Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 25, 2014, 03:43 PM
Number of posts: 21,002

Journal Archives

Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory


A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments. "Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere" is one headline1 from the theme of the Royal Society's life science journal in January, 2017.2 But its content further bolsters creationist theory.

The pace of change within organisms is a keen topic of interest. One reason many people doubt evolution is that no one has ever seen one kind of creature change into another. Plant and animal breeders have never done it in thousands of years of concerted effort. Even experiments intended to force evolution along by inducing radical genetic mutations in breeding pairs result in crippled, but not basically transformed, progeny. Remarkably, both creationists and evolutionists are content with this fact.

Creation and Evolution Theory Expect Different Rates of Change

Evolutionists expect that the pace of evolutionary change will always be quite slow. No one should see it happen unless they could somehow live and observe for thousands of generations. One report accompanying the Royal Society's latest theme says, "Twenty-five years ago, science and society's view of the pace of evolution was not that different from the one famously espoused by Darwin more than 100 years previously: 'We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages....'"3 In fact, Stephen J. Gould references that same Darwin quote. Just before it he adds, "Substantial change might occur as a very rare event, but most alteration must be insensible, even on geologic scales" with which he validates that "gradualism may represent the most central conviction residing both within and behind all Darwin's thoughts."4

Conversely, if the Flood decimated air-breathing organisms only about 4600 years ago and the Ark had limited kinds of animals, then creationists are challenged to explain the huge diversity of life we see today. Creationists theorize that organisms' innate systems enable rapid rates of trait diversification to explain how they continuously fill environmental niches—particularly post-Creation and Flood.5 Evolutionists have mocked the theory of rapid-trait expression (robust speciation) as a "post-Flood Big Bang" or "Radical Anteglacial Darwinism" saying that creationists accept "rates of change that would make an evolutionist blush."6

Rapid Trait Expression Is Observed

ScienceDaily reported on the "rapid evolution" seen in organisms. What their report and the original research paper call "evolution" is the expression of new traits by organisms responding to recent human activities. As ScienceDaily summed it up, "in a theme issue of the scientific journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, researchers from McGill University have helped pull together the latest research on this phenomenon."7

ScienceDaily encapsulated the research in three examples of environmental conditions altered by recent human activity to which organisms responded by rapidly expressing new traits. The first was commercial fishing where "fish evolve to reproduce when they are younger and smaller, and thus tend to have fewer, smaller offspring." Next was the human introduction of invasive species setting conditions for "native species can then sometimes evolve in response." Finally, urbanization where "plants evolve decreased seed dispersal to compensate for the expansion of uninhabitable pavement, animals evolve resistance to industrial and residential chemicals."

One editor of the Royal Society's theme issue, Andrew Hendry, was quoted by ScienceDaily saying, "Evolution is occurring all around us all the time, and it is influencing our environment, our health, and our overall well-being." And, "in many cases, these effects play out over only a few years to decades—more quickly than biologists traditionally thought possible." This is counter-theoretical to evolution. Yet Hendry shrugged it off with, "when humans are involved, selection pressures on a species often become very strong, leading to fast evolution." Is this a scientific conclusion or speculation based on presuppositions?

Carefully Catching a Confirmation and the Cover-up

Findings of rapid trait expression by organisms tend to confirm creationist theory that emphasizes active, problem-solving organisms. As one evolutionist notes, rapid change is hard to reconcile with any theory that emphasizes an active environment fractioning out the genetic material of passive organisms by a mechanism which "requires radical amounts of natural selection (the Darwinian mechanism), mutations and genetic drift to accomplish such changes."8 The rapid changes documented in the Royal Society paper do not fit with the stagnant notion of the slow accumulation of random genetic mutations struggling to survive.

These rapid changes fit much better with contemporary research that reveals how organisms possess elaborate built-in systems composed of sensors, cellular algorithms, and output responses that enable them to continuously track environmental changes—man-made or otherwise—so they can quickly fit and fill new niches. Up-to-date research shows that they may employ dozens of mechanisms including epigenetic, hybridization, cryptic variation, behavioral changes, unreduced gametes, directed crossover, regulated micro-RNAs or RNA splicing, horizontal gene transfer, and even modulation of an organism's microbiota. None of these mechanisms require a struggle for life and death! Creationists have been reporting on these mechanisms which enable organisms to self-adjust to external conditions in a single generation—and often across multiple ones—for many years.9

