data that doesn't fit your theory, just hide it somewhere!

Good science should admit that an honest comparison of humans and chimpanzees points not to so-called "natural selection", but to an Intelligent Designer. Who could that be? We have someone out there who has already laid claim to that role - the God of the Bible!

(based on Jeffrey Tomkins, 2012. Journal Reports Bias in Human-Chimp Studies. Acts & Facts. 41 (6): 6.)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References (selected)

1. Tomkins, J. 2011. Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86-89%. Answers Research Journal. 4: 233-241.

Evolutionists Believe in Flat Earth!!

Geologists who follow mainstream evolutionary thinking use the "standard geological column" to explain the different layers of rocks that they find in southeastern Utah and other areas near the Grand Canyon. This column displays all of the different eras of time, supposedly going back millions of years. The most well known in our popular culture are the Devonian, the Triassic, and of course, the Jurassic. The oldest layers in Utah are Precambrian, which go back 500 million years and more.

Please look at the diagram for this area. It shows the rock layers in brown. We see many pancake-like sedimentary layers in sequence. The problem is that geologists do not find layers of rock that correspond to all of the different geologic periods. In the figure, you can see that noticeably missing is rock from the early Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, late Mississippian, and many other ancient eras. This is represented by the cross-hatched areas. Such charts could be drawn anywhere, and all of them have the same gaps.

Where did all the in-between rock go?

For evolutionary geologists, the fact that layers are missing is the evidence for erosion. But millions of years of erosion would produce irregular terrain, but there is none—no stream beds, valleys, or canyons.

Evolutionists assign the “time” between two layers as tens of millions of years. But road cuts, some extending many miles, reveal layers of rock that are completely flat with featureless contacts between strata. In the diagram, the horizontal distance represents about 200 kilometers, while the total thickness of the actual strata is only about 3-1/2 km.

These geologists would have us believe that completely flat time gaps showing absolutely no erosion for  millions of years span the continent. This is an amazing finding. It is a return to Flat Earth theory!!

This is actually one more piece of evidence that "millions of years" is a completely suspect idea, based on circular reasoning. A far better explanation is that these different sedimentary layers were either water-deposited or water-eroded during a very short period of time. Could this be the signature of the global Flood, as described in the book of Genesis?

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References
1. Diagram modified from A. Roth. 1988. Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers. Origins. 15 (2): 75-92.
2. Morris, J. 2012. Flat Gaps Between Strata. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 15.

Should Wishful Thinking be part of Science?

As we proceed into the 21st century, secular scientists are still attempting to eke out a purely material explanation for the origin of the universe and life on this planet.

Marko comments: It seems that they can only succeed by employing that great tool of evolutionary science, wishful thinking! Here are some recent examples from scientific literature:

“Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.”¹

“Life must have begun with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself.”²

“There must have been something like a cell right from the start, to contain the replicator and keep its component parts together.“²

“One day soon, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. That experiment will be done.”³

(from Frank Sherwin, Basic Questions Remain for the Secular Scientist, Acts & Facts, January 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1. Gefter, A. 2011. Existence special: Cosmic mysteries, human questions—Existence: Why is there a universe? New Scientist. 2822:29.

2. Marshall, M. 2011. First life: The search for the first replicator. New Scientist. 2825:33, 35.

3. John Sutherland, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, quoted in Marshall, p.35.

The concept "Natural Selection" is Magical!

Apologetics Professor James Johnson observes: Bait and switch is a tactic often used by evolutionists, but it was used by the Creator’s detractors long before Darwin and Huxley. The serpent baited Eve, in Eden, with the promise that eating the forbidden fruit would make Adam and Eve “as gods” (Genesis 3:5). This was the first and worst case of false advertising.

But Darwin’s sophistic marketing phrase “natural selection” likely holds the record as the slickest bait and switch ploy of evolution’s marketing team. By using the word “selection,” Darwin necessarily implies a “selector,” a decision-maker capable of making an information-based choice.¹ Yet, by using the adjective “natural,” Darwin appears to remove the supernatural—i.e., God the Creator. An inanimate “pond” of mythical “soup” has no intelligence for selecting anyone or anything, so the phrase “natural selection” is itself a semantic bait and switch—implying intelligent decisions, then switching to a physical environment of nonliving “stuff” incapable of intelligent selection.

This is a fatal flaw in the attempted logic of evolutionary theory, because the magical phrase “natural selection” is absolutely needed to provide a theoretical mechanism to allow the possibility of past and present diversity of life (in their breedable kinds) on earth, apart from a Creator just like the God of the Bible.

But, there is no natural “selector” to substitute for God. So, because evolutionary theory cannot explain the arrival of earth’s living creatures, there are no logical candidates to be the “survivors” who are “fittest.”

(from James J. S. Johnson, Bait and Switch: A Trick Used by Both Anglerfish and Evolutionists, Acts & Facts, January 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1. Johnson, J. J. S. 2011. Slow Death for a Tarantula: A Lesson in Arachnid Apologetics. Acts & Facts. 40 (10): 10-11.

