Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Refuting evolution doesn’t require complicated equations or lab experiments—though those do the job, too. Just remember the two fundamental flaws we can use to show evolution to be not even scientifically viable.
Evolutionists may never be persuaded by evidence alone, since they interpret the evidence according to their worldview. But by challenging their worldview, you can show that their assumptions—from logic to absolute morality to uniformity—are actually resting on biblical ground.
The declared purpose of cosmology is to understand the structure, operation, and origin of the universe and the earth only “in the framework of natural laws.” This restriction precludes the planning and purposeful acts of a Creator God. Many scientific objections can be raised against the above model.
If we depend on evidences outside the Bible to strengthen our faith, we can be shaken every time another argument comes along that seems to undermine the Bible. We need to make sure our trust rests in the God who gave us Scripture, not human arguments that question His Word.
Creation overflows with evidence that points toward the Creator God. The design and complexity of life loudly declare, “There is a God!”
Mathematical and probability calculations powerfully demonstrate the impossibility of biological evolution to produce the diversity and complexity of life.
Non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed that the evolutionary conclusion on the origin of life has been accepted based on faith not fact.
Many evolutionists argue fervently against the existence of God and biblical truth. But in order to make their case they must borrow from a biblical worldview!
Evolution is often upheld as proven fact. This is far from the truth! Two simple arguments from observational science demonstrate that evolution is impossible.
How should we use “Were you there?” to engage and challenge the evolution story of the universe and promote the biblical creation 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.
Research shows that bedbugs are still bedbugs. They don't demonstrate Darwinian evolution—they vary within their created kind to survive in a sin-cursed world.
Several years ago scientists made a startling discovery that seemed to undermine the claim that dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago.
Surprising number of genomic “echoes” are associated with biological sonar in dolphins and bats.
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?”
Opposing the date of 140–80 million years old that some scientists ascribe to our (supposed) oldest mammalian ancestors, Wible, et al., conclude, based on an analysis of a shrewlike fossil, that mammals evolved “only” 65 million years ago.
A National Geographic photo-essay showing the diversity and beauty of ocean-dwelling worms has resurrected a piece of scientific misinformation that should have died long ago.
What type of toes would you expect to see in tree-dwelling salamanders?
Articles like the one discussed may leave evolutionists puzzled even while creationists chuckle.
Although mitochondria and plastids share some similarities with bacteria/cyanobacteria, that alone is not evidence that the organelles originated from them through endosymbiosis.
Researchers have discovered a gene that has “evolved [too] quickly.”
What should one call it if pupils are taught something which is factually incorrect? Whose fault is it if pupils pick up factually incorrect information?
Biochemical sequences necessary for the evolution of photosynthesis would have required the evolution of a set of sophisticated enzymes that generated a series of useless intermediates.
Although some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity, others, while using different wording, tacitly admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution.
On Saturday, 26 October, the World War II fighter plane Glacier Girl is expected to fly again.
Our new video From a Frog to a Prince is having a beneficial
The good news this month is the appearance of Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, published by the Free Press.
A “mysterious network” of mud springs on the edge of the ‘market town’ of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England, has yielded a remarkable surprise.
The dotted lines on evolutionary family trees reinforce the fact that there is no evidence to prove the existence of common ancestors for the animals shown.
People who have great confidence in their own enlightenment and the inherent ability of man to solve the problems of humanity without divine aid are also vulnerable to pride and self-deception.
'How can the Bible be true if life has evolved over millions of years? Evolution is a fact. Look what's happened to the horse.'
Q:Dr Norman, what is the specific biomedical research area in which you have been labelled a groundbreaking pioneer?
Contrary to 45 years of common teaching,4 physical training instructor David W. Apts, author of The Back Book, coaches students to lift with their back muscles.
he fabrication of a dog ancestor of the whales with a pre-recorded 'growl, growl, yum, yum, yum' voice, all from a supposed single tooth, was more than I could swallow.
According to evolutionists, Homo erectus was a separate species which evolved into Homo sapiens—even though the theory has been embarrassed by the finding of erectus and sapiens fossils.
Say ‘bats’ and most people think of what are known as microbats—the echo-locating, usually insect-eating types. But there are also larger megabats, such as the fruit bats.
If bats evolved, from what did they evolve? Would you believe the shrew?
Evolutionists generally believe that insects with two wings have evolved from the ‘more primitive’ or ‘unspecialized’ four-winged condition.
The so-called ‘simple’ and ‘primitive’ eye of a trilobite is an incredibly complex optical system.
In their attempts to prove evolution by the horse series, evolutionists grossly over-simplifiy and ignore some facts.
The relentless tendency of complex molecules is to break down into simpler molecules.
If the mammary glands, or breasts of animals that nurse their young, evolved slowly over millions of years, how did the young survive until these complex organs were perfected?
Rivers flow downhill. Heat flows from a hot area to a cooler area. Clothes and shoes wear out, and buildings crumble if not maintained. But can water flow uphill?
No one has ever seen a mutated lizard or snake which would give a clue as to how it could have evolved to become so legless, and yet so perfectly adapted to being a snake.