EVOLUTION --

Did humans EVOLVE from "ARDI"?

Ardipithecus ramidus is an extinct primate whose fossilized remains were first found along the Awash River in Ehiopia about fifteen years ago. Many fragments were collected, including shattered bones from a four-foot-tall female nicknamed "Ardi."

According to the researchers who found her, Ardi spent time as a human ancestor, ... African apes

Another paper viewed Ardi as the source of a new model of hominid evolution...

Yet none of these statements carry meaning without the presupposition of evolution in general, and unless Ardipithecus is presumed to be an ancestor to man.

What do you think? Do we have any evolutionists or anyone that might care to debate this with our moderators?

Chance --

God does not play dice with the universe.

----Albert Einstein (God, Evolution) -

TODAY --

One today is worth two tomorrows.

---Benjamin Franklin -(Present, Future)

EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE, IT IS "SCIENCE FICTION."

BY: Dr. Adrian Rogers

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen."

-- Romans 1:21-25

Inherit the Wind ~

"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."
(Proverbs 11:29) -

THIS verse was selected to provide the title for one of the most widely distributed movies ever produced in Hollywood. 'Inherit the Wind' was a black-and-white movie produced in 1960 starring Spencer Tracy as the famour atheist lawyer Clarence Darrow. The theme of the picture was the Scopes evolution trial held in Tennessee in 1925. The picture glorified Darrow and evolutionism, portraying creationists and Bible-believing Christians as fanatical buffoons.

Although the movie grossly distorted history, it has continued all these years to be shown over and over. The Scopes trial itself--in the absence of any real scientific evidence for evolution--is repeatedly rehashed in print by evolutionists in their zeal to destroy creationism. This is typical of the "profane and vain babblings, and oppostitions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) to which evolutionists resort in lieu of evidence.

As far as the Scripture verse itself is concerned, it should serve rather as a sober warning to those evolutionary humanists who are still troubling our nation's homes and schools and churches with this false and deadly doctrine of evolution. They are the ones who will inherit the wind. "The ungodly...are like the chaff which the wind driveth away" (Psalm 1:4). They are the ones who, "professing themselves to be wise," became fools (Romans 1:22), "who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" (Romans 1:25).

It is the one who proclaims "no God" who is "the fool" (Psalm 53:1) of out text. Evolutionists, humanists, atheists, and other anti-biblicists will inherit nothing but wind, but "the wise shall inherit glory" (Proverbs 3:35). -

Days of Praise
ICR/HMM
JESUS IS LORD! JESUS IS CREATOR OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE! (Colossians 1:15-17)

Evolution is Biologically Impossible.
By: Joseph Mastropaolo, PhD

Life was designed. It did not evolve!
Check it out!

<http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/>

Man of Science, Man of God ~~

Louis Pasteur -Father of Microbiology
By: Christine Dao

Louis Pasteur was an experimentalist of the highest order, and his science was undoubtedly fueled by his faith.

<http://www.icr.org/article/science-man-god-louis-pasteur/>

VERY INTERESTING, INDEED!
From: Institute for CREATION Research ~

The Dirty Little Secret is Out:
Religious Faith and Evolution are Incompatible -

Frank Sherwin, M.A.
Daily Science/ICR
----
Spread the news that the truth has finally been openly admitted by an evolutionary scientist: Darwinism contradicts Christianity.

Not only is macroevolution irrelevant to Science, it is antithetical to a true faith in God.
Check it out!
<http://www.icr.org/article/dirty-little-secret-out-religious-faith-evolution-/>

Now let's see what the so called, 'evolutionist/Christian' has to say about this! Oxymoron, indeed!

Nice find, Agishag!

This has been brewing ever since the compromisers were intimidated into siding with atheism rather than ID, which accurately reflects their views.

The atheists are beginning to say "convert fully or get out", and it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Earth's magnetic age is limited to thousands of years not billions claimed by evolutionary scientists.

Earth's Magnetic Age: The Achilles Heel of Evolution
by Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.