Yet, it seems that the Royal Society and ScienceDaily nimbly absorbed findings against evolutionary theory as if they were evidence for their theory. Cornelius Hunter astutely exposed how evolutionists are trying to pull off a sleight-of-hand and swallow up findings related to epigenetics which contradict their theory.10 He expanded on, "the old maxim that truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. If we can slightly modify these three stages as follows, then we have the history of how evolution has struggled and opposed the scientific findings we now refer to as epigenetics ":

Reject and persecute
Delegitimize and minimize
Rename and incorporate
Hunter's framework shows that evolutionists have now advanced to stage three as touching "rapid evolution." This is a way to cover up the failed gradualist tenet of their theory. Keeping Hunter's framework handy will likely prove useful to spot when evolutionists disguise scientific findings contradictory to their theory as evidence.


McGill University. Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere. ScienceDaily. Posted on December 6, 2016, accessed December 10, 2016.
Hendry, A. P., K. M. Gotanda, E. I. Svensson. 2017. Human influences on evolution, and the ecological and societal consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 372 (1712): 20160028.
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA., 147, 148.
Jeanson, N. 2010. The Impetus for Biological Change. Acts & Facts. 39 (8): 6.
Anonymous. The Lost World of South American Ungulates: A YEC Ungulate Problem. Naturalis Historia. Posted by January 13, 2015, accessed December 13, 2016.
McGill University, Fast evolution, December 6, 2016.
Anonymous. The Lost World.
See: Tomkins, J. 2012. Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Molecular Cell Biology. Acts & Facts. 41 (4): 6.; Tomkins, J. 2012. Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 8.; Thomas, B. 2011. Yeast: Single Cells That Fit and Fill. Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 18.; Lightner, J. K. 2008. Life: Designed by God to Adapt. Answers in Depth. 3:37–39.
Hunter, C. Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert. Darwin's God. Posted at on November 15, 2016, accessed on December 11, 2016.

Distant Watery Planet Looks Young

Share Email Facebook Twitter Google+
A new analysis detailing the atmosphere of GJ 1214b—a planet located about 40 light years from earth and one that researchers have studied since 2009—appeared in the March issue of The Astrophysical Journal. According to Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist and lead author Zachory Berta, "GJ1214b is like no planet we know of. A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water."1

By analyzing its motion and size, astronomers were able to calculate the planet's density. If it were mostly water, that would explain why its mass is only seven times more than the earth's, even though it is about 2.7 times larger. It would be 20 times the earth's mass if it had earth's higher density.

Berta and his colleagues used the Hubble telescope to deduce that GJ 1214b's atmosphere is more like a steam bath than a dusty haze: "It orbits a red-dwarf star every 38 hours at a distance of 1.3 million miles, giving it an estimated temperature of 450° Fahrenheit."1 In contrast, earth is about 92 million miles away from the sun and has an average surface temperature of 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

A 2011 study of the GJ 1214b atmosphere reported that the planet orbits "a relatively bright" red-dwarf.2 How long would it take for the solar wind from a bright star to blow away water vapor from such a nearby planet? And how long would it take for the sheer heat of GJ 1214b to eject water vapor from its atmosphere into nearby space, especially considering its fast orbit?

The scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these. If planet GJ 1214b is as watery as astronomers say, then it presents a challenging puzzle for those determined to assign it an evolutionary age of millions or billions of years.


Hubble Reveals a New Type of Planet. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics press release, February 21, 2012, reporting on research published in Berta, Z. K. et al. 2012. The Flat Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Earth GJ1214b from Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope. The Astrophysical Journal. 747 (1).
Kempton, E. M-R., K. Zahnle and J. J. Fortney. 2012. The Atmospheric Chemistry of GJ 1214b: Photochemistry and Clouds. The Astrophysical Journal. 745 (1).
Image credit: David A. Aguilar (CfA). Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.


from ICR

Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory.1 They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.

Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.

However, physicists later realized this version of inflation theory was too simplistic. Newer versions of inflationary models have inflation stopping at different times in different places, leading to the idea of a multiverse consisting of infinitely many “pocket” universes.2

Anna Ijjas, the John A. Wheeler postdoctoral fellow at the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science; Paul J. Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University (and a former inflation theorist who has since become a vocal critic of the theory); and Abraham Loeb, the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University, argued that cosmologists should seriously consider abandoning inflation theory and contemplate alternatives.