That's a FACT - Creation Truth in Weekly Video Shorts

A new weekly show called That’s a Fact (www.icr.org/thats-a-fact) is designed to give one creation truth in two minutes or less. The goal of these fun video shorts is to capture the attention of those in the 21st century who depend more on digital devices and the Internet for their information. Professionally produced in Institute of Creation Research’s studio, That’s a Fact airs each week to an audience in over 100 countries. The new show had nearly 100,000 hits on its show site in the first three months of its launch. And this is just one of the many new shows that ICR will be using to teach biblical creation apologetics to up and coming generations

Nearly 5 million people from all over the world visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona every year. Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago. Click here to watch this video explaining how.

(from Lawrence E. Ford, Celebrating 50 Years, Acts & Facts, January 2012, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

The Boy who cried "I found the Missing Link"

Widespread news reports recently proclaimed that a collection of primate fossils discovered in a collapsed cave in South Africa just might be an evolutionary “game changer.” ABC News reported that this creature, called Australopithecus sediba, “could be a key link in the process of evolution that led to modern human beings.”¹ One headline read, “Rethinking Human Origins: Fossils Reveal a New Ancestor on the Family Tree.”²

If this fossil is a real “game changer,” then at least two things are expected.

1) It should also be found in earth layers that are significantly below, and that therefore pre-date, evidence of humans.

2) It should clearly demonstrate human evolution. Otherwise, it’s just an extinct kind of ape. It should show transitional features, such as bones and body proportions that are on their way to becoming shaped like a human’s.

Does this new fossil meet either expectation?

No - Sediba is not earlier than humans

The Sediba fossil is 1.977 million "evolutionary" years old. That's what the study authors argued.³ They then asserted that no Homo—the scientific name for human—fossil remains are any older than 1.9 million years, so that Sediba supposedly existed 77,000 years before humans. They reasoned that man therefore could have evolved from Sediba or a Sediba-like creature.

BUT what about these older dates for humans on the "evolutionary" time scale...

2 million years? Three fossils from Kenya and Tanzania dated by evolutionists at older than 2 million years that, morphologically [based on shape], are indistinguishable from modern humans.⁴

2.3 million years? More recent Homo discoveries include an upper jaw (maxilla) from Ethiopia and a lower jaw (mandible) from Malawi, both dated at 2.3 million years.⁴

2.6 million years? What about the evolutionary dating of “the first appearance of stone tools at 2.6 million years ago” that the Sediba authors acknowledged?⁵

3 million years? A human foot bone fossil—the fourth metatarsal—was recently found in Ethiopia , and assigned an age of three million years.

3.7 million years? Two recent analyses concluded that the famous Laetoli footprints in Tanzanian volcanic mud were made by feet that were essentially identical to those of humans.^6,7 The tracks were tacked onto the evolutionary timeline at 3.7 million years ago.

How did the authors promoting Sediba as a “game changer” deal with these human bones, human foot tracks, and human tools, all deposited before Sediba? They simply dismissed them by saying “their age is uncertain.”³

No - Sediba's hand isn't on the way to being human

Did Sediba at least have transitional features, such as a part-ape, part-human hand?

The unique hand doesn’t look like a modern ape’s, a modern human’s, or any kind of gradual transition between the two. Its finger bones were long, curved, and demonstrate that this small primate was fitted for swinging through trees.⁵ (Human finger bones are straight.)

Also, Sediba’s thumb was long and skinny. A human thumb is proportioned to bear “large loads during stone tool production.” Thus, it could swing from tree branches and probably could not make tools out of hard stone.

"Game Changer"? More like another boy who cried "I found the Missing Link"!

When it comes to human evolution, headlines don’t match reality. For example, the fossil nicknamed “Ida” was promoted as the “missing link” in 2009, but almost immediately was debunked as an extinct variety of lemur with no evolutionary significance whatsoever.⁸

Australopithecus sediba was not a transition toward man, but an extinct ape kind. It is not an evolutionary game changer, but the hype surrounding it shows that the game of promoting human evolution with premature and misleading headlines has not changed at all.

Marko comments: Many scientists and their promoters in media continue to play the Missing Link game. Year after year, decade after decade, they bring forward new candidates as the ancestor of Man. Many of them are outright frauds. They do not what to face the fact that the real link that is missing is our link to God. Without understanding that we have a Creator, there is no scientific explanation for our origins that stands the light of truth!

(based on Brian Thomas, Evolutionary "Game Changer" Doesn't Change Anything, Acts & Facts, December 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1.Potter, N. Evolutionary ‘Game Changer’: Fossil May Be Human Ancestor. ABC News. Posted on abcnews.go.com September 8, 2011.

2.Kluger, J. Rethinking Human Origins: Fossils Reveal a New Ancestor on the Family Tree. Time Science. Posted on time.com September 8, 2011.

3.Pickering, R. et al. 2011. Australopithecus sediba at 1.977 Ma and Implications for the Origins of the Genus Homo. Science. 333 (6048): 1421-1423.