Introduction

There is nothing more devastating to the doctrine of evolution than the scientific evidence of a young earth age. That evidence is provided by the rapid depletion of the energy in the earth's main magnet, its electromagnetic dipole magnet in the conductive core of the earth. Its electric current is using up the magnet's energy. The rate of energy consumption is now known. From that information and a reasonable limit on the maximum plausible initial energy one can show that the earth's magnetic age is limited to thousands of years, not the billions claimed by evolutionary scientists.

A search of the technical literature in 1970 provided two important clues to this explanation of the earth's dipole magnet:

In 1883 Sir Horace Lamb solved the complex electromagnetic problem of a free current circulating in a conducting sphere.1
Evaluations have been made on the strength and direction of this dipole magnet in the core of the earth ever since the first historic evaluation was made by Gauss in the 1835 epoch. 2,3 The first clue predicted decay, the second clue confirmed it. Rarely in physics has there been a better illustration of a mathematical physics theory and such extensive observational data to confirm it.

The author's articles and book, that developed and applied this theory of a freely decaying magnet to an earth-age limitation, were ignored by doctrinaire evolutionists for years. They apparently felt that the less said the better. In 1981, however, the American Civil Liberties Union decided to make an all-out attack upon it. The U.S. Geological Survey research geologist G. Brent Dalrymple has spearheaded the attack. In addition to his appearing as their expert witness in the courts, he has written a book and an article in the Journal of Geophysical Education4 attacking this author's publications on the theory of the earth's magnetic age limitation. This Impact article is a response to his geological education article.

Dalrymple's Dynamo Hypothesis

As is true of most evolutionary geologists, Dalrymple hypothesizes a dynamo in the molten core of the earth. It is supposed to be the mechanism for generating the electric current required to power the dipole magnet for more than three billion years. Dalrymple states: "Barnes criticizes the dynamo theory because of the absence of a definitive solution. " He then goes into a lengthy discourse about dynamos. One may summarize his ultimate conclusion by his own statement: "Even though there is near universal agreement that a dynamo exists in the earth's core, the exact mechanism …is not known."

Not only are evolutionists in trouble by having nothing but faith to support their dynamo hypothesis, the same can be said for their lack of an applicable energy source to run the dynamo. One has but to review the literature to see that no one has come up with an acceptable energy source. Dalrymple uses the "scatter-gun" approach. "At present, scientists do not know which of the several sources actually drives the dynamo; in fact, it may be some combination of sources." Prior to that he stated: "At present it seems that gravitation may be the most plausible source of energy.... " That is nonsense and completely unsupported. There is as yet no concept as to how that type of energy would be able to run the mechanism, if there were such a thing.

Signal vs. Noise

The basic problem with the evolutionary geologists' education on the earth's magnetism may be expressed in the language of an engineer as his failure to distinguish between the signal and the noise. The two are not functionally related. The earth's dipole field is the signal. It is known to be due to electric current in the core of the earth, more than a thousand miles away from the earth's surface. The noise is the super-position of all other magnetic fields from whatever magnetic sources that may exist near enough to make any contribution to the net magnetic field at any point where the measurements are being made. There are literally billions of sources of magnetic noise and ordinarily their location and energy content are not known. For example, there are times when there are magnetic storms of such magnitude that transatlantic radio communication is totally disrupted.

As an illustration of Dalrymple's failure to make this distinction between signal and noise one should examine his statement: "Barnes' hypothesis also does not fit the facts. Freely decaying currents cannot explain the existence, configuration, movement, or changes of the nondipole field...." Dalrymple does not seem to understand that the nondipole field is noise, not the signal. The magnetic age of the earth is related to the signal, the dipole field, not to the noise. The dipole field is decaying in accordance with known theoretical physics equations. That is the signal which Gauss separated from noise when he made his historic evaluation.

Dalrymple quotes the following statement from Barnes: "As of now there is no physical evidence, seismic or otherwise, that there is any motion within the core." He rejects that and cites a westward motion of the nondipole field as evidence of motion in the core. His point is to justify the evolutionary claims of fluid motion in the core as the dynamo mechanism. That is irrelevant because as previously noted, there is no known dynamo mechanism. Nevertheless, it shows his failure to distinguish between signal and noise. The nondipole field is noise and no one knows the location of its source. Without knowing the location of the sources of the noise one cannot compute its total energy.