Naturally, inflation theorists opposed this suggestion. Thirty-three high-profile physicists, including Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, George F. Smoot III, Andrei Linde, George Efstathiou, Steven Weinberg, Lisa Randall, and Lawrence Krauss published a rebuttal on the Scientific American website.3

Despite the stellar credentials of the article’s signers, they failed to convincingly answer the charges of Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb (IS&L). In fact, one particular argument was, at its heart, rather emotional.

According to the high-energy physics database INSPIRE, there are now more than 14,000 papers in the scientific literature, written by over 9,000 distinct scientists, that use the word “inflation” or “inflationary” in their titles or abstracts. By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community.3

However, whether or not inflation theory falls within the scientific method—or whether or not it’s correct—isn’t determined by how many inflation-related papers have been published. We don’t arrive at the truth by counting noses.

It’s understandable that inflation theorists, many of whom spent most of their careers working on inflationary models, have a deep investment in the subject. But an appeal to the sheer number of inflation papers published is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

The authors also argued that, contrary to the claims of IS&L, inflation theory is falsifiable. IS&L responded by pointing out that leading inflation theorist Alan Guth has acknowledged that, in inflation theory, “anything that can happen will happen.”3 They pointed out that inflation essentially predicts everything and so it makes no testable predictions. They also referred to a 2014 online video showing Alan Guth admitting that no single experiment could falsify inflation!4

One other claim, made almost in passing, of the pro-inflation theorists stood out. They claimed that the relative abundances of the light chemical elements were successfully predicted by the Big Bang model.3 Actually, this is not the case. The Big Bang model contains an adjustable parameter called the baryon-to-photon ratio, and this value was chosen by Big Bang theorists to generate amounts of helium and hydrogen that match observed abundances.5,6 In fact, Lawrence Krauss, one of the signers of the rebuttal letter, acknowledged in his popular-level book A Universe from Nothing that this agreement was obtained by “fitting” the value to the observed data.7 Hence, it is quite misleading to claim that the Big Bang model predicted the correct abundances of hydrogen and helium since those values were chosen—via the choice of the value for the baryon-to-photon ratio—to fit the Big Bang model. Furthermore, even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang still cannot correctly account for the amounts of lithium in the universe!8

Many Christians are tempted to accept that the Big Bang was the means God used to create the universe. But the Big Bang flatly contradicts Scripture and is riddled with serious scientific difficulties, some of which have been highlighted by this recent spat among leading theorists.9 Furthermore, where would it leave Christians if secular scientists should ultimately abandon the Big Bang? Christians should resist the temptation to accommodate Genesis to the fallible, ever-changing ideas of secular scientists.


Ijjas, A., P. J. Steinhardt, and A. Loeb. Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges. Scientific American. Posted on February 1, 2017, accessed on May 15, 2017.
Steinhardt, P. J. 2011. The Inflation Debate. Scientific American. 304 (4): 36-43.
Guth, A. et al. 2017. A Cosmic Controversy. Scientific American. Posted on February 2017, accessed May 15, 2017.
Schulson, M. A Debate Over Cosmic Inflation (and Editing at Scientific American) Gets Heated. Posted on May 9, 2017, accessed May 15, 2017.
Bergstrӧm, L. and A. Goobar. 2008. Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Springer Praxis Publishing, 167-176.
Hoyle, F., G. Burbidge, and J. V. Narlikar. 2000. A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97.
Krauss, L. M. 2012. A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press, 24-25.
Thomas, B. Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test. Creation Science Update. Posted on September 22, 2014, accessed May 15, 2017.
Hebert, J. and B. Thomas. 2014. Does Science Support the Big Bang? Acts & Facts. 43 (7): 21.

Errors of Evolution Part 2 Fossils don't lie!

From ICR

Best of 2017: Fleshy Fossils

The Institute for Creation Research has monitored the steady flow of fresh-looking fossils for over a decade. The year 2017 was impressive with its discoveries of biochemical variety that includes proteins, pigments, and even a pineal gland. Each such discovery presents a real challenge to the millions-of-years age assignments for these fossils, since best-case scenarios predict that biochemicals fizzle out in less than one million years.

