Liberal Media Depicts Noah’s Ark

A new Hollywood movie called, “Noah” has hit the big screen here in America. This 130 million dollar movie has received a vast amount of criticism from various religious groups which also include Muslims who have banned the movie in certain countries.

Director Darren Aronofsky said that “Noah” was the least Biblical story ever made. So if you are planning on seeing this movie thinking it’s a depiction of the Noah from the Bible, your going to be very disappointed. This movie was made for huge profits only along with corrupting the account of Noah from the Bible.

Opinion writer, Kathleen Parker who writes for the Washington Post, wrote an article to insult Christians and Muslims who oppose the film. Here is what she says…

“To each his own interpretation, but at least one conclusion seems self-evident: The Bible’s authors were far more literary than we. They clearly had a keen appreciation for parable and metaphor as well as a profound understanding that truth is better revealed than instructed.”

“If the literalists prevail, we just might need another flood.”

Kathleen obviously has a liberal bias, implying Noah’s flood was a parable or metaphor rather than a true account as part of our history because she doesn’t like Christianity to instruct people about what the Scriptures say.

A reporter from Live Science goes into details about his depiction of Noah. Benjamin Radford claims the account of “Noah” from the Bible is a “tale” and therefore according to his circular reasoning, cannot be true.

He cites this argument: The Ark wasn’t capable of carrying every single animal on earth.

First of all, it was unnecessary to carry creatures of the sea so land animals like reptiles and vertebrate were the animals carried on the ark.

Second of all, Radford asserts that dinosaurs had to be fully grown. Says who? The Bible surely doesn’t say it. This is what is known as building a straw man to knock down. The straw man argument is a misrepresentation of the data whether you agree with that data or not. The largest dinosaurs were most likely not full-grown which made it easier to fit on the ark.

Third of all, Radford suggests that Noah had to bring koalas from Australia and llamas from South America. However, geology was different back then as our existing continents of today, broke off from a single antediluvian continent which existed during Noah’s time. Also, the Bible required animals after their kind. Not variations.

Fourth of all, Radford points out that other cultures have a flood story of their own and implies the book of Genesis is on the same level of those other stories while creationists, view those accounts in those cultures as part of the evidence for a global flood which got corrupted.

Fifth of all, Radford suggests there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, in the previous article, “Convoluted Fossil Discoveries” where marine and land animals were mix together in the same deposit along with a pine tree that was out-of-place is evidence for a flood!

How do you explain rocks that moved 3,000 miles which crossed whole continents? A worldwide flood!

Quoted from More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists and Evidence for a World Wide Flood. 

1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

2) Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

4) Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

5) Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.

6) A major reduction in the gene pool. ““The studies, published in the journal, Nature, paint a picture of a population of humans migrating off the African continent, and then shrinking at some point because of unknown adversity.” ABC News.

7) Bent and folded strata. So why would we expect to find bends and folds, and even tilts in the strata to find evidence for a flood? Because a global flood would put on enormous amounts of pressure on the earth’s crust which would produce such bends and folds in the strata!

Convoluted Fossil Discoveries

The fossil record used to be and still is to a certain degree, assumed to be the best evidence for evolution. But here they find 70 feet below the surface, known as “Fossil Haven” in Wilshire Boulevard, California…an array of mollusks, asphalt-saturated sand dollars, pieces of driftwood and Monterey cypress cones.”

Continuing in Phys.org about the discovery…

“For Scott, the most exciting finds have been a rock embedded with what appears to be part of a sea lion’s mouth (perhaps 2 million years old) and a non-fossilized 10-foot limb from a digger pine tree that would look right at home today in Central California woodlands.”

This area was assumed to be 50,000 to over 300,000 years old, but how did a mouth of a sea-lion which is assumed to be around 2 million years old get into this mix? How did Digger pine trees get into the mix when they do not grow by saturated sand dollars. Why are animals which are no longer roaming the earth found in a younger area of the fossil record while an older area in the fossil record contained all the animals and plants that exist today in California.

If you say these two discoveries are not fitting in the frame-work of evolution, you would be correct! The whole thing is convoluted using evolutionary theory.

And that is not all, remember the amazing discoveries of soft tissue being discovered in fossilized animals thought to be many millions of years old? Well, they are now finding soft tissue in plants too as New Scientist reports then puts a spin to it…

“One hundred and eighty million years ago, this Jurassic fern was minding its own business when it was suddenly engulfed by a lava flow. The plant was almost instantly fossilised, preserving it in incredible detail – right down to its individual chromosomes in various stages of cell division.”

Another theory, suggests it was a hydrothermal brine seep, which was able to freeze the plant while it was alive! How does this supposed 180 million year old plant shed light on evolution when no evolution was observed? It did confirm the theory of evolutionary conservatism  which means no evolution taking place in the fern genomes.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than God. How can you believe in such exceptional preservation as being many millions of years old? How can you believe in uniformity of the fossil record when there is none?

It certainly fits into the creationist model, a young earth would produce such great discoveries as soft tissues in fossils either in animals or plants, there is no need to come up with crazy stories about how organic material could last many millions of years!

Discovering Mature Galaxies In Deep Space

The universe is undermining the uniformity which is the holy grail of secular astronomy of the supposed evolution of galaxies. Astronomers continue to find mature galaxies in deep space with better technology which fifteen years ago would have never been considered by cosmologists to exist despite the fact that Hubble began its discoveries of mature galaxies in deep space during 1995.