There has been a measured westward drift of the earth's magnetic dipole, a precession but not a nutation. Stanley Stanulonis has derived a theoretical physics explanation of this westward precession.5 It is due to the solar wind drag on the magnetic dipole field as the earth rotates eastward. The net result is a shifting of the electrical currents in the core of the earth, not a motion of the molten mass in the core of the earth. Stanulonis' solution contains both the precession and decaying properties of the earth's magnetic dipole field. Those are properties of the signal, not the noise.

Dalrymple holds to the evolutionary arguments that paleomagnetic evidences show that the earth's magnetic field is more than three billion years old and has gone through many reversals, changing its polarity from north to south and back many times, at irregular intervals. Those and the other arguments of Dalrymple are answered in detail in the new revised and expanded edition of Barnes' Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, Technical Monograph No. 4, published by the Institute for Creation Research (132 pp.).

One cannot make a credible evaluation of the earth's magnetic dipole moment from such paleomagnetic data. They are useful for geophysical exploration, where anomalies indicate deviations from the dipole field, but not for evaluating the dipole field. That is illustrated by the graph shown. It compares the paleomagnetic data with the unquestioned real-time magnetic dipole moment data. The top curve is from the earth's magnetic moment data. It shows the known decay. The bottom jagged curve is derived from a Russian scientist's paper (S.P. Burlatskaya, 1967), which used all of the paleomagnetic data. Note that there is not the slightest trace of the known decay in the curve of these paleomagnetic data. One can classify the paleomagnetic data as noise and the real-time data as the signal.

Conclusion

The Barnes' theory of a young magnetic age for the earth, only a few thousand years, is the only theory of the source of the earth's dipole magnet that is supported by the following important facts:

A rigorous mathematical physics solution.
A history of real-time evaluations of the state of the magnet (its magnetic moment).
A clearly identified source of energy (its own magnetic field energy).
A definitive predictive value.
A means of computing its source energy and subjecting that value to an independent check that would have falsified the theory had there not been a check.

On the other hand, the presumed dynamo theory has no substantive theoretical basis and no definitive predictive value. Its presumed reversal mechanism has admittedly remained inscrutable. The presumed supporting paleomagnetic data contributes to the noise, not the signal. It does not even check with the decay of the earth's dipole field during the time in which that is accurately known, ever since Gauss' evaluations.

The game is up for the evolutionist if he acknowledges that the earth is only a few thousand years old. To avoid being completely wiped out he knows that he must fight with all his might, fair or foul, against this scientific theory and supporting evidence of a young magnetic earth-age. It is no wonder that Dalrymple, his ACLU sponsor, and the nine additional noted evolutionists whom he acknowledges gave him review support on his article, have made such a desperate effort to conceal this Achilles heel of evolution, the scientific evidence of a very young earth.
YEAR OF MEASUREMENT

References

1. Sir Horace Lamb, Philosophical Transactions, (London) 174, pp. 519-549.
2. Sidney Chapman, The Earth's Magnetism. Methuen and Co., Ltd., London; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, p. 23.
3. Keith L. McDonald and Robert H. Gunst. "An analysis of the earth's magnetic field from 1835 to 1965," ESSA Technical Report. IER 46-IES 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 15.
4. Brent G. Dalrymple, "Can the earth be dated from decay of its magnetic field?", Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, March 1983, pp. 124-132.
5. Stanley Stanulonis, "The Mechanism Responsible for the Precession of the Geomagnetic Dipole with Evaluation of the Earth's Core's Charge Density and Its Implication," Master of Science Thesis, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department, May 1974.

--Making a Monkey out of Darwin
By: Adrian Rogers

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen" (1 Tim. 6:20-21).

One of the most important questions to face our generation is this: “Are human beings simply the product of millions of years of mindless, evolutionary mutations and adaptations, or are we the creation of an infinitely wise, powerful, and loving God?”

The answer to that question is critical. Why? Because it determines your attitude toward God in heaven and mankind on earth. The debate over human origin is one of the most critical issues of our times.
-
THE DAMAGE OF EVOLTION

It’s hard to measure the enormous damage inflicted by Darwinian evolution, the teaching that life arose from a spontaneous spark in a pond of primordial ooze. The amazing thing is that influential scientists themselves are now denying Darwin’s theory as impossible. Yet its destructive effects remain.

