Tag Archives: creationism

This bird’s ‘eyeball’ survived 120 million years | Fox News

TRUTH BOMBS: But the ambient radiation that is produced from the earth itself would have destroyed the soft tissue after 100,000 years. Atheist evolutionary scientists are just clueless when it comes to the evidence that the dinosaurs are NOT millions of years in the past.

Scientists have discovered a surprisingly visionary detail about a dinosaur-age bird that had a tooth-filled beak: It could likely see in color.

Source: This bird’s ‘eyeball’ survived 120 million years | Fox News

Trappist-1’s planets not in habitable zone – creation.com

TRUTH BOMBS: And people go on trusting these atheistic scientists with their immortal souls. They believe in evolution, something from nothing, and other non observable myths.


Article: On 3 March 2017, we reported on the February 2017 announcement by NASA of their discovery of seven Earth-sized planets orbiting the red dwarf star Trappist-1.1 These planets (identified in order of their distance from their star as Trappist-1: b, c, d, e, f, g, and h) vary in diameter compared to Earth from 23% smaller to 13% larger, but there the similarity ends and there is very little else about them that is like Earth. In particular, newspaper claims that they are covered in oceans of water are gross speculation, despite hugely imaginative artist’s illustrations, published by NASA.

Source: Trappist-1’s planets not in habitable zone – creation.com

FRC Blog » Human-Animal Hybrids Are a Violation of Human Dignity

TRUTH BOMBS: As in the days of Noah…… he who has ears to hear let him hear….. THIS IS REALLY BAD!

ARTICLE: Human-animal hybrids? No longer is it simply the stuff of science fiction. On August 4th, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a proposed policy that would lift the longstanding moratorium on the taxpayer funding of certain experiments creating embryos that are part human, part animal, known as “chimeras,” and even letting them grow into adult form.

NIH solicited comments on their proposal, and FRC signed on to detailed comments with the Charlotte Lozier Institute regarding the science and ethics of such research. The comments oppose the NIH proposal and note that ethical and scientifically valid alternatives exist to satisfy scientific demands.

To view the PDF of the full comment, see: Comment by Charlotte Lozier Institute and Family Research Council on NIH Proposal to Fund Human Animal Chimeras

Under the new NIH policy, human stem cells, adult or embryonic, could be added so early in the animal’s embryonic development that they could potentially become any organ or organ system within the maturing human-animal hybrid. Chimera researcher Dr. Izpisúa Belmonte himself admitted “We don’t know how to guide the cells to become the cells we want.” Human cells might contribute to the animal’s brain or reproductive organs, which could cause changes to the animal’s cognitive abilities or produce human sex cells. This research could thereby significantly blur the line between humans and animals, and undermine human dignity, as well as further incentivize the destruction of human embryos.

Nothing in the new policy prohibits such unethical outcomes, and in fact, the new policy explicitly allows research in which there is “substantial contribution or a substantial functional modification to the animal brain by the human cells” and anticipates the creation of chimeras in which “human…stem cells may contribute to the germ line,” that is, animals producing human sex cells. And while the new policy would technically prohibit chimeras from breeding, there is no clear or feasible way for NIH to enforce this ban.

To be sure, NIH is proposing this new human-animal hybrid research on the basis of its potential benefits, such as creating animal models of human diseases in order to prevent and treat illnesses, as well as to create human organs for donation that will adapt better to the human immune system. But it is one thing to conduct non-controversial, ethical research using human cells or DNA in animals, to test the cells for repair, or even to grow an organ. It is quite another thing to significantly modify an animal in a way that undermines the key pillars of human species identity by giving an animal a substantially human brain or reproductive capacities.

Far from advancing the human race, creating animal and human hybrids that leave in question their humanity undermines our own. Good science is also ethical science, and supports biotechnologies that advance scientific knowledge and medical treatments, while valuing all human life and maintaining human dignity. Science should never progress nor should human life be advanced at the expense of human life or dignity. Research involving human adult stem cells is one such promising way forward.

If NIH fails to protect human dignity in research funded by federal taxpayers, Congress once again may be forced to step in. For the fiscal year 2016 federal spending bill, Congress did so when it banned the FDA’s approval on research creating genetically modified embryos, such as three-parent embryos, in which the genetically modified information or traits can be passed on. At the very least we should not have our federal tax dollars subsidize the NIH’s new proposed human-animal hybrid research that could blur the line between humans and animals. To do so would undermine the very fabric of our moral order—the affirmation and respect for human dignity.

