Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

btw a 2 second google search popped up with this link http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/ It shows apartial list of creation scientists in the biological sciences with....DEGREES :)

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Well hopefully I'm fairly compotent... I'm thinking about going into surgery ;) So you would rather take facts that don't make sense, that can be disproven, to keep things "not boring'. Physiology, anatamoy, immunology,pathology all stem from biology and don't need evolution to make them interesting. Perhaps very few "Biologists" deny the science of evolution because to be a run of the mill biologist you have to embrace it uncondtionally and are penalized for speaking out against it especially in a university setting. Even public school biologists can't speak up against it. Censorship does not equate to agreement. Creationists do contribute a lot to science. Because you choose not to look for them or read them does not mean they do not exist.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I've read A LOT of science articles, been taught a lot of Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, even some Anthropology, Archeology etc.... Always in the process of learning, and questioning. NEVER ACCEPTING BLINDLY.. I would be the first person to embrace evolution IF the tests, the results, the interpretations presented to me PROVED evolution... even resonably. However, a critical review of the science leads to a suprising conclusion...evolution is wrong.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear BobCu: It's very interesting that you find fault with the person who presents an argument as opposed to the argument itself. Very briefly, I copied and pasted for simplicity sake. I can find you various articles I have read written by PhD's and biologists/chemists etc... if you would like. Off the top of my head I personally know a Dr.Edward Neeland professor at UBC-Okanagan with a double major (major in Biology/Chemisty) teaching as an organic chemistry prof that has presented the same arguments and conclusions in seminars outside of the university setting. I myself have a major in biology and currently in my 2nd of 4th year at Medical school. I have been subjected to a phenomenal amount of evolutionary theories; so i'm not approaching this blindly. It's easy to dismiss an argument and not challenge it critically if you don't hold the presenter in high regard. So instead try to challenge the argument.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Dear BobCu: Nope not magically but by the loving hand of a creator. Science will not say "Jesus is Lord", but it will disprove evolution, and simply stating, in the absence of evolution there is creationism. From there, take it where you will. In essence, evolutionists believe that it all magically started. They need those initial cells to pre-exist for evolution to occur and there's no way for them to have spontaneously evolved from...nothing. AND THIS, has been proven, thanks to a critical review of MIller's experiment.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear agentorange: Also, in regards to your fancifull interpretation of 98% Chimp found on the excellent scientific website http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i4f.htm, I highly suggest you re-read the whole article, look at the sources cited to understand where the information was taken from. Also focus on what was actually compared (without sounding condesending you didn't understand what was compared or how the values were obtained). Honestly give it a moment to "stew". Then let me know what you think.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear agentorange: In response to your "Unlike your ‘neat cooler’ organisms are living systems that reproduce by themselves, undergo natural attrition, predation and habitat lose, and also undergo random per generation mutation rates. Your inanimate cooler is a man made object."

Anybody who has taken cell signalling, immunology, cell biology can agree on one simple fact. The cell is AMAZING!! :D The various processes of cellular life related to dna transcription, translation, energy utilization, cellular apoptosis pathways are inherently complex. Much more than a cooler. Now the question becomes if you believe in evolution....how did that 1st initial primordial cell develop w/ the ability to evolve? No evolutionist can say how. Miller tried to show amino acid formation and discovered that by highly maniuplating a closed system with a reducing atmosphere, an electric stimuli, clay trap yadda yadda yada you can create a few amino acids (not all required for cellular life) which normally would degrade outside such a system. And even if you give Miller the benefit of the doubt how do amino acids evolve into a functional cell? There is not "natural selection on an amino acid level". A cooler has just as good of a chance of evolving from nothing as does a cell.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Unbelievable! They found one segment of fish DNA that is 80% similar to human DNA, and jumped to the conclusion that humans got it by a “genetic invader” and co-opted it to do something other than what it does in a fish. This is simply fanciful speculation, but it somehow got through the peer review process and was reported as scientific fact in a prestigious scientific journal.