For instance, if man is an accident of nature, then there is no fixed standard of right and wrong. So what the Bible calls sexual perversion is now a “lifestyle.” And a human life can be readily destroyed, whether in the womb or partially delivered.

Worst of all, evolution has helped destroy belief in God for millions. Denying biblical creation, evolutionists have “changed the truth of God into a lie” (Romans 1:25).

Should we be surprised that euthanasia is gaining widespread acceptance in our society or that the tide of abortion cannot be turned? Is it any wonder that sexual perversion is received as a valid alternative lifestyle? We have taught our children that they are just another species of animal – and they are finally beginning to act like animals! And our children and grandchildren are still being fed this lie today.

THE DECEIT OF EVOLUTION
What is behind this whole idea of evolution? Why is it such an emotional issue? Why can't the world simply agree that there is no creation without a Creator, and out of nothing, nothing comes?

Humanist Aldous Huxley expressed the answer to those questions in his book, 'Ends and Means'. Huxley said he and his contemporaries did not want government or morality. So they chose evolution in order to shut the mouths of those who believe in special creation.

For more than 100 years, the evolutionists have succeeded in convincing people that evolution is the only logical, scientific, and intelligent theory of human origin.

But this campaign has been carried out amid deceit and slight of hand on the part of many evolutionists. We’ve all seen the creative drawings of supposed ancestors of mankind, built on a few teeth or a piece of a skull. And the fossil hoaxes perpetrated over the last century are well known.

No wonder in his book 'Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth', the Swedish embryologist, Soren Lovtrup, suggests that he believes that some day Darwinism “will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

THE DEFEAT OF EVOLUTION
Despite its lack of credible evidence, evolution holds sway in our schools, the courts, and the public mind. What can we do?

We can preach, teach and defend the truth! We can set our children free from the devil’s lies by giving them the Truth of God’s Word (John 8:32) And we can point lost, confused and dying souls to Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life!

'Love Worth Finding' will continue to hold high the banner of Jesus Christ.

THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION

1.) The fossil record. Not only is the so-called missing link still missing, all of the transitional life forms so crucial to evolutionary theory are missing from the fossil record. There are thousands of missing links, not one!

2.) The second law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy is winding down and that matter left to itself tends toward chaos and randomness, not greater organization and complexity. Evolution demands exactly the opposite process, which is observed nowhere in nature.

3.) The origin of life. Evolution offers no answers to the origin of life. It simply pushes the question farther back in time, back to some primordial event in space or an act of spontaneous generation in which life simply sprang from nothing.

-What If Evolution Were True?
-By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.

What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find?

Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millenia. At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still elude us. Abundant soft-bodied remains have been found, so the conditions for preservation would always somewhere have existed. Why can't we find those important fossils which document evolution?

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today. Why does it seem to have stopped? Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing? They are unquestionably adapting, but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation. Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content. Instead we discover the universal second law of science, which invariably points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction, and more randomness in every unguided process. The complexity of life forms is so unimaginably great that we must account for it, and random changes in the face of a universal law can hardly be the answer.

At the least we should find a mechanism for evolution firmly in place. Mutation and natural selection are often cited, but these are deteriorative and conservative, not innovative and thoughtful. A theory of everything which has no mechanism is a weak theory indeed.

Thus we do not find the expected evidence that evolution of basic types has taken place. Surely we can be excused for looking elsewhere.

*Dr. John D. Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Morris, J. 2007. What If Evolution Were True? Acts & Facts. 36 (7).

-Did God Use Evolution?
-By: Dr. Werner Gitt (Answers In Genesis)

-Worldview does matter.

The theory of evolution is currently so widely established that it could be described as the all-inclusive and even the only philosophy of the 20th century.

The idea of self-organization from the simple to the more complex has been commonly appropriated—even in disciplines foreign to biological evolution. The development of computers is often falsely referred to as the “evolution of computers,” even though the current high-performance computers are the result of intensive research by many brilliant minds. They have been planned, constructed, and produced on purpose, and are clearly not the result of an evolutionary process.