Each discovery presents a real challenge to millions-of-years age assignments for these fossils, since best-case scenarios predict that biochemicals fizzle out in less than 1 million years. Tweet: Each discovery presents a real challenge to millions-of-years age assignments for these fossils, since best-case scenarios predict that biochemicals fizzle out in less than 1 million years. #BestOf2017: Fleshy Fossils -

@icrscience @icrbthomas

ICR’s Creation Science Update highlighted these 2017 discoveries of fresh-looking fossils:

• The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee researchers recovered amino acids—protein’s chemical building blocks—from preserved cells of a fossilized once-tropical tree from an Antarctic rock deemed 280 million years old. How can these amino acids still be intact?1

• Gerald Mayr from the Senckenberg Research Institute announced this year the discovery of the world’s oldest lipid. Germany’s Messel Shale, regarded as 48 million years old, harbored an ancient bird’s oil-filled preening gland. And the gland had some of the original oil still in it, not shale.2

• An international team described in the journal Scientific Reports fresh-looking pigments darkening the crusty skin of a fossil turtle.2 Nobody has explained what could possibly have kept bacteria from consuming the carbon-rich pigment for 54 million supposed years.

• German and American scientists described turquoise-colored Cretaceous egg pigments from Chinese oviraptor fossils.3

• Chinese researchers clearly photographed the insides of original bird bone that evolutionists insist was buried 120 million years ago. It had delicate internal canals and fine layers instead of the expected mud-borne minerals inside. Given Earth’s relentless degrading processes, including incessant water movement underground, who would expect a buried bone to persist for even a tenth of that imagined time?

• News outlets hailed a fabulous 2017 fossil the world’s best-preserved dinosaur. Later analyses revealed original pigments still inside its naturally mummified scaly skin.4 Such fresh features don’t fit its 112-125 million-year age assignment.

• Sweden’s Lund University reported fresh waxy cuticles coating supposedly 200-million year-old ginkgo leaves. Low-impact scanning techniques stunned scientists who did not expect them to be “full of organic molecules.”5

Finally, famed amber researcher George Poinar described mammalian blood cells still intact inside a tick trapped in Dominican amber. Amber has no magical preservation properties that would suspend the standard laws of chemical decay for millions of years.6

One more report confirmed collagen protein sequence from a supposedly 80-million-year-old Hadrosaur femur excavated in Montana. Published in the prestigious Journal of Proteome Research, the results again revealed the presence of hydroxyproline, an amino acid unique to collagen.7 Some fossil experts who still disbelieve fossil proteins attribute the discoveries to modern bacteria. But bacteria can’t make hydroxyproline—or collagen for that matter.

We predict 2018 will add more discoveries to the long list of biochemicals that can’t be millions of years old. Tweet: We predict 2018 will add more discoveries to the long list of biochemicals that can’t be millions of years old.

#BestOf2017: Fleshy #Fossils -

@icrscience @icrbthomas

The story that fossils are too old to still have short-lived chemicals crumbles under the weight of so many fine discoveries. We predict 2018 will add more discoveries to the long list of biochemicals that can’t be millions of years old.


Clarey, T. Fossil Trees in Antarctica Preserve Ancient Proteins. Creation Science Update. Posted on December 11, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
Thomas, B. Ancient Animal Biochemicals Again. Creation Science Update. Posted on December 7, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
Wiemann, J. et al. Dinosaur origin of egg color: oviraptors laid blue-green eggs. PeerJ. 5:e3706. See also ICR’s original announcement of this fossil: Thomas, B. Colorful Dinosaur Eggs Challenge Deep Time. Creation Science Update. Posted on June 11, 2015, accessed December 15, 2017
Thomas, B. Spectacular Dinosaur Has Skin, Horn, Pigments. Creation Science Update. Posted on August 28, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
See references in Thomas, B. Fossil Plants Contain Original Molecules. Creation Science Update. Posted on August 3, 2017, accessed December 15, 2017.
Thomas, B. 2010. Amber Jewelry: A Conversation Piece for Creation Evidence. Acts & Facts. 39 (9): 17.
Schroeter, E.R. et al. 2017. Expansion for the Brachylophosaurus canadensis Collagen I Sequence and Additional Evidence of the Preservation of Cretaceous Protein. Journal of Proteome Research. 16 (2): 920-932.
*Brian Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his M.S. in biotechnology from Stephen F. Austin State University.

Stage image credit: Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

Texas Canyons Highlight Geologic Evidence for Catastrophe


In the summer of 2002, record rainfall in the Texas Hill Country overfilled Canyon Lake. Water coursed over the top of its dam and carved huge, steep-walled canyons through the limestone bedrock downstream. The scoured riverbed, now called Canyon Lake Gorge, is over a mile long and has been cordoned off for scientific study.

After studying the area for the last eight years, scientists are now making the same kinds of conclusions about rapid, catastrophic processes having sculpted the earth that creation geologists have been teaching for decades.