Facts Foul Up the Theory
Unfortunately for evolutionists, ultraconserved DNA presents a difficult problem for evolutionists. Remember, these regions are supposedly conserved because they are critical to the life of the organism. Scientists intentionally damaged some of these ultraconserved regions in some mice, expecting them to die. The cause of death would show what function these ultraconserved regions performed. When they did the experiment, they got surprising results.


A colony of mice whose very existence defies logic could rewrite our understanding of human evolution, health and disease, researchers say.

…

[Nadav] Ahituv [a human geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco] made four mouse 'knock-outs', each one lacking a stretch of DNA between 222 and 731 base pairs long. These same stretches of DNA exist in human genomes, base pair for base pair. This 'ultraconserved' DNA is exactly the same across the long evolutionary distance between humans and mice and rats. So why the mice lived could answer fundamental questions about evolution. 4

If it is really true that these segments of DNA have remained absolutely unchanged over millions of years of evolution because any change would make the creature unfit for survival, then changing them should kill the creature. But experiments have shown that mice can live without them. Apparently, there must be some sort of redundancy in the DNA code that allows the creature to function despite damage to these “critical” regions. It is almost as if the DNA code was designed to be robust enough to withstand some damage. But if that were the case, and if mutations in DNA have been going on for millions of years at the rate evolutionists believe, then these apparently redundant regions would have showed some mutations by now.

Our Rat Relatives
Finally, we cannot help commenting on “the long evolutionary distance between humans and mice and rats.” Evolutionary distance is said to be long or short, depending upon what suits evolutionists the best. The reason has to do with Animal Rights and Evolution, which just happens to be the topic of this month’s Evolution in the News.


Footnotes:

1 Erika Check, Nature, 6 September 2007, “Crashing DNA's ultraconservative party” pages 10-11.
2 Nature, 6 September 2007, “Life as we know it”, p 1.
3 Erika Check, Nature, 6 September 2007, “Crashing DNA's ultraconservative party” pages 10-11.
4 ibid.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Feature Article - September 2007 http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v11i12f.htm
by Do-While Jones

Ultraconserved DNA

Evolutionary bias drives terminology, and terminology drives thinking.

You may have heard the term, “ultraconserved DNA.”


Ultraconserved DNA was first described in May 2004, when a group led by David Haussler at the University of California, Santa Cruz, reported the existence of 481 stretches of DNA more than 200 base pairs long with completely identical sequences in mice, rats and humans. 1

The paper in question focuses on segments of 'ultraconserved' DNA — sections that have stayed exactly the same throughout recent vertebrate evolution, and are identical in humans, rats and mice (see page 10). The available evidence suggests that this extreme example of DNA conservation is no accident: the sequence stays because there is a strong selective force weeding out mutations in it. In other words, it is likely to be important to its host. 2



The basic assumption behind the term is that some parts of a creature’s DNA have not changed much over millions of years of evolution. That is, its DNA sequence has been “conserved.” If it hasn’t changed at all, then it is “ultraconserved.”

This terminology is based on the assumption that all DNA sequences are the result of random mutations filtered by natural selection, rather than design. Since the ultraconserved DNA segments are presumed to be the same because they have not changed during millions of years of evolution in different creatures, the existence of ultraconserved regions cannot be used to prove that these regions have not changed for millions of years. That would be circular logic.

An Amusing Waste of Time
Certainly there is value in examining DNA sequences, and attempting to correlate DNA sequences to functional results. Comparing DNA from various creatures is useful because it advances science in theoretical ways (basic understanding of life) and practical ways (medical breakthroughs).

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists tend to get distracted in a futile attempt to reconstruct evolutionary history. DNA analysis can never establish the way in which creatures evolved if they are not really the result of evolution. It is an analysis that is doomed to fail, which wastes time, talent, and resources. It only results in some amusing conclusions. Here is one:


Only a single ultraconserved element has so far revealed its origins. By scanning genome data, Haussler's group found that one human ultraconserved element is 80% similar to a piece of DNA found in a 400-million-year-old class of ancient fish that includes the coelacanth. The element had been shuttled into the fish genome by a genetic invader called a retroposon, but mammals have now co-opted it to boost expression of a brain-development gene called ISL1. 3

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

To understand how evaporative coolers evolved into trucks, we have to study the electric motor in the cooler, and the alternator in the truck. Externally, both look very similar; but the motor is wound for a single phase, while the alternator has three phases. This is evidence of gene replication. Furthermore, the alternator has evolved a six-diode bridge, which originally had some unknown survival benefit, but was later adapted to converting alternating current to direct current.