4. Lubenow, M. The Problem with Australopithecus sediba. Answers in Genesis. Posted on answersingenesis.org August 11, 2010

5. Kivell, T. L. et al. 2011. Australopethecus sediba Hand Demonstrates Mosaic Evolution of Locomoter and Manipulative Abilities. Science. 333 (6048): 1411-1417.

6. Raichlen, D. A. et al. 2010. Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics. PLoS One. 5 (3): e9769.

7. Crompton, R. H. Human-like external function of the foot, and fully upright gait, confirmed in the 3.66 million year old Laetoli hominin footprints by topographic statistics, experimental footprint-formation and computer simulation. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Published online before print July 20, 2011.

8. Thomas, B. 2009. The Ida Fossil: A Clever Campaign for a Lackluster “Link.” Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 17.

Explain this without God: Big tuna are warm-blooded!

Paul Greenburg, a secular journalist for the New York Times, ponders the inability of evolutionary thinking to account for the tuna’s brilliant body and behavior:

Even the most confirmed enemy of “intelligent design” theories can have a hard time imagining [much less providing forensic evidence for] the forebears of these great fish inching slowly down an epochs-long evolutionary course to become modern tuna. They seem like deus ex machina incarnate or, rather, machina ex deo—a machine from God. How else could a fish come into being with a weird slot, as hard and fixed as the landing-gear slot on an airplane, into which it retracts its dorsal fin to achieve faster speeds? How else could a fish develop a whole new way of swimming where a slim crescent of a tail, insignificant in size compared to most fish tails, vibrates at astronomical speed while the rest of the body slips forward with barely any bend, pitch, or roll? And how else would a fish appear within a phylum of otherwise cold-blooded animals that can redirect the heat that its muscles throw off back into its very flesh and raise its body temperature by as much as twenty degrees above ambient conditions? Yes, the biggest tuna are warm-blooded.¹

Tuna—what a magnificent (and nutritious) fish! The seaworthy body and behavior of every living tuna exhibit the design and manufacturing brilliance of He who commissioned “fishers of men.”

(excerpted from James J.S. Johnson, A Christmas Carol in Four-Part Harmony, Acts & Facts, December 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1. Greenberg, P. 2010. Four Fish, the Future of the Last Wild Food. New York: Penguin Books, 199-200.

Long necked Sauropods had All-or-Nothing Design Features

The Bible’s history provides a framework that best explains the most significant facts about Sauropods, such as Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. They were immense, four-footed dinosaurs. Sauropods’ long necks allowed them a wide reach through the treetops. They were able to eat the massive amount of foliage required to maintain their size without having to expend extra energy moving from tree to tree. Some of the largest may have needed up to a ton of vegetation every day. This is according to Fredric Heeren's report in Nature.¹

Clearly, sauropods had all-or-nothing design features. Without small heads, hollow vertebrae, long necks, pillar legs, specially shaped pelvis bones, and fast growth rates—all at the same time—sauropods could not have existed. This is why sauropod evolution has been imagined as having happened in “an evolutionary jump.”¹

If sauropods evolved, then why are there no fossil “pre-sauropods” that have at least two, three, or four of the uniquely sauropod features, instead of just one or merely a possible part of one? If sauropods evolved over eons, then most of these fossils should be transitional. For example, why are gradually lengthening dinosaur necks not apparent as one ascends the rock record? Instead, these candidate “prosauropods” were perfectly developed creatures of their own types, showing no hint of evolutionary experimentation.

The Bible’s framework best explains the facts. First, sauropods were intentionally formed at one time, not morphed from other creatures. This is why no single undisputed ancestor exists, why their evolution is imagined to have happened in a “jump,” and why sauropods have all-or-nothing design features.

And the very reason that sauropod fossils exist “on almost every continent” is because, being a worldwide phenomenon, the Genesis Flood was powerful enough to totally overwhelm even the world’s most massive land creatures of that time. Unlike the miserable state of evolutionary guesswork, these observations confirm the biblical record!

(excerpted from Brian Thomas and Frank Sherwin, What the Fossils Really Say about Sauropod Dinosaurs, Acts & Facts, November 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1.Heeren, F. 2011. Dinosaurs: Rise of the titans. Nature. 475: 159-161.

Liberal Academics Ignore the Most Ancient Account of Noah's Flood

Unknown to many today is the earliest Flood tablet ever found. It pre-dates the 5 written books of Moses by at least 800 years. It was discovered in the ancient Babylonian city of Nippur in the 1890s. The tablet was so encrusted that its value was not immediately recognized, but by 1909 Dr. Hermann Hilprecht had discerned the figures and translated the text. Given the catalogue designation CBM 13532, it dates from about 2200 B.C., or soon after the Flood itself. More importantly, while the differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh are striking, the similarities between Genesis and this tablet are obvious. There is no detail that differs from Genesis, and nothing extra is added.

