An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Charles Darwin. This follows this post about the Pope and China. This follows this post about Ebola. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

Charles Darwin's 10 Mistakes

2 comments

article by Vertical Thought Editor

We made a list of 10 reasons Darwin's theory of evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

1. "Warm little pond" theory: There is no solid evidence of life arising spontaneously from a chemical soup.
2. Simplicity of the cell theory: Scientists have discovered that cells are tremendously complex, not simple.
3. Theory about the cell’s simple information: It turns out cells have a digital code more complex and lengthy than any computer language made by man.
4. Theory of intermediate fossils: Where are the supposed billions of missing links in the evolutionary chain?
5. Theory of the variation of species: Genetic adaptation and mutation have proven to have fixed limits.
6. Theory of the Cambrian Explosion: This sudden appearance of most major complex animal groups at the same low level of the fossil record is still an embarrassment to evolutionists.
7. Theory of homology: Similarity of structures does not mean the evolution of structures.
8. Theory of ape evolution : Chimpanzees have not evolved into anything else. Neither has man.
9. Theory of the tree of life: Rather than all life branching from a single organism, evidence has revealed a forest of life from the very beginning.
10. Rejection of an intelligent designer: This opened the door for many to reject God, the Bible and Christianity.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Vertical News: Sandstone Arches Shaped by Stress and Gravity

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about creation. This follows this post about Lamentations and the month called "Av." For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Vertical News: Sandstone Arches Shaped by Stress and Gravity

article by Amanda Stiver

Unique properties of sand grains under stress help scientists understand sandstone rock formations.

Source: freeimages.com/ranjithd

Uniquely shaped sandstone arches and rock formations, like those found in the state of Utah and other places, are amazingly beautiful and for many years experts assumed their formation was simply the effect of random wind and rain erosion. However, recent research by scientists from Charles University in Prague has found that other factors are at play. Internal stress fields and the pull of gravity determine where and how much material is worn away by erosion.
In the experiment, small cubes of sand were used, put under stress and placed under water. As sand was worn away that which remained was put under greater stress and eventually the grains locked together and ceased to be affected by erosion. Using these basic factors, researchers were able to re-create some of the formations seen in the natural world (Jonathan Webb, “Sandstone Shapes ‘Forged by Gravity,’” BBC News at BBC.com, July 21, 2014).
God set laws of physics and nature in motion in order to shape and maintain the planet. The long-term effect of these laws can be seen in, among other things, the amazing variety of rock formations and strata visible all around the earth.
Using stress to create something far stronger and more lasting is an element of sandstone formation, as we’ve seen, but also a principle used in metalsmithing. However, the most relevant use of stress-to-strength is found as God works with us.
The apostle Peter put it this way, “But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you,” (1 Peter:5:10, NKJV). God allows us to go through trials in order to forge our character and refine our outlook as we prepare now to be God-beings, a part of the family of God, in the Kingdom of God.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Turning Point: The Scopes Trial

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the historic Scopes Trial. This follows this post about facebook. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Turning Point: The Scopes Trial

by Dan Dowd

Source: freeimages.com/creationc

History rarely turns on the impact of one lone event. It is more common that a major historical shift is built on the smaller events that precede it. The current anti-religious environment in the United States did not arrive without prior notice. Those seeds were planted a long time ago. However, a major public relations blow was dealt against having God at the center of society and education back in late July, 1925. It was known as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Planting doubt

Charles Darwin had proposed his Theory of Evolution in the 1850’s, and that theory had been gaining in popularity in the subsequent decades. So much so, that many states passed laws making illegal the teaching of evolution in schools. One such state was Tennessee, and a young high-school teacher named John Scopes decided to deliberately violate the law in order to get arrested and be able to challenge the law in court. The trial quickly took on an entertainment atmosphere as thousands of spectators gathered in Dayton, Tennessee at the courthouse. The defense sought to have the judge declare the law unconstitutional and then tried to bring in experts in evolution to challenge the law. The judge ruled that the law was not on trial, but rather John Scopes violation of the law.
Clarence Darrow, the famous lawyer, quickly made the prosecution look inept and embarrassed them with their unclear answers and contradictory statements. His points discredited the prosecution before the gathered crowds. Much to the surprise of many, Darrow in his closing remarks asked the jury to find his client guilty so that their case might be appealed. Under Tennessee law, William Jennings Bryan (a renowned politician, and lawyer for the prosecution) was denied the opportunity to give his closing speech. While the prosecution won the case, the flames of doubting the Bible were fanned, and its role at the center of education in the U.S. was further damaged.

