In our series, we’ve discovered ample support that evolutionists fit facts to conclusions. In this article, we’ll continue to explore whether it is true.
In this post, we begin exploring Venema’s evidences in chapter two of Adam and the Genome, titled “Genomes as Language, Genomes as Books.”
In this article, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson reviews chapter 1 (written by Venema and titled “Evolution as a Scientific Theory”) of Adam and the Genome.
It appears that Venema fits facts to his preconceived conclusions. Data and facts from YEC scientists that contradicted his claims were left out.
The recent publication of Adam and the Genome illustrated how evolutionists find new and more nuanced ways to contradict the biblical account.
Duff’s article explicitly and exclusively focuses on criticizing the YEC view of speciation, rather than on supporting the evolutionary view.
For more than a century Christians have looked for the scientific silver bullet that would destroy Darwinian evolution and prove biblical creation to be true.
All of these data together lead to testable scientific predictions that put the evolutionary and old-earth creation models to shame.
Since species are defined by traits and characteristics that are heritable, the origin of species is a fundamentally genetic question.
Careful reexamination of the first two chapters of Darwin’s seminal work, On the Origin of Species, leads to a surprising conclusion.
Despite his Herculean reading, his conclusions and advice to creationists illustrate the limits of analyzing a movement from a distance.
Today’s species are the link between the past and the present. The genetics of the species around us today contain the echo of the Ark.
The more we learn about the origin of species, the more we know about Noah’s Ark. The Flood reverberates to the present day in the form of genetics.
These results underscore the biblical model of human origins and simultaneously undercut the validity of the evolutionary out-of-Africa model.PDF Download
This study shows that created heterozygosity, together with natural processes that are observable, is sufficient to account for species’ diversity.PDF Download
Brandon Ambrosino's article about AiG undermines his own position—and illustrates how hostile media often help the very activities they’re trying to oppose.
Kenneth Keathley distinguishes our view from universal common ancestry, but putting “Ken Ham Embraces Evolution” as the title of his post is highly misleading.
No results found in .