Hilprecht’s translation reads as follows, with damaged sections reconstructed by Fritz Hommel and unreadable portions of the text noted:

The springs of the deep will I open. A flood will I send which will affect all of mankind at once. But seek thou deliverance before the flood breaks forth, for over all living beings, however many there are, will I bring annihilation, destruction, ruin. Take wood and pitch and build a large ship!….cubits be its complete height…. a houseboat shall it be, containing those who preserve their life….with a strong roofing cover it…. the ship which thou makest, take into it….the animals of the field, the birds of the air and the reptiles, two of each, instead of (their whole number)….and the family of the….¹

This clear text stands as both a confirmation of Scripture and a condemnation of liberal “scholarship.” It so clearly undermines the “critical” view that it never sees the light of day. Professor Hilprecht himself was hardly a defender of Scripture, yet he was a recognized expert in ancient languages. His translation originally caused quite a storm of controversy among academics, for it undercut their position that Genesis carries no authority, but no challenge was ever levied against his translation. Nevertheless, it remains hidden today. Few know of the tablet, or of its strong testimony to Scripture’s authority.

(excerpted from John D. Morris, Genesis, Gilgamesh, and an Early Flood Tablet, Acts & Facts, November 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

Marko comments: We have Dr. Bill Cooper to thank for rediscovering this tablet and Hilprecht's work. Cooper is a tireless investigator into historical truth and how it confirms the accuracy of Scripture. His tremendous work After the Flood, (available for free in an online edition), chronicles the early histories of northern Europe, and the striking echoes found there to the Table of Nations recorded in Genesis chapter 10. His new rediscovery demonstrates how liberal academics have once again selectively ignored this most priceless tablet, and steer people away from the historical truth of Scripture to sheer ignorance.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Reference

1. Pinches, G. and F. Hommel. 1910. The Oldest Library in the World and the New Deluge Tablets. Expository Times. 21: 369. Pinches’ editorial marks were omitted for clarity.

Source: Dr. Bill Cooper, The Earliest Flood Tablet, Pamphlet 382, May 2011, published by the Creation Science Movement, Portsmouth, UK.

"Natural Selection" - Idol worship updated for the modern age

Charles Darwin displaced God as a supernatural cause for the origin of species. He replaced God with a mystical agent, "natural selection."

The mystical quality of natural selection is evident when you try to unpack  statements that evolutionary scientists make, such as this one: “The remarkable diversity of life on Earth stands as grand testimony to the creativity of evolution. Over the course of 500 million years, natural selection has fashioned wings for flight, fins for swimming and legs for walking, and that’s just among the vertebrates.”¹ Some Darwinists are somewhat troubled by the awe that they devote to the concept, such as geneticist John Sanford. He admits:

“It is obvious that the omnipotent power of natural selection can do all things, explain all things….” The above statement came from an early Darwinist, but I have lost the source. It could have come from just about any Darwinist. In fact, just a few years ago I might have said it myself.²

When websites show a subterranean water table “selecting” trees with longer roots, intelligence-based power has been ascribed to the inanimate water table—so why not attribute it to some god?

If someone held up a statue and ascribed to it powers to select, naturalists would see this as mysticism and Christians would see this as idolatry. But, in a mental disconnect, in place of a statue they make an identical but more subtle attributions toward an agent like a water table. The trick is to use descriptions such as an “operative force” that can “favor,” “act on,” “pressure,” or “punish” organisms.

Natural selection’s intrinsic spiritual problem was derided by non-theist observers from the outset. In 1861, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences described Darwin’s Origin of Species as “metaphysical jargon thrown amiss in the natural history.”³ “Darwin pointed the direction to a thoroughly naturalistic—indeed a thoroughly atheistic—theory of phenotype [trait] formation; but he didn’t see how to get the whole way there. He killed off God, if you like, but Mother Nature and other pseudoagents got away scot-free.”⁴

What is really explained scientifically by merely saying that a trait was “selected for” or “selected against”?Those magical phrases cannot truly be expected to reveal why certain traits originate and exist in populations. A mysterious power that “positively selects,” “operates on,” “punishes,” or “favors” ...  try to imagine what evolutionary literature could explain without using them—it would be starved of its mechanism and life. Selection-based accounts end up with mystical forces granting “favor.”

But explanations that honor the Lord will be based on the abilities that he designed into his creatures. So instead of the "god" of the subterranean water table “selecting” trees with longer roots, we recognize that trees have an innate capacity to produce longer roots enabling them to live in areas with deeper water tables.

Selection is idolatrous in the basest of ways. Not only does it ascribe intelligence-like powers to unconscious environmental features, like any other idol, but it induces people not to give the Lord credit for the incredible intelligence and machinery He has built into His creatures that enable them to adapt to environmental features.
 
(extracted from Randy Guliuzza, Darwin's Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection's Idolatrous Trap, Acts & Facts, November 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

1. Jones, D. 2010. Evolvability: How to cash in on the genetic lottery. New Scientist. 2766: 46-49.

2. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 161.