History will turn again

Even as we have seen America (and much of the world) decline in moral behavior and obedience to God in the subsequent decades, we also know that God has been shaping the future through current events. Down through time He has worked with those who are faithful to Him to be examples of His way of life. God has preserved His Word through the Bible. He is shaping His Body of disciples so that we will be able to stand in the truly difficult times to come—troubles coming as a direct result of society rejecting God as the source of true education. He will direct end-time events and not allow mankind to erase all life from this planet. God will then usher in the Millennial reign of His Son, Jesus Christ to show the world how to live life as He designed it to be lived.
We could choose to suffer along with this world as it moves away from God, but you and I have access to something (through repentance, baptism and laying on of hands) the world doesn’t currently have – God’s Holy Spirit. We can understand why history is playing out the way it is. You and I have a hope for the future. We know the end of the story and so do not need to fear the consequences of the choices mankind is making. We also have God’s Sabbath day to be reminded of His plan of Salvation and to be recharged spiritually as we face the challenges of daily life.
John Scopes and those who believe the Theory of Evolution have it wrong. We are not descended from monkeys. We can see through the falsehood of the Theory of Evolution and know that we truly are made in the image of God (Genesis:1:26). We know that one day we can be in the very family of God, the most epic turning point in all of human history!

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Can You Be a Scientist and a Christian?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Christians and science. This follows this post about Ukraine. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Can You Be a Scientist and a Christian?

How can we resolve the tension between reason and faith?

Media Download Options [ Download Media: right-click on link ]
filesVideo
MP4 VideoVideo
MP4 Video - Low QualityAudio
MP3 Audio - Can You Be a Scientist and a Christian?

[Darris McNeely] I was intrigued by a recent headline, "Can I Be a Scientist and a Christian?" It's a good question. It's a question endlessly debated today among people who believe strictly in science as a means of explaining our world and our universe, as opposed to those who believe in the Bible and take the Bible as the word of God and as a guide for life. Can we marry the two, or must the two remain forever separate?
You know, there are basically three different categories into which people fall as they try to explain the creation, or the existence of this world, life, the universe, and to reconcile faith and reason together, science and the Bible.
First off is what we might call atheistic evolution – the idea that evolution is the sole means to explain the origin of life on earth, there is not a God, there is no Creator, He is not involved in the process. According to a recent poll, about 15 percent of Americans polled adopt and accept this approach.
A second is what is called scientific creation – the idea that the Bible is literal and that there is a God who created this world, and science is not exactly as evolutionists would say that it is. About 46 percent of people adopt this approach. Many who call themselves Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, and believe in the Bible as an account to explain the creation.
And then there's another third category in a general sense, called a theistic evolutionist, tends to blend the two – that the world, the universe was created by a God but evolution is used as part of the process by which the life forms arose on this earth, especially, and within the universe in terms of its creation, but with a hands-off approach from a Creator who designed into the processes the ideas and the things that we might term as the evolutionary process.
When you look at this, in one sense, these are three general classifications, but on Beyond Today , we have done a number of programs

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Vertical News: Giraffe Leg Ligaments, Elements of Design

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about creation. This follows this post about alternative lifestyles. This follows this post about a potential caliphate. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

Vertical News: Giraffe Leg Ligaments, Elements of Design

article by Amanda Stiver

What makes a giraffe stand tall?