In an article “Galaxies In the Early Universe Mature Beyond Their Years”

“The mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, seen when the Universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.”

“These distant and early massive galaxies are one of the Holy Grails of astronomy,” Director of the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing at Swinburne University of Technology, Professor Karl Glazebrook, who was involved in the discovery, said.”

“Fifteen years ago they were predicted not to even exist within the cosmological model favoured at the time. In 2004 I wrote a paper on the discovery of such galaxies existing only three billion years after the Big Bang. Now, with improved technology we are pushing back to only 1.6 billion years, which is truly exciting.”

These fifteen newly discovered galaxies with no evidence of star formation are just as large as our Milky Way. Normally when there is increased complexity in a theory, a new one is developed. Or as Thomas Kuhn would say, anomalies accumulate until a new paradigm replaces it. But Kuhn also said, “normal science” is a puzzle to be solved. When it comes to evolution of anything whether it be earth or the universe, most explanations based on their framework is “normal science”, making it harder for shifts outside of it to occur.

For example, dark matter was invoked to hold the universe together, which began very expensive projects to detect it directly even though they have no clue what they are looking for. What would be the odds in discovering what the properties are by accident? That’s if dark matter really exists at all. These expenses could be used for other things in science. Then there is dark energy, which was invented to explain the universe’s acceleration. Neither has this been detected directly.

Now imagine scientists coming up with a story on how stars form hundreds of times faster than previously believed. Keep in mind there is a difference between observation and explanation. Just because scientists can now observe things like never before, doesn’t mean they know how it came about. It’s like macro-evolution, no chemist in the world both past and present understands it but they use circular reasoning to believe in it because they believe evolution to be true.

Take Professor James M. Tour as an example. He’s one of the best chemists in the world who wrote hundreds of papers that was published in well-known peer-review publications, he states…“most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”

This happens in cosmology as well. And the reason for this is because they believe in faulty models, instead of following where the evidence leads, they try to shape it so their faulty models remain intact.

Professor James M. Tour is not a creationist neither an intelligent design proponent, but rather believes in evolution. His failed quest to search for understanding of origins about how dead chemicals become alive came to a halt. Nobody in the scientific community, not even an atheist group came forward as requested by him to give him understanding about evolution! Why? Because they don’t understand it either (and some don’t want to admit it in public) but rely on their belief in evolution that it did happen even though they have no viable theory on how it happened. You see, Professor James M. Tour makes molecules for a living and he knows first hand how complex it really is. This complexity makes all the more difficult to make molecules.

This is similar to supposed evolution of stars! Why would stars supposedly evolve in the early part of the universe so rapidly and others did not? Explanations that cannot be proved often times sounds better for the believer in evolution than the actual observation. If other universes become the accepted norm in the scientific community which I think will eventually happen in order to explain such formations, it could never be observed. It also possible they might settle for a dark mechanism and make predictions with that. Dark meaning, it has never been directly observed.

So one looks at their track record for predictions and it isn’t that good, uniformity is the holy grail of astronomy for many years and yet it has been falsified. For creationism, this is a confirmation of God’s handy work of the universe, and I believe there are more mature galaxies even further in space!

New Study Challenges Evolution’s Basic Concept

How can natural selection choose if the necessary component to create life’s most specialized complex system? In the earlier years of evolution, scientists did not have the technology to observe a cell. Since evolution was based on slight modifications by mutations chosen by natural selection in order to produce complex systems, evolutionists believed the cell was simple, but as it turns out science has shown it to be designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery!

Think of it this way, evolution of a rocket. You already have the machinery and information on how to build its shell where you got that information is unknown, now take that existing information and use slight errors in the instructions to come with a design for the engine, and after that using more errors to come up the fuel it must run on to work. Even though you were provided with information and have the ability to build, more than likely, you can’t choose from the errors created from the previous information which by now with all its errors no longer make sense for even building a rocket shell let alone obtaining information on how to build its engine and the fuel that runs it!

This is why mutations in the genetic code does not create new information from existing information that can produce a different complex component that never was in existence before!

Evolution goes beyond what natural selection can actually do! Now comes a term which is very familiar to you and that is…”survival of the fittest.” This basic concept is being challenged by researchers from Oxford University (see here) who say “fittest” doesn’t arrive so it’s not around to survive!

“By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.”

Like many explanations in evolution, it raises more questions than answers which leads to dead ends! This model conducted by evolutionists say mutational possibilities that have benefits which are just too rare. This means, the fittest don’t arrive in the evolutionary timescale, there is nothing to fix.

This comes back to Hugo de Vries who was a  Professor of Botany who began his experimentation on plants in 1800. De Vries believed in enormous changes in animals which were based on his “mutation theory”. He also said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”.  Simply because natural selection can only choose what already exists.

It would have been interesting today, how he would have viewed the mutation experiment with fruitflies which began to de-evolve over a period of time in more than ideal conditions rather than showing signs of change that would eventually lead to another species as explained in the theory of evolution.

The explanations are like a game of poker with its bluffing, evolutionary theory does bluff on what it explains being pretentious, and self-contradictory about it. But that is what happens when you try to explain things in order to disagree with reality which doesn’t go along with evolution. Reality suggests that the universe was created with a mind, and that mind was God!