3. Huxley, T. H. 1894. Darwiniana. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 65.

4. Fodor, J. and M. Piattelli-Palmarini. 2010. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 162-163.

Evolutionary thinking doesn't do much for the Economy

If natural selection were both real and as important as evolutionists claim, then it would be reasonable to predict that there would be numerous studies actually measuring its significant influence. But, this is not the case. Evolutionary thinking hinders research—especially in medicine.¹

One initial challenge is that anything being measured must first be defined. For example, “Fitness” has variably been defined as relating to number of mates, fertility, gross number of offspring, number of offspring living to reproductive age, offspring in specific environments, or any combination of these. The eminent evolutionist Leigh Van Valen sums up the conundrum:

Yes, fitness is the central concept of evolutionary biology, but it is an elusive concept.... There are literally dozens of genuinely different definitions, which I won’t review here.... Is it that we can’t define it because we do not fully understand it.²

The American Naturalist published in 2001 the largest analysis of the degree to which selection of changes of specific physical traits in an animal group affects their fitness—as measured by survival, mating success, and offspring.³ It tabulated 63 prior field studies covering 62 species and over 2,500 estimates of selection. The highest median correlation of trait selection to fitness was a low 16 percent. This means 84 percent of changes were not explained by selection. It found that in studies with species sample sizes greater than 1,000, the correlation of selection to survival was essentially negligible.

Even the University of Chicago’s expert on evolutionary biology, Jerry Coyne, is forced to admit the contrast between natural selection and aritificial selection:

In contrast, artificial selection has been stunningly successful. Virtually everything that we eat, grow or pet has involved transforming a wild species, through selective breeding, into something radically different.⁴

But Coyne then goes on to the illogical conclusion that "Artificial selection constitutes a true experimental—as opposed to observational—test of the hypothesis that selection causes evolutionary change"! If it is not evidently illogical, please also note that artificial selectors have always observed limits to variability (after millennia of breeding for speed, there are no 100-mile-per-hour horses). Second, scientists have never created two fundamentally different kinds of organisms from a common ancestor. If intelligent selectors cannot obtain fundamentally different kinds due to innate limits to change, what evidence exists that environments can?

Supporters of selection should consider that the reason for selection’s irrelevance is not that it is weak beyond belief, but that there is, in fact, nothing tangible to measure.

"Natural Selection" induces people not to give the Lord credit for the incredible intelligence and machinery He has built into His creatures that enable them to adapt to environmental features.

Marko comments: yes, evolutionary thinking doesn't do much for the Economy! Except that it guarantees publically funded jobs for all the evolutionary scientists who are tenured at thousands of universities around the world. If we measured evolutionists by the tangible improvements that they make to peoples' lives, they would be found to be a bankrupting effort....

(extracted from Randy Guliuzza, Darwin's Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection's Idolatrous Trap, Acts & Facts, November 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

References (selected)

1. Guliuzza, R. 2009. Darwinian Medicine: A Prescription for Failure. Acts & Facts. 38 (2): 32.

2. Van Valen, L. 1989. Three Paradigms of Evolution. Evolutionary Theory. 9: 2.

3. Kingsolver, J. et al. 2001. The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations. The American Naturalist. 157 (3): 245-61.

4. Coyne, J. The Improbability Pump: Why has natural selection always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory? The Nation, May 10, 2010

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Could a good God work through evolution?

Most compromise positions attribute the origins of biological life and humanity to evolutionary processes, whether through naturalistic processes alone or as directed by God. But, could God have used the processes of evolution in His creation? Evolutionary development by definition requires billions of years of chance, chaos, confusion, and death. Evolutionary processes are incompatible and inconsistent with the nature of God (holy, perfect, ordered, and good). God could not have used processes contrary to His nature as He is not the author of death.

Even evolutionists will not compromise to say that God created through evolution. A noted evolutionist astutely stated:

The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain, and horror….[Theistic evolution’s God] is not a loving God who cares about His productions. [He] is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.¹

The Gospel Message

Evolutionary processes (Big Bang and the origins of biological life and humanity) are all predicated upon long ages of time and death, requiring that death reigned as a creative force for billions of years before the existence of humanity.

Death before the Fall cannot be reconciled with the gospel message. The biblical message is clear. God created a perfect world (Genesis 1–2). Evil and death are a result of Satan and man’s sin, a result of the Curse/Fall (Genesis 3). Death is an intruder into God’s perfect creation and will be conquered by Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:16; Revelation 21:4-5). If death existed before sin, then death is not the judgment for sin.

Reference 

1.Hull, D. L. 1991. The God of the Galápagos. Nature. 352 (6335): 486.

(from Brad Forlow, Genesis Under the Microscope, Acts & Facts, October 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

A Gift of a Penny Leads 1500 People to Christ

About a century ago, a dear Christian lady began preparations to send a box of goods and supplies to missionaries from her church. A neighborhood child heard of her project and desired to help. But being only a small child, she had very little that would be useful to the missionaries. The child did have a penny, however—a gift from a favorite uncle—which she cheerfully presented to the dear lady to help her friends on the mission field.