Source: freeimages.com/mcleod

They loom over us at the zoo and capture the imagination of children. Such an improbable animal is the giraffe with its huge bulk suspended over long, thin legs and covered with a hard-to-miss pattern. They water awkwardly and seem delicate from a distance, despite their height.
However, scientists have uncovered one element of the overall giraffe design that allows the improbable to be possible. In an unusually deep groove or channel on the lower leg bone is an exceptionally strong ligament that allows the great mass of bodyweight the giraffe carries to remain safely suspended above the ground.
Researchers used the remains of giraffes that had died in captivity to gather data to test the actual strength of this ligament system. These super-strong ligaments allow giraffe legs to remain stiff and require less muscle engagement and thus fatigue. The findings will be helpful to further study of giraffe anatomy and also to the study and development of robotics, which takes many of its cues from animal design (Victoria Gill, “Giraffe Legs’ Strong, Skinny Secret,” BBC at BBC.com, July 2, 2014).
Jesus Christ, who before his human birth was the Creator God, designed and brought into existence all the “creeping things” or living, land based creatures on the sixth day, shortly before he created the first man, Adam (Genesis:1:24-25). The giraffe, with its spectacular ligament design would have been among this phenomenal part of the creation.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Vertical News: Upcoming Debate Between Creationist and Evolutionist

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist. This follows this post about Russia's foreign policy in Ukraine. This follows this post about Valentine's Day. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Vertical News: Upcoming Debate Between Creationist and Evolutionist

2 comments

article by Amanda Stiver

A February 4th debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye puts the origins of the universe in the spotlight, once again.

Source: sxc.hu/mmagallan

On February 4^th a debate, sponsored by the Creation Museum located in Kentucky will be conducted by Ken Ham, a biologist and founder of the museum, and Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer, scientist and well-known public figure. The event has created a lot of media noise and debate, even before the official debate has begun.
Some supporters of evolution postulate that the debate will legitimize creationism by giving it equal standing with the theory of evolution. Others feel that Nye has a limited educational background from which to argue for the theory of evolution. Likewise, some feel that, whatever the outcome, it will do little to dissuade anyone from their previously held beliefs, creationist or evolutionist (Michael Gryboski, “ ‘Evolution Weekend’ Organizer Says Ken Ham-Bill Nye Debate Has ‘No Intellectual Purpose,’” The Christian Post at ChristianPost.com, January 31, 2014).
Despite the naysayers there appears to be significant interest in the event, with many tickets selling out quickly and livestreaming to be available during the debate.
The surrounding media interest is reminiscent of the Scopes Trial which took place in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. It was a publicity stunt that drew significant attention to the possibility of human evolution being taught in public schools. Interestingly both sides were religious, and it was really a debate over how religion would deal with the theory of evolution.
In the case of the Ham-Nye debate, the sponsor, The Creation Museum, stands for a “young earth” form of creationism, in which the universe and earth were all created within the past 7,000 or so years. Most notable is their belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Conversely, there are also “old earth” creationists who believe in a more reasonable, longer time-frame for the existence of the universe and the earth, with humankind coming in the past 7,000 or so years.
For a more in-depth look at this subject, please read, Creation or Evolution – Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
However the debate concludes, it should be a reminder to us to establish our understanding of God’s way and of what we believe because if we don’t, there will always be someone ready to fill the void in our minds with a false philosophy.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Intelligent Design. This follows this post about China's military! For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

article by Mario Seiglie

Jonathan Wells holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale University. He is the author of many articles and the books Icons of Evolution (2000) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (2006), and coauthor of The Design of Life (2007) and How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not) (2008).

The Good News: Dr. Wells, you have been following the evolution vs. intelligent design debate for quite some time. What is your opinion on how it's been faring and who is winning?

Jonathan Wells: Before I answer, it's important to clarify the issues. "Evolution" can mean many things—such as change over time, or minor changes within existing species, neither of which any sane person doubts. The problem is Darwinism—the theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor by unguided processes such as natural selection acting on minor variations. Darwinists often confuse the issue by starting with the noncontroversial meanings of "evolution" and then slipping in their more controversial claims.