Theology, too, was affected; evolutionary ideas have even been carried into biblical exegesis.

We will show below why evolutionistic thought is completely foreign to the Bible. This book is aimed predominantly at Christian readers who might be inclined to accept some version of theistic evolution. Over and above that, the book is set out in such a way that skeptical readers may also be guided to some decision.The basic assumptions of science are discussed in a separate chapter. This should enable the reader to recognize which basic assumptions he automatically accepts when he decides for or against creation or evolution.

Use of the term “the theory of evolution” is intentionally avoided, because, according to the standards of scientific theory, evolution is a philosophical doctrine and not a scientific theory. For the same reason, we do not refer to creation theory, but to the biblical doctrine of creation. Creation research concerns itself with deducing models from physical reality, which are based on fundamental biblical statements. A total of 20 objections (OB1 to OB20) against theistic evolution are discussed in this book. In addition to valid criticisms of evolution, the alternative, creation, is increasingly expounded more clearly in recent literature, such as [B4, E2, G3, G5, G7, G8, G10, G11, J2, S3, S4, S5]. This book also refers repeatedly to this very sustainable alternative.

As far as possible, the objections are discussed along the following lines:

1.The dictates of evolution
2.Scientific objections against these dictums
3.Biblical refutations of evolutionary assumptions

The author is an information scientist, but the discussions on information concepts in chapter 6 should be readily understood by the layman. In the last chapter, scientific and biblical objections against evolution culminate in the exposition of ten dangers inherent in theistic evolution. Many quotations expose the anti-biblical nature of such a viewpoint.
-------
Dr. Werner Gitt addresses this topic in his introduction to the book Did God Use Evolution? Regarding today’s question, Dr. Gitt says the following:

Use of the term “the theory of evolution” is intentionally avoided, because, according to the standards of scientific theory, evolution is a philosophical doctrine and not a scientific theory.

For the same reason, we do not refer to creation theory, but to the biblical doctrine of creation. Creation research concerns itself with deducing models from physical reality, which are based on fundamental biblical statements.

Read the full introduction to learn more about the negative effects of evolutionary doctrine—both inside and outside the church.

This book is the latest in our series of free online publications of printed works. The entire book will be released in sections throughout the upcoming weeks, so check back often to continue reading. (Or buy your own print copy at the link below.)

Get Equipped

-Did God Use Evolution?

Worldview does matter. Available in our online store, this thought-provoking book will help you to critically analyze and reject the assumptions and consequences of theistic evolution.


-Get the book!
Worldview does matter. Available in our online store, this thought-provoking book will help you to critically analyze and reject the assumptions and consequences of theistic evolution.
The theory of evolution is currently so widely established.

-Get the Book: Answers in Genesis
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/>

-"Human Evolution"
-and Atheist, Richard Leakey
-
An issue of Scientific American stated, “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,”11 and a popular British magazine lamented: “We thought we had just about nailed human evolution, now everything is up for grabs again.”12 A well-known paleoanthropologist at George Washington University said, “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”13

Troubling, also, is Leakey's non-definition of the word "evolution," upon which hangs the origins debate--"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed!"
-Let's check it out.

Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:

Leakey and 'Human Evolution' (http://www.icr.org/article/6921/)

--"After His Kind," Not Another Kind

-BIBLE MEDITATION:
"Let them praise the name of the Lord: for He commanded, and they were created." Psalm 148:5

-DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT:
In Genesis 1:11-12 we read, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (italics mine).

-ACTION POINT:
If evolution is true, then one specie would have to involve into another specie, and if that is true, then you would expect to find transitional forms of life.
You hear talk about the "missing link." May I tell you, the whole chain is missing!
What do you believe about the origin of creation?

--Adrian Rogers

-The Truth And The Lie
-By: Henry Morris, Ph.D.

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen” (Romans 1:25).

The truth above all other truths is that God is Creator, and thus deserves eternal worship and blessing by His creatures. The lie that is greater than all other lies is that some creature—some created being or entity—is greater than its Creator, and as such is to be worshipped more than God.

The Lord Jesus Christ has made it plain that Satan, the Devil, was the father of lies. “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). He is the one who seeks to turn men away from the Creator, because he, himself, wants to be worshipped as God.