Touched by the child’s heartfelt generosity and not wanting to offend her in spite of her small gift, the lady graciously accepted the penny. But the child’s gift was too small to purchase supplies and the lady was uncertain how she could put it to good use. Then an idea occurred to her, and she used the child’s penny to purchase a single gospel tract.

On the day when all the necessary supplies had been gathered, the lady asked the child to help her prepare the box for shipment. One by one, the lady and the child packed the items, being careful to include the gospel tract purchased with the child’s penny. The box was finally sealed and addressed, and together the lady and the small child took it to the post office to be shipped to their friends halfway around the world.

Some weeks later, the box reached the missionaries, who joyously unpacked it. The supplies it held brought sweet relief to their modest circumstances. Near the bottom of the box, the missionaries discovered the gospel tract, which they soon gave to one of the local people.

The tract was passed among the people, eventually reaching a great chief who lived in a nearby region. Intrigued by its message, but unsure of its meaning, the chief called for the missionaries to come and explain the teachings. They came and began to share the gospel, and in time the chief accepted Christ as his personal Savior and Lord. The chief told the story of his conversion to his people, many of whom also believed. Eventually a church was established and over fifteen hundred people were brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus.

This remarkable story, started by a gift of a child’s penny that culminated in the salvation of many souls, marvelously demonstrates the power our gifts can have on the work of the Kingdom.

(reposted from Henry M. Morris IV, Acceptable Gifts of Power, Acts & Facts, October 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Evolution is O for Five on Formation Theories

Evolution is striking out in finding workable formation theories: formation of stars, planets, our moon, life, and animals. Maybe its time for Evolution to retire from the game?

We are taught that atoms became galaxies and stars.” Really? How, indeed, considering that an evolutionist in Scientific American stated:

It might seem that star formation is a problem that has been solved. But nothing could be further from the truth. The birth of stars remains one of the most vibrant topics in astrophysics today.¹

They also describe “elements [turning] into solid, rocky planets,” but there are serious scientific problems with this idea of planet formation. In 2011, National Geographic News reported:

The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.²

Well, at least it’s known how earth’s closest celestial neighbor formed, right? No—an evolutionary website reported in 2008:

The finding [of lunar water] calls into question some critical aspects of the “giant impact” theory of the Moon’s formation.³

Finally, there have always been serious challenges to the bizarre idea that over time inorganic nonlife became organic life. “The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself,” said one evolutionist.⁴

If people really want to know their origin, as well as the origin of the universe, they would do well to consult the written record of the One who was there “in the beginning.”

(Based on Frank Sherwin, From Rocks...to Brains, Acts & Facts, September 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

References (selected)

1. Young, E. T. Mysteries of How a Star Is Born. Scientific American, February 1, 2010, 34. See also Thomas, B. Distant Galactic Cluster Should Not Exist. ICR News. Posted on icr. org May 21, 2010.

2. Lovett, R. A. Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says. National Geographic News. Posted on news.nationalgeographic.com February 22, 2011. See also Asphaug, E. 2009. Growth and Evolution of Asteroids. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 37: 413-48. See generally Spike Psarris’ DVD Our Created Solar System (available from http://www.creation.com/).

3. Moon water discovered: Dampens Moon-formation theory. Carnegie Institution news release, July 9, 2008, reporting on research published in Saal, A. E. et al. 2008. Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the Moon’s interior. Nature. 454 (7210): 192-195.

4. Donoghue, P. C. J. 2007. Paleontology: Embryonic identity crisis. Nature. 445 (7124): 155.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Preaching Genesis, by Henry M. Morris III

Perhaps if pastors and Sunday school teachers spent more time teaching the Lord’s people about the absolute truths of Genesis, we would have less difficulty UN-teaching the errors that abound in our churches.

Evangelicals are slipping more and more deeply into hybrid theologies and doctrines that seek “the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43).

The “emerging church” movement has “Christianized” the damnable error that absolute truth does not exist, and it is leading hoards of “seekers” into the mouth of hell. Popular Christian author Rob Bell is preaching that Love Wins in his book about the ultimate salvation of all humanity. Peter Enns, known for his disbelief in biblical truths such as a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Fall, the historical accuracy of Genesis, etc., has just published a Bible curriculum for homeschool children.

Darrel Falk and a growing number of “Fellows” at the BioLogos Foundation are insisting that the idea of an inerrant Bible is foolish and that “creation by evolution” is the best way to understand God’s “message” in Genesis.

We are immersed in a secular culture, bombarded with an ever-increasing vitriol and hatred. In bestselling books such as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, Breaking the Spell, and The End of Faith, well-known atheists are advocating an all-out culture war to remove any vestige of Christianity from the public arena. Christians are blatantly branded as the enemy, a scourge to be eliminated.

How can we break this powerful onslaught against God and His people? May I humbly suggest that we teach our people the historical foundations in Genesis?

