“The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ Revisited” - An invitation to examine both sides of the origins debate

[Red Sky at Morning]

When you find ordinary human skeletons buried far deeper that theories suggest, perhaps those theories should be reconsidered?

Ancient Anomalous Human Skeletons: Humanity Could be Much Older Than We Think

There are many reported human skeletal finds which are in discordance with current evolutionary beliefs dating back to anomalously ancient geological periods in the distant past, way before it is accepted that human beings ever existed.

www.ancient-origins.net

Of course, the skeletons might have been buried earlier than evolutionary theory can explain or perhaps the geological column is not the “time capsule” it is claimed to be?

 

[Karlysymon]

Francis Collins (the director of the National Institutes of Health NIH) with Gates & Fauci


is also the founder of BioLogos



as well as featured at

Christians and the Vaccine

Christians and the Vaccine provide Biblical thinking on the COVID vaccine. Should Christians take the COVID Vaccine? Should a Christian take the vaccine? Find out a biblical response to the vaccine from a former lead pastor.

www.christiansandthevaccine.com

I don't think he'll have any qualms with gene editing of humanity.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Francis Collins (the director of the National Institutes of Health NIH) with Gates & Fauci
View attachment 57459 View attachment 57460 View attachment 57461

is also the founder of BioLogos
View attachment 57462
View attachment 57463

as well as featured at

Christians and the Vaccine

Christians and the Vaccine provide Biblical thinking on the COVID vaccine. Should Christians take the COVID Vaccine? Should a Christian take the vaccine? Find out a biblical response to the vaccine from a former lead pastor.

www.christiansandthevaccine.com

I don't think he'll have any qualms with gene editing of humanity.

I don’t have any issues with vaccines in general but I’m not a fan of using CRISPR on people (at least till they know what they’re doing!!!)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

An interesting philosophical question:-

Did the scientists use creationist or evolutionist methods to produce xenobots??

Not bot, not beast: Scientists create first ever living, programmable organism

A remarkable combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and biology has produced the world's first "living robots".

phys.org

 

[Karlysymon]

An interesting philosophical question:-

Did the scientists use creationist or evolutionist methods to produce xenobots??

Not bot, not beast: Scientists create first ever living, programmable organism

A remarkable combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and biology has produced the world's first "living robots".

phys.org

If they respond with "creationist methods", the next logical question it demands is: do they have a creator too? The xenobots couldn't create themselves until a human came along, so Who created the human who then created the xenobots?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A bedrock belief of evolutionary geologists has been convincingly undermined today with the publication of ground-breaking Grand Canyon research conducted by geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis (AiG).


Throughout Grand Canyon, thick rock layers appear which are smoothly bent (some close to being at a right angle—see photo). Dr. Snelling observes, “Normally, solid rock cannot bend without breaking, so this leaves only two options for bending: either the rock layer was bent while still soft, shortly after being deposited by water, or after the layer had fully hardened, it was bent by pressures which made the rock plastic, like playdough. Geologists who believe the layers were laid down over millions of years accept the latter option.”

The massive Carbon Canyon fold, with the rock unit bent 90 degrees (Note the person in the photo for scale.)
Dr. Snelling points out that for hardened rock to bend without breaking, it must undergo metamorphic changes in its mineral content and structure, including at the microscopic level. At the outset of his research, his question was this: Is there any evidence of the hard rock in the bent layers being metamorphosed?
Dr. Snelling examined samples from two prominent folds in Grand Canyon. His research concluded: “By comparing the Tapeats Sandstone samples from the folds with other Tapeats Sandstone samples located far from the folds, no metamorphism has occurred. Therefore, our four-year research project confirms that these rock layers were bent while they were still soft, after rapid deposition.” Dr. Snelling also concludes, “This is tremendous evidence that the Canyon’s rock layers were laid down during a massive flood and subsequently bent before any of the layers had hardened.” Dr. Snelling suggests this evidence is consistent with the effects of Noah’s flood and its aftermath.

Creation Scientist’s Ground-Breaking Research at Grand Canyon Published

A bedrock belief of evolutionary geologists has been convincingly undermined today with the publication of research conducted by geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling.

answersingenesis.org

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A Never-Before-Seen Type of Signal Has Been Detected in The Human Brain

Scientists have discovered a unique form of cell messaging occurring in the human brain that's not been seen before. Excitingly, the discovery hints that our brains might be even more powerful units of computation than we realized.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

If we assume that a minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins of, on average, 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 1 in 10^164 as calculated above, then the probability of producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is 1 in 10^164 multiplied by itself 250 times, or 1 in 10^41,000.

Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell, pg 213

For comparison, there are apprx. 10^87 atoms in the whole Universe.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A Revival in Science

In March, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson declared that “intelligent design is valid science.”

In April, researchers writing in the journal Current Biology asked whether Darwin’s “tree of life” should “be abandoned.”

In May, it was reported that Sheffield University has stopped hiding Darwin’s deadly social views from students. A university handbook now accurately notes that Darwin “believed… his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others, and used his theory of sexual selection to justify why women were clearly inferior to men.”