Source: FRC Blog » Human-Animal Hybrids Are a Violation of Human Dignity

New Fossil Discovery Poses Problem for Evolutionists – Eric Metaxas

TRUTH BOMBS: Evolution is already impossible to defend logically. Though many irrational atheists who believe they are being rational, still defend it. New evidence arriving everyday of this failed theory that just keeps changing every few years but people still bet their immortal souls on it.

ARTICLE: There’s an old story about a chemist, a physicist, and an economist stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a can of soup. Puzzling over how to open the can, the chemist says, “Let’s heat the can until it swells and bursts from the buildup of gases.” “No, no,” says the physicist, “let’s throw it off that cliff with just enough kinetic energy to split it open on the rocks below.” The economist, after thinking a moment says, “Assume a can opener.”

There’s more than one trade that deals in assumptions. The way Darwinists approach the origin of life is a lot like that economist’s idea for opening the can. The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection explains everything about life, we’re told—except how it began. “Assume a self-replicating cell containing information in the form of genetic code,” Darwinists are forced to say. Well, fine. But where did that little miracle come from?

A new discovery makes explaining even that first cell tougher still. Fossils unearthed by Australian scientists in Greenland may be the oldest traces of life ever discovered. A team from the University of Wollongong recently published their findings in the journal “Nature,” describing a series of structures called “stromatolites” that emerged from receding ice.

“Stromatolites” may sound like something your doctor would diagnose, but they’re actually biological rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow water. If you visit the Bahamas today, you can see living stromatolites.

What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.

This, admits the New York Times, “complicate[s] the story of evolution of early life from chemicals…” No kidding! According to conventional geology, these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable. This early date, adds The Times, “leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred…”

That is an understatement. These life forms came into existence virtually overnight, writes David Klinghoffer at Evolution News and Views. “[g]enetic code, proteins, photosynthesis, the works.”

This appearance of fully-developed life forms so early in the fossil record led Dr. Abigail Allwood of Caltech to remark that “life [must not be] a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing.” Rather, “[i]t will emerge whenever there’s an opportunity.”

Pardon me? If life occurs so spontaneously and predictably even under the harshest conditions, then it should be popping up all over the place! Yet scientists still cannot come close to producing even a single cell from raw chemicals in the lab.

Dr. Stephen Meyer explains in his book “Signature in the Cell” why this may be Darwinism’s Achilles heel. In order to begin evolution by natural selection, you need a self-replicating unit. But the cell and its DNA blueprint are too complicated by far to have arisen through chance chemical reactions. The odds of even a single protein forming by accident are astronomical. So Meyer and other Intelligent Design theorists conclude that Someone must have designed and created the structures necessary for life.

Meanwhile Darwinists, faced with a fossil record that theoretically pushes the origin of life back further into the past, are forced to assume the metaphorical can opener. They just don’t know how these early cells came into existence, and the more we dig up, the more improbable—rather than likely—life becomes.

For them at least.

Source: New Fossil Discovery Poses Problem for Evolutionists – Eric Metaxas

Proteins in ‘2-Billion-Year-Old’ Rock | The Institute for Creation Research

Rock researchers highly regard Ontario’s Gunflint chert for its fresh-looking microfossils. Long ago, the chert’s microcrystalline quartz grains embedded microscopic single-celled creatures, including algae. A research team used new techniques to analyze the chemicals inside these fossil cells. They found protein remnants where they should no longer exist—given these rocks’ vast age assignment.

The team of French scientists partnered with UCLA ion-microprobe specialist Kevin McKeegan to publish in the online journal Nature Communications.1 Their investigation of tiny algae cells revealed remnants of original biochemistry despite their evolutionary age assignment of 1.88 billion years.

Microprobe analyses gathered information from organic microfossils collected from five different outcrops of the same rock layer. The study authors wrote, “In fact, despite the 1.88-Gyr-long geological history that they experienced, Kakabeka Falls [outcrop] and Schreiber Beach [outcrop] organic microfossils exhibit C- and N-XANES spectra sharing strong similarities to those of modern cyanobacteria and modern micro-algae.”1 They apparently used the word “despite” to acknowledge the disparity between the rocks’ evolutionary age expectations and the presence of original biochemicals.

Many chert-rich rocks experienced temperatures high enough to bake any biochemicals. Heat can turn them into blackened, more-resistant compounds. But the Gunflint chert contains signs of a cooler formation history. This certainly helped convey these actual chemicals from the cells entombed so long ago until today.

The scientists used the same spectral analysis on modern photosynthetic bacteria and single-celled algae as the fossil versions, since both look so similar. In other words, it appears that none of the expected evolution has occurred across 1.88 billion supposed years.