According to intelligent design, it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world—such as some features of living things—are explained better by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. Intelligent design does not claim that everything is designed, nor does it claim that anything is perfectly designed. Nor does intelligent design tell us the nature of the designer—though many, including me, believe it was the God of the Bible.

Since Darwinism claims that all features of living things can be explained by unguided natural processes, and intelligent design claims that some features are better explained by an intelligent cause, there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

Currently, Darwinism is winning on the political, legal and media fronts in the United States. Most universities and public schools teach Darwinism as though it were unquestioned fact, though the truth is that a growing number of scientists are questioning it on evidential grounds.

Data from the genome projects are revealing major inconsistencies in the Darwinian claim that all organisms share a common ancestor, and no one has ever observed the origin of a new species—much less the origin of new organs and body plans—by variation and selection. On the other hand, the evidence for intelligent design is increasing. Sooner or later, the evidence will win.

GN: Some time back, you mentioned that if the "junk DNA" turns out to have viable functions, it would support the case for intelligent design. What does the recent data say on this subject?

JW: According to modern neo-Darwinism, genes that are passed from generation to generation carry a program that directs embryo development, mutations occasionally alter this genetic program to produce new variations, and natural selection then sorts those mutations—the "raw materials of evolution"—to produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the 1950s, molecular biologists discovered that proteins, the microscopic building blocks of bodily structures, are formed according to information encoded in different segments of DNA. They then equated "gene" with "protein-coding sequence" and "mutations" with molecular accidents in such sequences.

By the 1970s, however, it was clear that most of the DNA in human beings and many other animals does not code for proteins. In 1980, Francis Crick [codiscoverer of the structure of DNA] and Leslie Orgel argued in Nature that this noncoding DNA is merely "junk" that has accumulated in the course of evolution. For the next 25 years, many biologists continued to regard noncoding DNA as junk.

In his 2009 book Why Evolution Is True, neo-Darwinist Jerry Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. "If organisms were built from scratch by a designer," he argued, they would not have imperfections. "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it's precisely what we expect from evolution" [p. 81].

According to Coyne, "when a trait is no longer used, or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear from the genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed" [pp. 66-67].

In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. "And the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled," he wrote. "Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" [p. 67].

But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions. The Darwinists' claim that a large percentage of DNA is evolutionary junk is totally false. This reflects badly not only on them, but also on neo-Darwinism itself. By Coyne's logic, the genome-sequencing data refute neo-Darwinism and support intelligent design.

GN: This year is Darwin's bicentennial. What would you say is a good summary today about his writings on evolution?

JW: Why didn't we celebrate Mendel's centennial in the 1920s, or Newton's tricentennial in the 1940s? Both were great scientists.

Darwin is celebrated not because of his scientific contributions, but because his theory has become the creation myth of atheism. Darwin Day in the United States is a project of the Institute for Humanist Studies, which is dedicated to promoting "a nonreligious philosophy." Some atheists have even said they want to establish Darwin Day as a secular alternative to Christmas.

Most people never read The Origin of Species, but if they do they will find that it is a work of theology as much as science. Darwin's main argument was that certain features of living things "are inexplicable on the theory of creation," but make sense only on his theory of unguided descent with modification. Indeed, there are so many discussions of creation in The Origin of Species that U.S. courts might well consider it unconstitutional to use in public schools.

In my opinion, the best way to summarize Darwin's writings on evolution would be as a revival of ancient materialistic philosophy, such as that taught by the Greek Empedocles and the Roman Lucretius, illustrated with examples drawn from 19th-century natural science.

GN: What would you say was Darwin's greatest mistake regarding his theory of evolution?

JW: Darwin was mistaken about a lot of things. He was mistaken about heredity, which he attributed to characteristics—some of them probably acquired during an organism's lifetime—that were blended together from every cell in the body.

He was mistaken about vertebrate embryos, the earliest stages of which he believed showed us our fishlike ancestor in its adult state.

He was mistaken about the geographic distribution of species, which he thought could be explained entirely by migration or by geological separation.