Then there is this blockbuster: In August, Discovery Institute Press hopes to publish Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design by Neil Thomas. A professor and member of the British Rationalist Association, Thomas was a committed Darwinist and agnostic — until his investigation of evolutionary theory led him to a startling conclusion: “I had been conned!” This is the kind of book that will break stereotypes and change minds. British doctor and newspaper columnist James LeFanu calls it “masterly and persuasive.”

This is just the beginning of a new breakthrough in science.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The mysterious preservation of soft tissue in supposedly ancient fossils…

Does Dinosaur Soft Tissue Disprove Evolution?

Have you ever wondered if dino DNA really exists in nature? (And if it does, should you worry about a real-life Jurassic Park fiasco?)

newcreation.blog

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The death of “Junk DNA”

Human Genome 20th Anniversary—Junk DNA Hits the Trash!

The first rough drafts of the human genome were reported in 2001 (one in the private sector and one in the public sector).1-2 Since then, after 20 years of intensive globally conducted research, the data has revealed a wealth of complexity that has completely upset all of the original evolutionary misconceptions.3

1. Venter, J.C., et al. 2001. The Sequence of the Human Genome. Science. 291(2001):1304-1351.
2. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome. Nature. 409(2001):860-921.
3. Alexander J. Gates, A.J., D.M. Gysi, M. Kellis, and A.L. Barabási. 2021. A wealth of discovery built on the Human Genome Project — by the numbers. Nature. 590:212-215.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The majority of evolutionary speculation alleges that modern humans didn’t arise until our ancestors migrated out of Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.



However, a number of secular and creationist research studies analyzing a variety of DNA clocks have indicated a far shorter time-scale of not more than 5,000 to 10,000 years.6-9 And a new more precise human Y-chromosome DNA study demonstrates that not only are the previous studies vindicated in their short time predictions, the Bible’s timeline of the global Flood appears to be spot on. In fact, the researcher in the study empirically showed that only about 4,500 years of mutations have accumulated in the DNA record of the human Y chromosome. If mankind has been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years, we should’ve accumulated between 8-59 times the number of mutations actually observed.4

Population Growth Matches Bible and DNA Clock

According to detailed biblical chronologies and genealogies, the global Flood recorded in Genesis that wiped out humanity occurred about 4,500 years ago.1,2 Then the earth was repopulated by Noah’s three sons and their three wives. As I reported a couple months ago, a research project was just...

www.icr.org

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

In the supposed evolution of the eye. Which came first and why?

The eye, or the vision center of the brain? One cannot work without the other being in place.

Also, how did the vision center of the brain obtain processing power that today's top computers cannot even match? If I remember correctly, the speed of processing everything in 3D, including depth perception, is .3 seconds. That's less than a second.

How important is that processing speed?
1) You would not be able to drive a car.
2) Hit a base ball.
3) Shoot hoops in basketball.
etc...

Because you would see what's going on after it already happened. .3 seconds is like real time.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

On the origin of the elements (you may find this one interesting @shankara )

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Designed by Tesla…

The shark intestine, “designed” by the metaphorical “Blind Watchmaker” of time and chance?!

#atheistshavefaith

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Miraculously preserved chromatin (or just not as old as claimed??)

Fossil Chromatin Looks Young

What are the odds that a buried animal would still have intact DNA after 125 million years? Researchers publishing in the journal Communications Biology said exactly that.1 But it’s what they elected not to say that tells just as big a story. The cartilage-containing fossil named Caudipteryx...

www.icr.org

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Polonium Halos




Granite Rock is proof of quick 24 hour creation. If you melt it, the properties change and it turns into the rock on the left of the image. So no it cannot come from molten rock, and it cannot come from a volcano.

The other evidence of quick creation that supports YEC, is the image on the right. These a Polonium halos. More than one type. And they have a half life of less them 3 minutes. One even has a half life less than a second. A half life is how long a substance stay in existence before it decays and no trace is left of it being there.

So for this evidence to be caught in the rock, the creation of this rock has to quick and cold. Defying the idea that the earth was once a molten rock formation. That cooled off over millions of years and the rocks formed.

1) If this were true for all rock on the planet, there would be no granite rock aka on the left of the image. There would only be the rock on the right. And this type of rock is the foundational rock of this planet aka the most abundant rock found.

2) If there was any truth to volcanoes making granite rock, this could be duplicated in a lab to prove it. But they cannot.

3) Finding the Polonium Halos inside the rock cannot be explained by any slow formation of said rock. So the earth itself, having this rock on it, defies the claims of deep time.

 

[Bubbajay]

The real problem of evolution is semantics and the way its definition is constantly changing over time but indeed state sponsored scientific narrative has never been about open mindness but all about consensus and peer review.

If the peers agrees with your views, you can finance your work and they will support you in your findings. I don't believe in 'scientific experts are unbiased and only cares about observable facts'.

Not even observable. Science today refuses to acknowledge a worldwide flood. If they did acknowledge it they'd have to admit that the "fossil record" is useless in dating fossils, it would also put carbon dating into question.