Creation/Evolution in the News
Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Is the cat finally out of the evolutionary bag? Creationists have been saying for decades that the notion of evoution (that is, large-scale complexity changes, not adaptation, which is commonly called "micro-evolution") cannot generate the new information needed to increase the complexity of life. Now some evolutionist scientists are saying the same thing (quoted from the attached article):

"the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life."

This is not to say that neo-Darwinism is dead, because at most, it would be re-defined still as a molecules-to-man process with no intelligence required. Stay tuned.

Backpeddling on Scientific "Proof?"

We all thought that science was "settled" in areas such as biological evolution and the big bang, right? With regard to these and other scientific theories, the article says:
"Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."

It goes on to say:
"Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery."

However, it fails to point out that the underlying materialistic assumptions, discounting God and the supernatural, are non-negotiable, no matter what theory is proposed. This underlying assumption is the REAL meaning of "settled."
Did You Know ?
PBS posted a series of videos on YouTube, called "The 12 Days of Evolution." The purpose, of course, was to encourage viewers to reject the Bible from the very beginning. Answers in Genesis has written a rebuttal, found by clicking here
Which Came First, the Environment or the Trait?

From this article: "Millions of years of horse development suggest that one of the key assumptions of evolutionary theory may be wrong." This "key" assumption is that species evolve traits first and then move into whatever environment is advantageous for their population growth (called "adaptive radiation"). This study, however, showed the opposite - that changes in the environment drive greater genetic variablity; i.e., new traits and new species. Why is this important? They say "the radiation of equids (i.e., horses) has been cited as a textbook example of adaptive radiation for more than a century, as it is crucial to the development of evolutionary theory linking trait evolution and adaptive success." So if this "key" assumption is wrong, how about other "key" assumptions, like the ability of molecules to develop codes and messages without intelligence? Creationists have long known that speciation is driven by environmental changes acting on the genes but this is definitely NOT evolution (particles-to-people), but rather adaptation. Horses may have changed over the years, but they nevertheless remained horses.

Mind over Matter? What's the Matter? Never Mind!

From the introduction of quantum mechanics into the field of physics at the beginning of the 20th century until today, the real nature of matter has confounded physicists. According to Newton, you could know where a baseball was and how fast it was moving. However, as physicists looked at smaller and smaller bits of matter, the level of knowledge was reduced to "probabilities" rather than certainties. However, it is worse than that because we don't even know what matter is, let alone where it is and how fast it moves. Given this problem, when scientists ponder where "conciousness" came from, the majority of mainstream scientists believe that it simply came from the matter, whatever that is! According to this article,
"Consciousness might, for example, be an example of the emergence of a new entity in the Universe not contained in the laws of particles."
Yuh think?? The good news is that this "new entity" in the Universe is the very Creator of the Universe itself and He cares for you enough to grant salvation by grace alone so that you can live eternally and "never mind" about the "matters" of life.


ISBR Creation Science Forum
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
6:30 - 8:00 PM
Farm and Home Center of Lancaster
Click here for directions

Title: How Orbital Mechanics Validates Special Creation
(and Repudiates the Big Bang)       
 

Although the Big Bang, star formation and other cosmic phenomena have been elegantly described by mathematics, did they really happen that way? How did circular motion, angular momentum, etc. needed to form solar systems, evolve from an assumed initial hot plasma? Celestial/orbital mechanics is guided by amazing and elegant physical attributes that can be described in plain language, along with the fine-tuned properties of the mathematical descriptions.  It is clear that Intelligence and highly-prescribed Information are needed for a solar system to form and sustain.  However, the layman does not need to be a math major to understand the essential orbital properties of theheavenly bodies. Come hear former Navy pilot Lt. CMDR Mike Shelton explore these topics and bring a friend!
Speaking of Creation ....
ISBR Monthly Video Selection from the Web


Mapping The Emperor's New Energy

The "Dark Energy Survey" has released an exciting new map of the dark matter in the universe. Recall that dark matter and dark energy make up 96% of all existence, according to secular cosmologists. Now we can look at a map showing how it is distributed. One thing, though... We cannot detect it! A minor point of course. Don't buck the paradigm. From the article:


"However, we cannot see or detect dark energy and dark matter. This makes understanding their precise nature, and their role in the construction of the universe, very challenging"

No kidding? Maybe because they are not there, like the Emperor's wardrobe? It would be embarrassing, indeed, to find after all of these dollars have been spent that there are no such things. Not to mention the fact that the Big Bang depends on them.  By the way, creationist cosmologists Dr. John Hartnett and Dr. Russ Humphreys have been working on theories that make Dark Matter and Dark Energy unneccesary!