He was mistaken in claiming that all organisms were part of one great "tree of life" with a common ancestor at the root.

And he was mistaken about the power of natural selection, which he argued—by analogy with artificial selection, which had never produced anything more than changes within existing species—produced new species, organs and body plans.

But Darwin's greatest mistake was to deny design in living things. The unguided processes he invoked have never been able to produce the major innovations needed for evolution. And the more we learn about living things, the more designed they look.

GN: Some scientists claim the chimpanzee genome is about 99 percent similar to the human genome, but others claim it is closer to 75 percent. What is the truth about this, and how significant are the findings?

JW: Comparing chimpanzee and human genomes is tricky, not the least because the sequences do not line up exactly and one has to decide where to start the comparison. The 99 percent figure involves only a part of each genome; and depending on the technique and the researcher, the estimates can vary significantly.

But whatever the estimate, the deeper question is, what does it mean? According to evolutionist Jonathan Marks, who published a book in 2002 titled What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee, it means very little. Marks argues that since there are only four [molecular compound] subunits in DNA, any two living things are bound to be at least 25 percent similar. Someone who claims that humans are 99 percent similar to chimps might as well add that humans are 35 percent similar to daffodils.

In fact, the similarity between chimp and human DNA—whatever the figure may be—poses a problem for neo-Darwinism. According to neo-Darwinism, organisms are what they are because of their DNA—which is why DNA mutations can supposedly provide the raw materials for evolution. Then why are chimps and humans so different from each other not only in their anatomy and physiology but also in their intelligence and behavior? Basing an estimate of their similarity on DNA comparisons alone is a byproduct of neo-Darwinian dogma, not biological science.

There is actually abundant evidence that embryo development is not entirely controlled by DNA. More information is necessary, and this information is located in cellular structures that the embryo inherits apart from its DNA. But neo-Darwinian dogma tends to blind people to this evidence and thereby hinders scientific progress.

GN: You are a prolific writer about intelligent design. What are you currently working on in this regard?

JW: In the past year I have written two book reviews: "Darwin of the Gaps," a review of Francis Collins' The Language of God and "Why Darwinism Is False," a review of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True .

Mostly, however, I have been doing empirical and theoretical research in my own field, cell and developmental biology. The empirical research involves testing an intelligent design-guided hypothesis about a possible cause of cancer, which I published in 2005. The theoretical research involves formulating testable hypotheses about the nature and location of non-DNA information in the embryo, by analyzing the embryo as though it were a designed whole instead of an accidental byproduct of DNA mutations and natural selection.

GN: You mentioned some while ago that by the year 2025, the theory of evolution would have lost most of its appeal. Do you still think this date is feasible for that?

JW: Yes, I do. Of course, it's risky to put a date on such a prediction, but scientific discoveries are rapidly making Darwinism less and less plausible, and this is becoming more and more obvious to new students and to others not already committed to the old way of thinking.

I compare Darwinism to a frozen pond in the springtime. As winter passes and the days grow longer, the ice may look thick, but it becomes honeycombed with melt water. In the next thaw it may disappear overnight. GN

.

Friday, October 24, 2014

High School Recommended Reading

General Recommended Reading

Biographies

Communism

Conservatism

Culture

Economics

Education

Environment / Global Warming

Feminism

Foundation Speakers

Gun Rights

History (U.S.)

History (World)

Immigration

Liberalism

Media

Militant Islam

National Security and Military

Novels

Race

Ronald Reagan

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

We made a list of 10 reasons Darwin's theory of evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Unique properties of sand grains under stress help scientists understand sandstone rock formations.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Planting doubt

History will turn again

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

How can we resolve the tension between reason and faith?

Thursday, July 17, 2014

What makes a giraffe stand tall?

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

A February 4th debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye puts the origins of the universe in the spotlight, once again.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Subscribe To

Check this Out!

Blog Archive

Twitter

Twitter Updates

Followers

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Twitter

About Me

Twitter II

Twitter Updates