The Foundation of History—the “Beginnings” of Everything

Genesis is not just the first book of Scripture, it is the foundation for the rest of Scripture. If you do not understand Genesis, you cannot fully understand the person and attributes of the Creator Himself—Jesus Christ.

Genesis reveals the beginnings and foundations of reality—of our very existence. Without a clear understanding of these basic concepts, we are sorely lost among today’s plethora of conflicting ideas concerning the origins of:

• The universe, solar system, earth
• Life, man, marriage
• Language, government, culture
• Nations

The Foundation of All Biblical Structure and Theology

All of biblical structure and theology is set in the book of Genesis. If Genesis is not accurate history, then the rest of Scripture is little more than “tradition” and “viewpoints” that were written by ignorant sages of times past—and is therefore irrelevant today.

Origin of Evil: If the Fall of man recorded in Genesis 3 is not true, then the gospel is both foolish and unnecessary. In fact, if man did not rebel against his Creator, then the death of Jesus Christ is nothing more than an idealist’s martyrdom—not a total substitutionary atonement and reconciliation of God with man.

Origin of Death: If Adam’s sin is not an actual event, then death is nothing more than a “natural” means to weed out the unfit. Indeed, the evolutionary system insists death is good. In Scripture, death is a judgment and an enemy that will be eliminated.

Origin of Chosen People: The Old Testament is mostly a history of Israel. Why such a selective record if not to inscribe the supernatural protection of the Messianic line and the unique fulfillment of the hundreds of prophecies focused on Jews?

Origin of Many Descriptive Names of God: As the great history of the world unfolded, God revealed His attributes to early patriarchs through the majestic Hebrew terms used to describe God’s dealings with men. He is the Elohim of creation; the El Shaddai of power and might; the ever-present El Elyon, the Most High; the One who sees, the El Roi; the Owner and Master, Adonai; and the eternal El Olam.

(Reposted from Henry M. Morris III, Preaching Genesis, Acts & Facts, September 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

The 'Tranquil Flood' theory, an early try to sidestep the Bible

To imagine our whole planet being gently smothered by a “tranquil” flood is as silly as the idea of serenely dropping a “tranquil atomic bomb” on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Here's how the tranquil flood theory became one of the first trojan horses of Evolution back in the 1800's:

a) The Tranquil Flood theory asserted that earth never experienced a global catastrophe that violently destroyed the earth’s geomorphology and its natural vegetation, but it does assert that the earth is eons old.

b) The theory holds that the Bible does not clearly describe a catastrophic global Flood, and never provides chronological data that negate the earth being eons old.

c) Thus, the Tranquil Flood theory does not suggest that the Bible is untrue.

d) In the Tranquil Flood theory, the Bible’s information was not loudly bashed as false; rather, it was casually sidestepped (and then ignored) as scientifically irrelevant.

Here was an example of a conflict-avoidance strategy - to promote the idea that a particular new theory did not “disagree” with the Bible because the new theory addressed a scientific topic not governed by biblical revelation. Thus, the theorist could argue, in effect, that his idea didn’t clash with Scripture because it addressed a topic not covered in Scripture.

People knew that if the new theory clashed with the information of Scripture, a conflict of authority would exist. However, skirting the informational conflict offered them escape from biblical accountability. The Bible, it was maintained, was simply not “relevant” on the topic.

Present day astronomer and big bang/old earth advocate Dr. Hugh Ross argues for a local flood. On the other hand, his contemporary Dr. Norman Geisler, also an advocate of the old earth,  insists that the Bible clearly taught a global, worldwide Flood. But Geisler says it did not do the geologic work claimed for it by young-earth creationists. He held that it must have destroyed all the pre-Flood human inhabitants, but left little geologic trace on the planet. It rose, covered the world, drowned all of life on land, and then simply drained off. No rocks, no fossils. I asked how he could hold such a position, since even the minor, local floods of today do tremendous geologic work. How could a flood, which he admitted was much larger and more dynamic than any observed flood, do no geologic work? Thus, he proposed a tranquil Flood. He is back to the position of the 1800's.

Not only did the Tranquil Flood theory deny that the Genesis Flood account was authoritatively relevant for interpreting the rock layers of the world, that theory effectively denies that the Genesis Flood account was historically true. By asserting a supposed earth history that contradicts the one described in Scripture, the Tranquil Flood theory effectively denies that the Genesis Flood account is true.

God punished sin and His judgment was not at all “tranquil.” Only Noah and his family accepted God’s redemption. Scripture describes the Genesis Flood as a violent judgment of our planet because of the unprecedented and unsurpassed violence on the earth—quite the opposite of “tranquil.”

Many names over the centuries have supported the Tranquil Flood theory: Charles Lyell, Carolus Linnaeus, John Fleming, William Buckland, J. Laurence Kulp, and Norm Geisler. But Moses did not, and it was he whom God chose to prophetically record the account about what happened during the one and only worldwide catastrophic Flood.