This has been his basic lie all through the ages. “Ye shall be as gods,” he told Eve (Genesis 3:5), and the deception of humanism has persisted in many guises and in every nation from that time to this. All of ancient paganism, as well as its modern varieties, perpetuates this lie in its denial of a personal, omnipotent Creator. But modern “scientific” evolutionism, with its absolute denial of supernatural creation and its veneration of man as the pinnacle of the cosmic process of evolution, has been by far his most successful variation of this ancient lie.

This modern form of the ancient apostasy, which has already generated such would-be man/gods as Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, will eventually culminate in the man of sin, who, “as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (II Thessalonians 2:3,4), and who will be worshipped by the whole world (Revelation 13:8).


Let any who are now swayed by this ancient/modern lie of evolutionism heed God’s warning: “Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved . . . God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a [actually ‘the’] lie: That they all might be damned” (II Thessalonians 2:10–12).
--ICR/HMM

-God's Holiness Demands a Perfect Creation
-By: Henry Morris III, D.Min.

Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty.... Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:8, 11)

The holiness of God is what drives and limits His revelation of Himself to His creation. Scripture is consistent. Holiness is God's fundamental nature, and that unique nature so permeates what God is and does that no action or thought from the Godhead can override it. The majestic seraphs so tantalizingly described in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1--those four unique "living creatures" standing in the presence of the Creator (Revelation 4)--continually speak of the thrice-holy nature of God as they breathe.

Evolutionary mechanisms are, by their very nature, both random and nonfunctional. Nothing in naturalist theory "directs" evolution. Vast eons of time, in which chaos "works" and during which death "weeds out" the ineffective, are thought to somehow produce processes and systems of apparent design. No god in this system exists to create anything.

--CHECK IT OUT!

Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
God's Holiness Demands a Perfect Creation
(http://www.icr.org/article/gods-holiness-demands-perfect-creation/)

--EVOLUTION: IT JUST HAPPENED

“Something odd happened”? Imagine if a non-Darwinian scientist stated this in a creation science publication! How did such a bizarre statement ever make it into a journal that allegedly prides itself on its scientific precision? Meanwhile, the origin of mammal groups, miRNA notwithstanding, is contentious: “But the exact origins of modern cats, dogs, bears and seals are still controversial.”
------
Creationists have respected peer-reviewed journals—such as Journal of Creation, Creation Research Society Quarterly, and Answers Research Journal—that look at the creation as the product of the Creator’s work, not chance and extreme time periods. Creationists have published research utilizing scientific methodology rather than ambiguous explanations, including the formidable eight-year RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project.6
-------
Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Evolution: It Just Happened (http://www.icr.org/article/7059/)

---Evolutionist Hoaxes

-Archaeological Forgeries
There is no fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. Despite the fact that no complete "transitional form" fossil has ever been found, the theory of evolution is taught more than ever in classrooms around the world. We keep finding more and more huge burial sites of dinosaurs, which are supposedly 65 million years old, yet we cannot find a single skeleton of a half man, half ape, pre-human being. Such fossils should stand a much better chance of being preserved, since they would only be maybe tens of thousands of years old, not millions as with the dinosaurs (in the evolutionist's timeline). Now why do you suppose this is? Maybe simply because evolution never happened? If evolution were true, we would find at least thousands of skeletons of the "transitional" skeletons shown in the evolutionist drawing below. Now if I were a believer in evolution, I would need to seriously question my faith in the absence of any such skeletons.

But since there aren't any such skeletons, one of the interesting methods evolutionists employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find.

Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of 'finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax.

Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.
----------
Folks, don't let Darwinists make a monkey out of you.
Check out the website!
<http://6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes>

---Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?
--Romans 1:28, 1 Timothy 6:20
By: Pastor/ Bible Teacher: John MacArthur

Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists' ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.

Intuition suggests a series of questions to the human mind when we contemplate our origin: Who is in control of the universe? Is there Someone who is sovereign--a Lawgiver? Is there a universal Judge? Is there a transcendent moral standard to live by? Is there Someone to whom will we be accountable? Will there be a final assessment of how we live our lives? Will there be any final judgment?