The study authors wrote, “In addition, these microfossils still contain amide functional groups (absorption feature at 288.2 eV), which were likely to be involved in the proteinaceous compounds synthetized by the once living organisms.”1 Biochemistry studies reveal that amide bonds have plenty of potential to perform spontaneous chemistry. What are the odds that these bonds completely missed almost 2 billion years’ worth of opportunities to decay?

Proteins should have undergone chemical reactions with any number of nearby chemicals, totally obliterating the original proteins in far fewer than a million years. Three orders of magnitude separate protein’s longevity based on repeatedly measured decay rates and the evolutionary age assignment for this deposit that houses algal protein remnants.

If the Gunflint chert was emplaced only thousands of years ago, then these dilemmas evaporate.2


  1.  Alleon, J. et al. 2016. Molecular preservation of 1.88 Ga Gunflint organic microfossils as a function of temperature and Mineralogy. Nature Communications. 7: 11977.
  2.  This short time scale fits the idea that most rocks were deposited during the single Flood year, not over billions of years. Different processes in the pre-Flood world may have deposited the Gunflint chert, along with Michigan’s banded iron formations and other nearby stromatolite-rich layers.

Image credit: Copyright © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. Partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, ORCID, CrossRef, COUNTER and COPE. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Source: Proteins in ‘2-Billion-Year-Old’ Rock | The Institute for Creation Research

Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving | The Institute for Creation Research

TRUTH BOMBS: Good Article by some real thinkers

ARTICLE: Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs.1 New genetic research validates those criticisms.

The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.

That story helped rescue Darwin’s conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.

However, later researchers could not replicate the peppered moth results. Other investigators discovered that most of the story’s facts were essentially wrong. For example, peppered moths live mostly beneath leaves, not on tree trunks. One researcher staged photos of the moths on sooty trunks—not where moths naturally rest.

Morris reviewed a book by Judith Hooper that exposed these peppered moth follies. She admitted the moth story was all wrong, but expressed undaunted faith in evolution nonetheless.2 Morris wrote,

It may be surprising to her and other evolutionists that creationists have never had a problem with the traditional story, except with the claim that it was ‘evolution in action.’ It was really only ‘variation and conservation in action.’1

In other words, what began as a population of light and dark moth varieties existed through the industrial revolution as a population of light and dark moth varieties. No net evolution occurred. And that’s essentially what geneticists confirmed in their new study.

Publishing in Nature, biologists centered at the University of Liverpool discovered that a well-known form of genetic shuffling, involving a transposable element (TE), generated the dark versions of these moths.3 The researchers’ diligent labors revealed that, at some point in the past, a 21,925 nucleotide-long segment of DNA was inserted into a gene that embryonic moths access during development.

The study authors wrote, “The insert was found to be present in 105 of 110 fully black moths (wild caught in the UK since 2002) and absent in all (283) typica [white moths] tested.”3 Clearly, even a century or so after England cleaned the soot off its tree trunks, both black and white moth varieties still thrive just fine in the wild.

What mechanism generated the dark moth variety? Natural selection does not fit the bill. At best, death of “unfit” moths would merely reduce color variations, not generate new ones.

When functioning correctly, TE’s precisely integrate with cellular machinery that helps cut and paste DNAs into genomic regions that will enhance variation without disrupting vital genes. Geneticists uncovered key roles for TE’s in all kinds of animals—and even man.4 In other words, it looks like God designed these “jumping genes.”5

So, in the beginning the Creator endowed moths with the genetic potential for future generations to generate dark varieties. Peppered moths never illustrated evolution in action. But now, more than ever, they clearly expose genius creativity.


  1. Morris, H. 2003. Evolutionists and the Moth Myth. Acts & Facts 32 (8).
  2. Hooper, J. 2002. Of Moths and Men. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
  3. Van’t Hof, A. E. et al. 2016. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable elementTE. Nature. 534 (7605): 102-105.
  4. Kunarso, G. et al. 2010. Transposable elements have rewired the core regulatory network of human embryonic stem cells. Nature Genetics. 42 (7): 631-634.
  5. A hiccup in healthy cell processes that randomly pasted the 21,925-long TE into this particular gene would justify the Nature study authors calling it a “mutation.” However, processes could have pasted the TE into this gene as part of an internal variation-generating protocol. But this implies ingeniously designed automated genetic-script editing. The team did not test these options, but whether the TE placement happened by accident or design, the cut-and-paste process itself followed a focused strategy using cellular machinery and protocols.

