To Students: Evolutionists Bluff In Their Explanation

Eugenie Scott is finally retiring from her long 26 year mission of trying to destroy how science is being taught in the public schools. She was praised by Science Magazine as a crusader focused against “anti-evolution forces.” Which means creationism, intelligent design, or anything else even it’s naturally based (like self-organization which she believes resembles too much to intelligent design) that criticizes or questions Darwinian evolution.

She endorsed her own version of ecumenism between the Bible and evolution, in order to persuade others into her line of thinking including policymakers.  She also endorsed making an example out of those who went against her policy by punishing teachers who taught both sides of evolution (its supposed strengths and factual weaknesses). In other words, treat evolution differently from other scientific theories for the purpose of trying to sway people’s beliefs.

On celebrating the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the DNA molecule, the world’s leading science journal when it comes to evolution, “Nature” rebukes certain scientists and there are a lot of them who are bluffing in their explanations like they have it all figured out within the evolutionary framework!  He writes…

“We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level…Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.”

One has to applaud Philip Ball who wrote the article on this count, he is telling scientists to be more honest about their findings rather than hype it up with bluffs of knowing it all when in fact they don’t. Another reason for the bluffing going on, is funding. By stating pretensions which makes their work appear more important, they are attempting to sway public opinion and policymakers that their work is worth more funding!

Students should learn how to recognize what they are being fed, and if you are in a public school realize that you will be on unequal footing when it comes to evolution especially if you are a creationist or intelligent design proponent. That teacher could make or break your great or perhaps even your career! You don’t have to go along with his or her views on evolution or science but be respectful! Complete the requirements of the class, and get a good grade!

In Darwinism, it’s self-refuting, what appears to be truth now is most likely false with new discoveries. After 60 years of research of DNA, they still don’t know much about what it does! Let alone try and explain how it supposedly evolved! Learning about DNA for example, is real science which has nothing to do with evolution. Operational science is something you should embrace and feel comfortable about. It’s historical science which is troublesome because of evolution!

It’s faith vs faith. Ask tough questions, be respectful in your challenge to your professor! Learn what you can about the debate between creationism and evolution. Do not accept the idea that natural selection, which is a mindless, random, and purposeless process fulfilling God’s work in creating nature. When you learn more about its weaknesses of evolution, you realize it is not a strong as you were being taught and that is because evolutionists tend to bluff in their explanation!

P.Z. Myers vs Intelligent Design

The spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote a review on a NY Times article concerning some genes in fish which might give evolutionists ideas on how fins turned to feet. This prompted P.Z. Myers who uses evolution often to try and discredit the existence of God and creationism in general to respond to the review. Myers writes…

“Stop, Casey, and think. Here’s this fascinating observation, that we keep finding conserved genes and conserved regulatory regions between mice and fish, which ought to tell you something, and your argument against a specific example is that it isn’t rare? It really tells you something when your critics’ rebuttal to a piece of evidence is that you’ve got so much evidence for your position that they’re tuning out whenever you talk about the detais.”

Here is what Casey Luskin who is the spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote in his review…

“The real story isn’t quite that interesting. According to the Nature paper, a particular region of DNA associated with a Hox gene cluster in the coelocanth genome showed sequence homology with a stretch of Hox gene-related DNA in tetrapods. Hox genes are known to be widely conserved among vertebrates, so the fact that homology was found between Hox-gene-associated DNA across these organisms isn’t very surprising.”

“The authors aren’t sure exactly what this particular segment of DNA does, though it’s probably a promoter region. In mice the corresponding homologous region is associated with Hox genes that are important for forming the placenta. Ergo, we’ve solved the mystery of how the placenta evolved. Right?”

“Not really. Again, all that was found was a little homologous promoter region in Hox-gene related DNA in these two types of organisms. Given that we don’t even understand exactly what these genes do or how they work, obviously the study offered no discussion of what mutations might have provided an evolutionary advantage.”

“No evolutionary pathway was proposed, or even discussed. So there’s not much meat to this story, other than a nice little region of homology between two shared, functional pieces of Hox-gene-related DNA. But of course, such shared functional DNA could be the result of common design and need not indicate common descent or Darwinian evolution.”

Casey Luskin is correct in this regard, there isn’t much to the discovery. No knowledge on how these genes work or why they work. All this paper claims is “homology” which isn’t hard evidence for evolution. Why? For one, similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related!

Next Myers attacks intelligent design referring to it as “creationism”…

“The Intelligent Design creationist explanation requires that every extant species was specifically and intentionally stocked with a set of genes hand-chosen by a designer. God magically inserted IgM into each vertebrate species, except that he missed the coelacanths, and he magically inserted IgW into each and every shark, ray, coelacanth, and lungfish, but he intentionally left them out of every tetrapod and teleost.” 

Of course the modern intelligent design movement denies any reference to God, because to them that wouldn’t be scientific. But they don’t define what an intelligent agent or agents is, thus anyone guessing what they mean by that would be considered an ad hominem argument. But when you use intelligent agent or agents within your framework in which you call science, it is reasonable to challenge or question who or what that is! Of course Myers assumes its God and labels it creationism because the courts outlawed it being taught in the public schools. Myers then also assumes how a mind (in this case, God) would create nature which is interesting.

Myers uses uniqueness as proof for a creator, because evolution uses “homology” for its framework or another words God wouldn’t have created that way so it was evolution. However, he is wrong! For example, a car company often times uses the same parts in different cars. Does that mean cars are not intelligently designed rather they naturally evolved? No! You can tell that Ford models are similar. The Ford company doesn’t make each model drastically different from other models that it produces in that same year. Conversely, most of the genetic code for all living things is universal, because for one, it indicates a lone designer not many different designers. Also, it has a purpose, this makes the code optimal for protecting against errors!

