A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
A Darwinian Primer
The 6 types of evolution taught in the average public school, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution, and the last being simple modifications or changes within kind and not even really “evolution” are:
- Cosmic evolution
- Stellar evolution
- Chemical evolution
- Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
- Macro-evolution
- Micro-evolution (Changes within kind – not evolution)
Abiogenesis Reloaded
In previous Sunday posts, I documented the impossibilities of Cosmic evolution, Stellar evolution, and Chemical evolution. I then presented a comprehensive series of posts documenting that life on earth simply cannot have been around for billions or millions of years based on numerous scientific facts.
Last Sunday, I explained the basics of the Darwinist belief in abiogenesis, recently re-packaged and re-branded and re-labeled to be called biopoiesis, or whatever other new and improved authoritatively scientific sounding jargon they want to call their religious belief in spontaneous generation.
If you do not have that context, I encourage you to select the CREATION category and read through all of the previous posts. I pray that doing so will be a blessing to you. (more…)
Pin It Tags: Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, Biology, Charles Darwin, Creation-evolution controversy, Creationism, Darwinism, Darwinist, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Isaac Asimov, Louis Pastuer, Methodological Naturalism, Microbiology, Nature, Origin of life, Religion and science, Religion/Belief, Secular Humanism, Spontaneous generation, Stephen Jay Gould
The next series of Sunday posts will focus on the Darwinian concept of “Abiogenesis” which is the authoritatively scientific sounding word that Darwinists invented to describe how life sprung into existence from non-living matter.
Pin It
Today, I will conclude the series on the age of planet earth documenting evidence from living things and demonstrating some mathematical evidences.
Pin It
Today, I will document logical evidence for a young earth based on a series of logical questions. The premise of these questions is going to be based on facts, not assumptions. I realize that if you are a Darwinist then logic is meaningless to you and facts are irrelevant. Therefore, this post is written more for those who are capable of logical thought and accepting facts, and for that I apologize.
Pin It
I realized that while all of this information is far from new to me, now, after the years of research I have performed on this subject, it may be completely and entirely new to some readers due to the fact that no one dares teach it and thus defy the Darwinian stranglehold on academia.
Pin It
There are numerous facts that tend to point to the conclusion that our world is quite young. This post will focus on some of the evidences from beneath the surface.
Pin It
Vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism, but if the earth is quite young, that directly refutes Darwinism. This post continues to present facts about the age of the earth looking at evidence from our atmosphere and from our globe itself.
Pin It
I documented evidence from comets, meteors and meteorites, our fellow planets in our solar system, and our sun. All of the empirical evidence suggests that the earth cannot be billions or even millions of years old. There are an astonishing number of factual evidences that our world is quite young.
Pin It
As I said last Sunday, vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. Today, I will continue to present some facts about the age of the earth and the universe in which we exist. While opinions can vary pretty vastly, the fact is that there are numerous factual evidences that our world is quite young.
Pin It
Vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, the converse does not follow. Short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. This is why Darwinists have worked so hard over the last half century to make anyone who believes earth and the universe to be, in fact, rather young look like a quack, a nut, or someone with an agenda.
Pin It