Image credit: © 2011. M. Henderson. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Source: Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving | The Institute for Creation Research

The edge of the universe is closer than scientists previously thought


Christians, Scientism is a dangerous human philosophy that is contaminating the minds of our kids! Do something about it.

ARTICLE: (A logarithmic illustration of the observable universe.Pablo Carlos Budassi)The visible universe just shrunk by 320 million light-years in all directions, updating a famous calculation that physicists first made 13 years ago.If you’re trying to calculate the size of the cosmos, the speed of light — the fastest anything can go — is a tempting place to begin and end. You’d reason that since the Big Bang happened some 13.8 billion years ago, there’s a 13.8-billion-light-year radius marking the edge of what mere mortals could see.Not so.As physicists have shown again and again over the past century, space is expanding faster and faster. There’s also a blinding glow of light that didn’t clear up until about 378,000 years after the Big Bang — an event called recombination (when particles finally cooled down enough to form the first atoms).If you take expansion, recombination, and other variables into account, as physicist J. Richard Gott III and several of his colleagues did in 2003, you get an observable universe that’s roughly 45.66 billion light-years in radius — or 91.32 billion light-years wide (if diameter is your thing).However, as physicists Paul Halpern and Nick Tomasello at the University of the Sciences explain in a post on Medium.com, that calculation was based on data from the WMAP satellite, which mapped the afterglow of the Big Bang — and that data is no longer the best around.Swapping in newer, more refined data on the universe’s expansion from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite, Halpern and Tomasello calculated that the observable edge of the universe is actually 0.7% smaller, or 45.34 billion light-years in radius.Their paper with the new number-crunching will appear in an upcoming edition of the journal Advances in Astrophysics.”A difference of 320 million light-years might be peanuts on the cosmic scale, but it does make our knowable universe a little bit cozier,” Tomasello wrote in the post.A few things could stretch this observable limit a bit to 46.31 billion light-years, though — namely ghostly particles called neutrinos.Neutrinos pass through ordinary matter as if it isn’t there, so they could have sailed right through the glow of recombination and may offer the earliest-ever view of the universe. But the same reason they could do that also makes them devilishly hard to detect, as any physicist with an underground neutrino-detecting laboratory can attest.Business Insider sent a pre-print version of the study to Gott for his perspective on it, but we have yet to hear back from him.

Source: The edge of the universe is closer than scientists previously thought

Researchers discover that DNA naturally fluoresces

TRUTH BOMBS: Yep, cause the “Consensus” of scientist is always truth right? [sarcasm]

ARTICLE: A Northwestern University team recently caught DNA doing something that has never been seen before: it blinked.

For decades, textbooks have stated that macromolecules within living cells, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, do not fluoresce on their own. Technology instead relies on special fluorescence dyes to enhance contrast when macromolecules are imaged.

But now Professors Vadim Backman, Hao Zhang, and Cheng Sun have discovered that macromolecule structures in living cells do, in fact, naturally fluoresce. This finding could open the next frontier of biological discovery by paving a new way for label-free, super-resolution nanoscopic imaging and expanding the understanding of biological processes.

“Everybody has overlooked this effect because nobody asked the right question,” said Backman, Walter Dill Scott Professor of Biomedical Engineering in Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering. “It sounds cliché, but you get the answer to the question you ask. When we actually asked the right question, we got a very different answer than expected.”

This research is described in the August 15 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Backman and Zhang served as the study’s co-senior authors. Biqin Dong, a postdoctoral fellow in Zhang’s laboratory, and Luay Almassalha, a graduate student in Backman’s laboratory, are co-first authors of the paper.

“There are textbooks that say biological molecules don’t absorb and don’t fluoresce,” said Zhang, associate professor of biological engineering. “It’s what everyone learns; it’s a part of training, so nobody questions it.”

The reason why no one spotted the fluorescence before? The molecules were in the “,” a condition in which they do not absorb or emit light. But just because they spend so much time in the dark state does not mean they never emit light. Backman likens the situation to athletic interval training.

“Sprinters alternate running very, very fast and resting,” Backman explained. “You might catch them when they are resting and assume they aren’t doing anything. That’s what DNA and proteins do. They fluoresce for a very short time and then rest for a very long time.”

Backman, Zhang, and Sun discovered that when illuminated with visible light, the molecules get excited and light up well enough to be imaged without fluorescent stains. When excited with the right wavelength, they even light up better than they would with the best, most powerful fluorescent labels.

“This is ideal because staining is toxic,” Zhang said, “and it makes imaging less precise.”