Those are the very questions evolution was invented to avoid.
Evolution was devised to explain away the God of the Bible--not because evolutionists really believed a Creator was unnecessary to explain how things began, but because they did not want the God of Scripture as their Judge.

-- Marvin L. Lubenow writes,The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable. [Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 188-89.]

To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby to oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (cf. Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences.The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But over the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals--perhaps it would even be fair to say most people who call themselves evangelicals today--have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.

So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster.

Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes.Scripture cautions against false "knowledge" (1 Timothy 6:20)--particularly so-called "scientific" knowledge that opposes the truth of Scripture. When what is being passed off as "science" turns out to be nothing more than a faith-based world-view that is hostile to the truth of Scripture, our duty to be on guard is magnified. And when naturalistic and atheistic presuppositions are being aggressively peddled as if they were established scientific fact, Christians ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them all the more vigorously. The abandonment of a biblical view of creation has already borne abundant evil fruit in modern society. Now is no time for the church to retreat or compromise on these issues. To weaken our commitment to the biblical view of creation would start a chain of disastrous moral, spiritual, and theological ramifications in the church that will greatly exacerbate the terrible moral chaos that already has begun the unravelling of secular society.

----------
--"Evolution is true science fiction!" / Ray Comfort

--Evolution and the Woman

"The man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

-IN spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence against evolution, some Christians today argue that God used evolution to create. But this position is logically untenable and spiritually dangerous.

One of the most obvious evidences is the unique biblical account of the formation of the body of the first woman. By no stretch of the imagination can this account be harmonized with the so-called evolution of human beings from some earlier group of hominids.

God "formed man of the dust of the ground." Many theistic evolutionists have asserted that this could describe the long, random, and accidental process of evolution. This, of course, is fantasy, not biblical exergesis. There is simply no way for the record of Eve's formation from Adam's side to be so interpreted. Genesis is explicit, and the apostle Paul and Jesus Himself confirm this truth in the New Testament. Both man and woman are special creations of God, not the products of evolutionary development from prehuman animals.~~

--Scripture:-
1 Corinthians 11:8-9; Genesis 2:7, 21-22;
Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:13

--ICR/Days of Praise

--Jesus in Mary's Womb~

--The LORD...formed me from the womb to be His servant.

Seven hundred years before Jesus' incarnation, He was prophetically referred to as One who would be formed in a womb. Of couse, as divine Son, He existed from all eternity, but it was not until an appointed time in history that He started as fully human--in His mother's womb. "The angel said to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Of course, human prenatal life has today been given a secular description. Evolutionists try to explain that human life before birth is tracing out its evolutionary history, but this is a sad delusion. Jesus was never a fish or a frog, and neither were any of us.

He, the Creator, became a baby and lived for a while in a virgin's womb so that as a man He could go to a Cross and reverse Adam's fall. By His perfect obedience to the Father, He also offers human beings eternal life. May we celebrate life now and forever!

--Scripture:
-Isaiah 49::5; John 1:1;
Galatians 4:4; Luke 1:35 ~

--ICR/Days of Praise

---The Finished Works of Creation

“For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” (Hebrews 4:3)

--Here is a strong New Testament confirmation of the Genesis record of a creation completed in the past—thus not continuing in the present as theistic evolutionists have to assume. Whatever processes God may have used during the six days of creation, they are no longer in operation for “the heavens and the earth were finished, . . . on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made. . . . And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:1-3).

The record in Genesis could not be more clear and specific, but the fact that it is in Genesis tends to demean it in the minds of many scientists and theologians. So they prefer to believe in a continuing evolution and long ages in the past. But the writer of Hebrews once again confirms the fact of a completed creation: “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:10).

The writer is not trying to defend the completed creation as such, but merely assuming it as a commonly acknowledged truth. In fact, God’s “rest” from His works of creation is taken as a prophetic type of the spiritual rest of a Christian believer when he ceases trusting his own works of legalism and relies fully on the finished work of Christ for his eternal salvation.

On the Cross, before the Lord had died for our sins, He had cried out, “It is finished!” (John 19:30), and our debt for sin was fully paid. God’s great work of redemption was completed, just as was His work of creation, and now we also can rest from our “dead works to serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:14).
--ICR/ HMM