In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, geologists Michael Lamb and Mark Fonstad examined the colossal earth-carving damage that occurred in such short time at Canyon Lake. They sensibly extrapolated that the event could be a useful model in interpreting similar gorges on earth and even on Mars.

Sanjeev Gupta, a field geologist at Imperial College London who was not involved in the study, told Science News, "Geology is typically about events that happened long ago and very slowly. This is the one of the first studies to study the effects of a single canyon-cutting event."1

But it isn't one of the first at all.

In fall 2009, 45 geologists participated in a field trip to the "Little Grand Canyon," about 1/40th the size of Arizona's Grand Canyon, that was formed on March 19, 1982, after a dam breach triggered a catastrophic mudflow at Mount St Helens.2 The Geological Society of America published a field guide paper in 2009 on the event.3 Years before that, the Institute for Creation Research produced the documentary Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe on the catastrophic results of the volcanic eruption. These resources showcase the awesome power that moving water has to produce massive erosion in short time periods.

Now, the Nature Geoscience authors similarly "show that the flood moved metre-sized boulders, excavated of limestone and transformed a soil-mantled valley into a bedrock canyon in just days."4

The "long ago and very slow" mindset has been a severe barrier to proper interpretation of geologic formations. For example, visitors to the Grand Canyon for decades have been told that it was carved by the Colorado River over long ages. But if that were the case, it would have left a rolling, rounded landscape, not the steep-sided canyon walls that look like those flanking the north fork of the Toutle River at Mount St Helens or the Canyon Lake Gorge in central Texas.

Lamb compared the "streamlined islands"4 of material that the Canyon Lake flood left behind to similar structures in the English Channel and the Channeled Scablands of Washington state. These had been explained by creation geologists as Ice Age-era, breached-dam local flooding events in which massive lakes drained into the sea, carving new landscapes along the way.5

Alan D. Howard, a geomorphologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, has studied Martian landforms. As if taking a cue from a catastrophist creation-Flood geologist, he said concerning the Canyon Lake Gorge, "It doesn't take millions of years to create an impressive channel. Flowing liquid can do a lot of work in a short period of time."1

Indeed, it can and certainly did.


Perkins, S. 2010. Even a newborn canyon is big in Texas. ScienceNews. 178 (2): 15.
Austin, S. A. 2009. Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting. Acts & Facts. 38 (12): 8-9.
Austin, S. A. 2009. The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens. Geological Society of America Field Guides. 15: 337-344.
Lamb, M. P. and M. A. Fonstad. 2010. Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event. Nature Geoscience. 3 (7): 477-481.
Silvestru, E. 2007. Wild, wild floods! Creation Ministries International. Posted on September 5, 2007, accessed June 24, 2010.
Image credit: Roger Sigler, 2008

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



Well once you with "superior knowledge are finished "lmao", pick up your backside, put it back where it belongs and read on if you dare!

Despite best efforts from both sides, the creation/evolution debate is not going to disappear anytime soon.Despite many attempts to eradicate creation thinking in govt. schools, the majority of Americans still believe in some form of creation! So good bad or indifferent we are involved in a battle of worldviews.

Both sides look at the same evidence- do research and reach vastly different conclusions. The Darwinianists tend to mock and scorn scientists who believe in YEC as foolish or as Richard Dawkins proudly declares- "are not scientists at all:.

In this you are free to mock and disagree- but defend your position. Just saying someone is wrong without a why is about as useful as a colander trying to stop you from getting wet in a rainstorm. Unless of course your whole motive is just to mock and run.

I am an unabashed unashamed Young Earth Creationist. I believe the evidence supports that model of origins over the other evolutionary model which starts with the big bang (evolutionary cosmology) all the way to our present biodiversity of life over the course of approx. 14 billion years.

I will post links both to evolutionists and YEC scientists also for my part. So if you are willing and think you can make a YEC believer look foolish-welcome!!!!!!

This is an all or nothing ploy on the left's part!

When all the smoke and mirros clear- the public will know that one side is lying and lying massively!

If tthe right is lying- then they are trying to protect Trump and though there is no evidence yet- there was collusion that will come out somehow. Even after years of watching Carter Page- they could only go after himn for a on related crime!

But if the left is lying- this is the biggest scandal to hit American Politics probably in our history! It means there was collusion with the left, obstruction of Justice by the left, malfeasance by the left,

The left is doubling down- Time will telland I hope it goes down before October!
Go to Page: 1