This toxicity makes it tricky to get an accurate image of the active processes in living cells because they die immediately after the application of fluorescent stains. There are special dyes used to image , but those just cause the cells to die slower.

“The cell might die in two hours, so you can still do imaging in the first half hour,” Backman said. “But what exactly are you measuring? What are you actually seeing? Are you looking at real processes of the cell? Or are you looking at processes in a cell that is about to die? Nobody knows.”

Thanks to Backman, Zhang, and Sun, the world soon might know.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-08-dna-naturally-fluoresces.html#jCp

Source: Researchers discover that DNA naturally fluoresces

Bill Nye: Kids are “brainwashed” at Noah’s Ark museum Video

TRUTH BOMBS: But Bill, why is brainwashing kids bad? In your atheistic worldview, what makes Christian teaching evil? YOU DON’T KNOW! In your worldview people are just pond-scum and the consciousness is only electro-chemical reactions. So what how can you even have a platform to stand on to say it is wrong? AND WE LET PEOPLE LIKE THIS TEACH OUR KIDS.

ARTICLE: Bill Nye “The Science Guy” is speaking out against a museum in Kentucky that is a replica of Noah’s Ark.

WATCH Video at:

Source: Bill Nye: Kids are “brainwashed” at Noah’s Ark museum Video

This Week in God, 7.9.16 | MSNBC

TRUTHBOMBS: Wow, you can feel the sarcasm coming off in this article. They also try to quote from some “experts” (can you say expert fallacy) . It amazes me how so called science can criticize creationism all the while they must believe 1) nothing created something. 2) non-life created life. 3) non-consciousness created consciousness. And that 4) morality exists but no absolute standard. Yeah right, Christians sure are crazy [sarcasm]!

First up from the God Machine this week is the long-awaited opening of a religious attraction in Kentucky that’s not quite like anything else in the world. A 510-foot-long, $100 million Noah’s ark attraction built by Christians who say the biblical story really happened is ready to open in Kentucky this week. […] “I believe this is going to be one of the greatest Christian outreaches of this era in history,” said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, the ministry that built the ark.The media and select supporters were invited to tour the attraction on Tuesday, two days before regular customers could check out the life-sized Noah’s Ark for themselves. To put it mildly, the “Ark Encounter” attraction is not without controversy. As regular readers know, the Christian ministry that built the mammoth structure demanded and received taxpayer subsidies for this project, despite the fact that all employees – including staff whose responsibilities have nothing to do with religion – will be required to be Christian and sign a written document professing “Christ as their savior.” Indeed, those hoping to work at “Ark Encounter” must also submit a “creation belief statement” before being hired, which includes endorsing the idea that the planet is roughly 6,000 years old. The fact that Kentucky taxpayers are subsidizing all of this may seem legally problematic, but a Bush/Cheney-appointed federal judge cleared the way for the public assistance, and Gov. Matt Bevin (R), delighted with the outcome, did not appeal the case that had been litigated by his Democratic predecessor. There’s also the fact that this theme-park attraction isn’t just a fun excursion for tourists. The point of “Ark Encounter” is to promote a Christian ministry’s worldview, “share the gospel,” and encourage visitors to embrace young-earth creationism. This ark’s builders genuinely believe the story of Noah is literally true – complete with dinosaurs on the replica of the mythical boat. Dan Phelps, the head of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, showed up for the opening on Thursday and told the Lexington Herald-Leader that the boat’s wooden craftsmanship was impressive, but the scientific exhibits, which he called “beyond pseudo-science, more like non-science,” were appalling. For what it’s worth, while the Book of Genesis says Noah relied on tar and gopher wood, “Ark Encounter” was constructed with a team of workers using contemporary tools and materials. If the ministry intended to prove what was possible millennia ago, it may have unintentionally hurt its own theological case. Also from the God Machine this week: * Bicentennial: “Just as their religious ancestors did exactly two centuries ago, members of the AME Church made a pilgrimage to Philadelphia on Wednesday (July 6) for the opening of the denomination’s General Conference. They gathered not only to remember their history, but to continue to forge a path toward racial justice.” * At the Western Conservative Summit this week, reality-show personality Phil Robertson shared his belief this week that the calendar offers proof of the existence of Jesus. * And the Washington Post this week published a piece from a New York psychiatrist who claims to occasionally work on patients who are possessed by demons. He wasn’t kidding. Why a major American newspaper would publish this as if readers should consider demonic possession a credible phenomenon is unclear (thanks to reader R.B. for the heads-up).

Source: This Week in God, 7.9.16 | MSNBC