Here is a challenge for Myers! What scientific research has produced hard evidence that an intelligent designer would only produce each species using totally different parts? Didn’t you believe that creationism couldn’t be tested therefore not a science then how could you come up with such a conclusion on how God would create? Didn’t you believe only evolution could be tested therefore a science? Myers uses evolution exactly like a spiritual cult does in order to try and disprove in what he doesn’t want to believe in, and that is God! This is why his argument is a bluff of complexity rather than logical. Science has not disproved God neither has P.Z Myers version of evolution disproved God!        

Darwinism Integrated With The Creation of the Universe

If one ‘theory’ which happens to be widely accepted in a particular group which doesn’t always mean it’s factual, then can this ‘theory’ be used to explain another widely accepted ‘theory’ about the universe?

Co-founder of DNA, Francis Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved..” In 1996, atheist Richard Dawkins said in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The reason why nature appears designed is because it is designed! If nature didn’t look designed, Crick wouldn’t have given biologists such advice neither would Dawkins. Many secular scientists know observations point to design rather than a random purposeless process but must to adhere to an erroneous type of framework so you will see from time to time, scientists trying to disprove those observations.

A couple of Oxford evolutionists decided since assumptions in Darwinism have been so successful within their philosophy of science, they applied it to the fine tuning of the universe! How did the universe become finely tuned? Having something finely tuned is not an ideal environment  for evolution. The ‘theory’ requires flexibility! If fruit flies would have become more flexible in the experiment with change rather than resisted to change while showing a loss in fitness over time, then evolution would have hard evidence rather than assuming those fruit flies could still change into another species.

Fine tuning of the universe are like fruit flies. Both are finely tuned and both are winding down rather than evolving up. It’s a great analogy, here is the Oxford’s scientists analogy…

“Cosmological natural selection proposes that, if new universes are born inside black holes, a ‘multiverse’ of many possible universes could be shaped by a process similar to natural selection so that successive generations of universes evolve to become better at making black holes…”

However, they admit...”evolution of universes is very different from the evolution of animals,” but  they conclude...“models of evolving universes are quite similar to models of bacterial evolution.”

Is a black hole simply in a quantum mechanical state which will eventually decay over time and ultimately disappear through Hawking radiation or a new universe? I would think the former, meaning a black hole is in a quantum mechanical state which will decay over time! When evolutionists try to explain fine-tuning, this is what one would call using God-given talents to promote man-made stories which adhere to no science at all which claims precise fundamental constants in our universe being changed from another universe to the next universe and so on!

Soft Tissue Discovered Drops Bombshell On Evolution

Evolutionary scientists in their own little box never looked for soft tissues in fossils then in 2005, Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in T-Rex which was dated in the evolutionary framework to be 68 million years old! Why didn’t scientists search for soft tissue in the past? Because evolutionary scientists believe the earth is many millions of years old (4.54 billion to be exact) and the fact that soft tissue decays pretty easily. That is an undeniable scientific fact! So when Schweitzer’s discovery came along, it was a shock and opposition formulated but failed as confirmation after confirmation proved them wrong!

However, this discovery did not conflict whatsoever with the creationist model. In fact, soft tissue being discovered is observational evidence that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim! This latest discovery blows all previous discoveries of soft tissue right out of the water! A fossil of sauropod eggs from China claimed to be anywhere from 190-197 million years old in the evolutionary framework has complex organic remains!

Here is the report of it…

“But it is not just the age of the fossils that is notable, the researchers say. Spectroscopic analysis of bone-tissue samples from the Chinese nesting site revealed the oldest organic material ever seen in a terrestrial vertebrate. That was surprising because the fossilized femur bones were delicate and porous, which made them vulnerable to the corrosive effects of weathering and groundwater, says Reisz.

“That suggests to us that other dinosaur fossils might have organic remains,” he says. “We just haven’t looked at them in the right ways.”

Also in Answers in Genesis…

“About 200 disarticulated dinosaur embryo bones excavated along with a good bit of eggshell from early Jurassic rock represent various stages of the development of sauropodomorphs. These long-necked dinosaurs grew to be about 30 feet long. The large vascular spaces indicated in purple in the bone cross-sections are consistent with a fast growing animal, suggesting these dinosaurs had made a good start on life by the time they hatched and may well have hit the ground running. These are the deepest dinosaur embryos yet found in the fossil record.” 

Is there opposition formulating with this one? You bet! Because of the nature of this find which falsifies long age assumptions concerning the earth that is similar to what the T-Rex discovery went through in the beginning…

Science Now…

“Other researchers are more cautious. “Almost every example of such organic material is hotly disputed,” and this one will likely be no different, points out Hans-Dieter Sues, a vertebrate paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study. “You can never really totally rule out contamination.”

Here is the main bombshell admission…fossilized femur bones were delicate and porous, which made them vulnerable to the corrosive effects of weathering and groundwater.  How can a reasonable person believe soft tissue exposed to weathering and groundwater could survive almost 200 million years? Listen folks, evolution is not true! Evolutionary scientists use bluffs in their explanation all the time with data that doesn’t agree with evolution, which is not real science.

There is no way soft tissue being able to survive for that many years under those type of conditions, no way, no how…So evolutionary scientists reject the observational data, and then treat evolution like a cult to hold on to, than where the evidence leads! They are without excuse, science does in fact confirm creationism! This is an incredible discovery and there is in no doubt more to come, because there is more soft tissue out there, and scientists should be now looking for it more than ever!