Pro Rege Papers

I was watching a PBS science special recently (some of the most profound evolutionary propaganda out there, but still interesting to explore the wonder of God’s creation) and I heard this quote from a scientist:

One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind is you should never fall in love with your theory. So it’s an idea, it’s a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so.

He was talking about an astronomical theory that he had, but he made a very good point that should be applied to all theories—including evolution.

Most of the secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution as a theory. They don’t like to question it, they don’t like to look for answers anywhere else, they don’t like to test it. All these things should be done with a normal theory, but they aren’t with evolution.

Once, a scientist wrote a preface to an edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Darwin, saying that the book gave Western Civilization the excuse to pursue their sexual lusts. The secular scientific community has fallen in love with evolution because it has given man an excuse to reject God and live as he pleases. As the racist eugenics advocate, Friedrich Nietzsche, once said,

The Greatest modern event—that God is dead…—has now begun to cast its first shadows over Europe…. In fact, we philosophers and “free spirits” feel ourselves irradiated as by a new rosy dawn by the report that “the old God is dead”; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment, and expectation. At last the horizon seems once more unobstructed.

The secular world does not want to give evolution up, even if it no longer fits all the known facts. Evolution has not, and cannot be proven. The secular community must be willing to give it up. Modifying has run its course; the theory still isn’t working. It’s time to move on to another view, one that the Western scientific community embraced for a thousand years. It’s time to move on to the view that all the facts seem to imply. It’s time to move on to the view that God has revealed to us in His Word. Maybe they will learn something in doing so.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…

I watched this NOVA episode last night about the Scablands. The Scablands are an area in eastern Washington that contain unusual geographic features, such as sudden huge potholes, rocks dropped onto the ground randomly, steep drop-off cliffs, and unusual enormous scars. It has been a mystery for years as to how that landscape came about, but now geologists believe they have finally figured it out. They say it was a megaflood in Washington that carved this landscape. According to the theory, a glacier flowed down a mountain until it crossed through a valley in Idaho across the path of the Clark Fork river that was previously flowing through that valley. A huge lake (bigger than Lake Erie and Ontario combined) formed on the 2,000 foot high ice dam, and the water eventually broke through the ice barrier to flow down through eastern Washington in a huge flood miles wide, and hundreds of feet tall. This caused the staggering formations we see today.

They go to great lengths to show us the enormous effects of flood water upon a landscape. They perform tests, and conclude that they have previously underestimated the power of huge catastrophes. (Does this sound familiar yet?)

The program went through the history of what scientists have thought about the origin of the Scablands, and told the story of one man, J. Harlen Bretz, who had the same hypothesis as the modern scientists do. In the 1920s he said that a huge flood had carved out the valley, but he didn’t know where the water had come from. Scientists excused his ideas as crazy, saying that it sounded too much like a “biblical flood”. The narrator even said that Bretz’s views were viewed as “heresy” to geology at the time because of the pervasive view of slow and gradual erosion over millions of years that evolution supports.

These geologists today obviously aren’t putting two and two together. They point out the enormous power of water and what it can do to a landscape. But they deny that a much bigger, more forceful worldwide flood could have done basically the same or slightly larger things. The hypocrisy is funny sometimes. More and more evidence is turning up that massive catastrophes have played a major part in shaping our planet, but geologists still hold to the gradualist evolutionary view of earth history. There’s another PBS show on today, and one next week that both talk about catastrophes causing enormous geographic features.

They also won’t admit clearly that science is deeply wrong sometimes, and they never tie previous errors to the fact that science could be deeply wrong today. I noticed that the geologists of the period quickly dismissed Bretz because of his views of a “biblical” sized flood (which everyone obviously knows is completely impossible). The evolutionary community is dismissing creationism today in the same type of way.
The evolutionists need to consider seemingly “far-fetched” ideas again and look at the world around them. Oh wait, that’s actual science.

The program with the transcript.

It has just been reported that Homo floresiensis, an ape-man hopeful, is only a pygmy with a condition called microcephaly. This condition made the skull of the fossil look abnormally small, prompting researchers in 2004 to evaluate the skeleton as the remains of a “hobbit-like” ape-man. They crafted a new species out of that one skeleton, neglecting to collect further evidence (as usual). I remember watching a PBS show on it, with Darwinists touting it as a great discovery.

This is just another example of the hurriedness of evolutionists to accept a fossil that would prove evolution without checking out the facts completely. You see this in the already debunked Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, and others. This syndrome is almost identical to the hurriedness of the mainstream media to accept stories that would incriminate Israel, as shown recently in the masterful debunking of the “missile-destroyed ambulance” story by Zombie.

Evolutionists constantly have to retract or say something new that nullifies an old view. Another hypothesis is up and running now that says the Big Bang was just the colliding of a tiny bit of material with another universe existing in another dimension. The supposed age of the earth is constantly changing. I could go on and on with examples. Man’s views are constantly changing when he is not grounded on God’s Word. The Bible is the only solid foundation from which to work from. It is truth, and when you contradict it, you run into problems.