(Based on James J. S. Johnson, Biblical Devastation in the Wake of a 'Tranquil Flood', Acts & Facts, September 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

References (selected)

1. Morris, J. D. 2009. The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth—Past, Present, and Future. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 128-129.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Does Junk DNA prove Evolution? No, that's Junk Science

DNA is a well-designed blueprint. However, on occasion, random changes—“mutations”— are introduced, and if mutations happen to land in a part of the DNA that codes for protein (i.e., in a “gene”), the consequences can be striking—for example, sickle cell anemia. Because they are rare, random, and seldom reversible, mutations serve as a useful marker of ancestry.

Evolutionists have capitalized on this fact and have used it to claim that shared mutations between humans and chimps prove common ancestry between these two creatures. They claim that humans and chimpanzees share an unusually high number of shared mutations in the same DNA locations and that the only explanation for this similarity is plagiarism of these genomes from a common ancestor.

Is this assumption true?

Marko notes: Here's what is really going on. Evolutionists are not just counting the number of "mutations" of the sickle-cell anemia variety! They are including in that total any DNA locations that they regard as "mistakes". Almost all these "mistakes" are what is called "junk" DNA, or areas of DNA that are regarded as non-functional.

So, the shared “mistakes” between the two genomes are most often found in the region of the genome previously labeled “junk.” But evidence has been accumulating that “junk” DNA is, in fact, functional!¹ These data clearly indicate that the assumption behind the evolution claim is false—we do not speak the language of the genome well enough to reliably separate shared “mistakes” from common design features. Hence, the claim that shared “mistakes” prove common ancestry is invalid.

Marko's conclusion: Does Junk DNA prove Evolution? No, that's Junk Science!

(Excerpted from Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared 'Mistakes' Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts, September 2011, Institute for Creation Research)

References (selected)

1.Wells, J. 2011. The Myth of Junk DNA. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Evolutionists won't admit that they actually embrace the Supernatural

We hear evolutionary cosmogonists maintaining that the universe evolved itself out of nothing! This is their version of the Supernatural. Creationists at least postulate an adequate Cause to produce the universe—that is, an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, self-existing, personal, Creator God. For those who believe in God, creation ex nihilo is plausible and reasonable. But even if people refuse to acknowledge a real Creator, they should realize that a universe evolving out of nothing would contradict the law of cause-and-effect, the principle of conservation of mass/energy, the law of increasing entropy, and the very nature of reason itself. How can they say such things?

There have always been huge difficulties with the Big Bang theory: how the primeval explosion could be the cause of the complexity and organization of the vast cosmos, and how to explain how a uniform explosion could generate such a diverse, heterogeneous universe.

Sir Fred Hoyle, outstanding astronomer and cosmologist, who finally gave up the steady-state theory which he had originated and long promoted, has also shown that the big bang theory should be abandoned, for still other reasons.

"As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers."¹

Where did the initial "point-universe" come from? This amazing infinitesimal particle which contained the entire universe and, in principle, all its future galaxies, planets and people—how do we account for it? Now, if one thinks that the scenario up to this point has been enchantingly preposterous, he will surely think the rest of it is simply a creationist plot to make evolutionists look ridiculous. Readers should certainly check this out for themselves!

How did it all come to pass? Edward Tryon, who started much of these metaphysical exercises back in 1973, says:

"So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness."²

So our vast, complex cosmos began as a point of something or other which evolved as a fluctuation from a state of nothingness!

"In this picture, the universe came into existence as a fluctuation in the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Such a hypothesis leads to a view of creation in which the entire universe is an accident. In Tryon's words, 'Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.'"³

Regardless of the sophisticated mathematical apparatus leading the Big Bang cosmogonists to their remarkable statement of faith in the omnipotence of nothingness, there will continue to be a few realists who prefer the creationist alternative: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

(excerpts from Henry Morris, Evolution Ex Nihilo, Act & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, September 2011)

References (selected)

1. Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Under Attack," Science Digest, Vol 92, May 1984, p. 84.

2. Edward P. Tryon, 'What Made the World?" New Scientist, Vol. 101, Mar. 8, 1984, p. 15.

3. James Trefil, "The Accidental Universe," Science Digest, Vol. 92, June 1984, p. 101.

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Dino-Birds? Behinds too Bulky to Fly, Sorry...

A bird’s center of mass is toward the front, in between its wings. This is a crucial aerodynamic arrangement that enables in-flight control of balance and maneuvering. It is also one evidence that birds are not descended from dinosaurs. A dinosaur’s bulk was situated above its hind legs, and there is no fossil—let alone a series of fossils—showing that bulk gradually shifting forward. In fact, a creature with its mass centered in the middle would not yet be able to control itself in the air. It would also not be able to maneuver on the ground as well as its dinosaur peers. Surely, such an imaginary creature would have become food for its better-equipped companions, thus ending the whole evolutionary experiment.

Surely the great Creator deserves credit for His fantastic handiwork!

(for more, see Brian Thomas, Fit for Flight, Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, August 2011)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)