AiG said a year-and-half ago that “Homo floresiensis” was just a human with microcephaly. But as usual, the evolutionary community didn’t listen. But they now admit it, along with what we’ve been saying for years about no real races, and so on. It’s funny to watch sometimes.

About four months ago, Axinar posted a comment on one of my entries giving a whole list of ape-men that supposedly led us on the journey from hydrogen to human. One of the ones he listed was “Homo floresiensis”. GavinO and I had fun with his list, but my initial response has now been proven yet again, that all those are humans, apes, or fakes.

Note: The heads-up on this came from AiG’s great series, News to Note.

UPDATE: The link wasn’t valid for a while. This one should be good.

This is a short post, as will be many of my following posts, I’m afraid I’m getting really busy and don’t have as much time to post now as I did this summer. Daily posts will likely stop, and this blog will become more weekly.
AiG has a really good weekly series going, News to Note, where they reply to the various media articles about creation and evolution. This is their third or fourth one, responding to various things such as DNA discoveries, the ongoing ID controversy in public schools, various stereotypes about creationists, and a few other things.

Israel launched another raid into Lebanon with the expressed intention of stopping a shipment of arms getting to Hezbollah. Of course, everybody is angry about Israel’s supposed violation of the truce, without saying that Hezbollah violated it by trying to get weapons and refusing to disarm. People are disappointed with France, which hasn’t been very reliable or diligent in its obligations to keep the peace. That is to be expected, of course, along with the ceasefire not working, and the UN’s inability to do anything. Just another straw in the barn sized stack of hay showing evidence of the UN’s inability to accomplish its mission.
For you new readers, I would recommend going back to my previous posts and read them to get more of an idea of what this blog is mostly about. The Islam discussion was off topic, though still enjoyable and educational, as all debates are. I hope you will post your thoughts as they come to you in comments, which I will likely be able to answer, since that doesn’t take as much time.

UPDATE: This is also a commemoration of my 100th post, though that passed a few days ago. I also have exactly 200 comments total, as of this writing. That’s an average of 2 comments for every post. Thanks for the responses guys!

There has been a lot of hubbub in the media about AiG’s new Creation Museum in Kentucky, just a few miles south of Cincinnati, Ohio. Yahoo, the New York Times, FOX, AP, and other news sites are running an stories on the museum set to open next spring. There are many gross misinterpretations and faulty ideas that these articles perpetrate about AiG and the museum, which are rebutted here and here. Further down the article they have an explanation of what went on in Kansas as well as some developments in genetics that are fascinating.

AiG’s web traffic has spiked, and a lot of people are getting the dig on what AiG is all about. They have many good articles that I draw from a lot.

Answers in Genesis has an article that reports the story of one professor in a prominent American university who taught a class that examined evolution fully with all the arguments for and against it. The university, professor, and students are all anonymous for reasons of the professor’s job security, etc.

The students’ comments and the survey at the bottom of the page show handily that if you look closely at the facts and consider all the evidence, evolution does not make much sense.

I hope more classes like this will be taught in other universities.

There are two major arguments that I have noticed that evolutionists always use after you present solid evidence against their theory. These are things that they mention as a last resort before walking away (or not responding, in the case of the Internet).

Those who are not scientists, and who are desperate humanists (or very young), will swear at you and tell you that you’re a religious nut and therefore cannot be listened to. In other words, if you differ from his view, you are not allowed to speak (or exist). That of course is not logical at all and we’re not going to deal with that extensively.

Those who are scientists (or very scientific) will say that Creationism has not been approved by the leading scientific boards and societies, and is therefore not up for discussion and must be false. Now let’s just pretend that science only stayed in one position and never changed its stance on a subject. Then we wouldn’t have nearly all the discoveries that have come about since the beginning of time. The fact is that most of the leading scientific boards are loaded with evolutionists. Why? It’s because the board would reject any creationist that would want a seat. If an editor of a scientific journal decides to publish an article that suggests an ID perspective, he gets booted from his job (that really happened, by the way). So the sensible evolutionist is really saying, “My side doesn’t accept your view, therefore your view is false.” Well of course the evolutionist side wouldn’t accept the creationist view; they’re polar opposites. That statement is illogical. It doesn’t prove anything besides the fact that two sides disagree. Not to mention that there are plenty of creationist organizations and societies out there that have a growing membership.

Another facet of this false argument is that the Darwinists always pooh-pooh the lists of scientists that are members of creationist societies. They scoff at the lists of astronomers, biologists, geologists, etc., etc., etc., that are enrolled in creationist ranks. They claim that those fields are not science, and those people are not scientists, because they don’t accept evolution when they do their work. I guess they’re just disappointed that we don’t have 3,000 evolutionary biologists working for us who plaster feathers onto reptiles and put knee joints on ape bones.

Okay, that was being overly sarcastic, but I can’t resist poking fun.