Despite the obvious similarities, there are many differences between a truck and an evaporative cooler, which prove that it has been a very long time since trucks and coolers shared a common ancestor.

Some people might say that trucks and coolers were designed by engineers, and that the similarity in the brackets is evidence of design. After all, it is a simple and effective method for adjusting belt tension. But if trucks and coolers were consciously designed, it must be the case that the engineers conspired to make it appear that both trucks and coolers evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore, if engineers really do exist, they ought not to be trusted because they are sneaky and deceitful people.

Seriously, chimps and people really do have very similar genes. But that doesn’t argue in favor of a common ancestor any more than it argues in favor of a common designer.

1 Gibbons, Science, Vol. 281. 4 Sep 1998, “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?” pp. 1432-1434 (Ev)
2 ibid.
3 Fujiyama, Science, Vol. 295, 4 Jan 2002, “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map” pp. 131-134. (Ev)
4 ibid.
5 ibid.
6 Science, Vol. 298, 25 October 2002, “Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”, pp. 719-720 (Ev)

Article written and taken from http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i4f.htm www.ScienceAgainstEvolution.org

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

How similar is human DNA to chimp DNA? We don’t know; but the 98% number certainly doesn’t seem to be born out by recently published data.

Significance of Similarity
Having said all that, we admit that there is a certain amount of genetic similarity between humans and other animals. What does that mean? Is genetic similarity necessarily the result of evolution?



The answer might be found in an evaporative cooler.

Those readers who are not fortunate enough to live in the Mojave Desert probably aren’t familiar with evaporative coolers. Evaporative coolers have large fans which suck hot air (more than 100 degree F) through wet fiber pads. The hot air evaporates the water, resulting in a heat transfer which cools the air down to 80 degrees F (or lower, if you are lucky). The fan blows the cool, moist air into the house.

Pictures found @ http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i4f.htm

The lower picture is a close-up of the bracket that holds the electric motor on the evaporative cooler on the roof of my house. When both screws (and two other similar screws on the other side) are loosened, the bracket can be rotated so that the distance between the motor and the fan can be adjusted to produce the proper tension on the fan belt.

There is an almost identical bracket that holds the alternator in my truck with the proper tension against the fan belt! This bracket represents about 1% of the total mass of the cooler, but it is 98.5% similar to the bracket that holds the alternator in my truck. Not only that, the fan belts are virtually identical. (Both are cracked and liable to break at any moment.) The pulleys are identical too. There is less than 1.5% difference between an evaporative cooler and a truck!

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Looking at the most similar sequences, they said, “The number of BESs having an alignment longer than 50 base pairs (bp) with 90% identity was 77,461 [out of 114,421].” So, they found that only 67.7% of the sequences were at least 90% correlated. If that is true, where does the 98% similarity figure come from? Later in the report they say,

The BESs mapped with high confidence were used to calculate the difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes at the nucleotide level. The number of sites in valid alignments (nucleotide sites that have PHRED quality values q >= 30) was 19,813,086. Out of this number, 19,568,394 sites were identical to their human counterparts for a mean percent identity of 98.77. This value is consistent with previous observations; however, our calculation comes from a much larger random comparison of slightly less than 1% of the total genome. 5


That explains it. If you look at less than 1/100th of the total genome, you can find areas that are 98.77% similar! But this is not always true.

For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite so similar after all. … The researchers assessed the resemblance between the chimp’s chromosome 22 and the equivalent human chromosome, 21. They compared 27 million bases, and “much to our surprise, we found around 57 areas of rearrangement between the human and the chimp,” says Cox.

There seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the changes; they occurred just as frequently outside coding regions as within. The density of these differences is “a little higher than anyone would have predicted,” says Eichler. “The implications could be profound,” he adds …

Locke’s and Frazer’s groups didn’t commit to new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high. [emphasis supplied] 6

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The recently released human genome sequences provide us with reference data to conduct comparative genomic research on primates, which will be important to understand what genetic information makes us human. Here we present a first-generation human-chimpanzee comparative genome map and its initial analysis. The map was constructed through paired alignment of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome end sequences with publicly available human genome sequences. We detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21 that suggest large, nonrandom regions of difference between the two genomes. 4



They were trying “to understand what genetic information makes us human.” To do that, they looked carefully at two small parts of just one of the 46 human chromosomes. There is nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, they picked areas “that suggest large, nonrandom regions of difference between the two genomes.” That was perhaps a poor choice of words. They probably meant “significant regions of difference”, as opposed to “irrelevant regions of difference”. Evolution is supposed to work through random changes. If the changes were “nonrandom”, that implies they were part of a conscious design. They certainly didn’t mean to imply that!

They must have used their judgment to distinguish “nonrandom regions of differences” from random differences. One might wonder how they did that. It implies that they might have some criteria for differentiating design from random processes. Too bad we don’t have space to explore that idea in this essay!

Let’s be perfectly clear on this point. Fujiyama et al. were perfectly justified in selecting what part of the genome to study. They were looking for differences in very similar sequences, so they picked very similar sequences that had some interesting differences. That is perfectly good science.

They were not trying to most accurately compute the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA. But they did mention some interesting numbers in passing which do pertain to genetic similarity. If you refer back to the extremely technical paragraph we quoted earlier, you will see that they produced “114,421 valid BESs”. Of these, they found “14,901 BESs that did not match with human sequences”. That means 13% of the sequences were totally different. In other words, only 87% of the sequences showed enough similarity for them to even attempt to match them.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Let’s look at some of the most recently published data comparing chimps and humans.


In this report we present the construction and analysis of a first-generation human-chimpanzee comparative genomic map based on the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences (BESs) to human genomic sequences obtained from the public databases. To prepare the BESs, we used two independently prepared BAC libraries, PTB1 and RPCI-43. Briefly, we sequenced 64,116 BAC clones (roughly 3.3 times coverage of the currently available human contiguous genomic sequence) that produced 114,421 valid BESs. The BESs were then aligned with the RefSeq human genome contigs [National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)] through NCBI-BLAST. The number of BESs having an alignment longer than 50 base pairs (bp) with 90% identity was 77,461. Out of this number, 49,160 BESs from 24,580 clones formed paired ends where each pair was derived from the same clone. Only one end could be successfully aligned from the remaining 28,301 clones. The remaining 36,960 BESs that were not mapped to the human genome were categorized into three different classes: (i) those corresponding to repeat sequences (1168 BESs) or showing hits to human sequences not included in the NT contigs (20,376 BESs), (ii) those matched only with sequences from several species other than human (515 BESs), and (iii) the 14,901 BESs that did not match with human sequences, which either correspond to unsequenced human regions or are from chimpanzee regions that have diverged substantially from humans or did not match for other unknown reasons. 3



Creationists are often accused of “carefully choosing their data.” We have never understood why evolutionists thought this was worse that carelessly choosing data, but we sometimes have trouble understanding how evolutionists think. If you understood nothing else in the paragraph quoted above, you must certainly realize that they went into great detail to justify the way in which they chose the data they actually analyzed.

We aren’t criticizing them for doing that. Scientists have to choose what data they analyze. One of the services I perform at my day job is real-time data reduction. My computer programs present pertinent data to the customer in graphical form, suppressing the irrelevant data, so that the customer can tell how his test is working while the test is still in progress. This gives him the opportunity to modify the test while it is still in progress, if necessary. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with analyzing only part of the data. You usually have no choice. You can’t analyze it all.

Fujiyama and his associates chose the data they were going to analyze. What they were looking for affected what they chose to study. Their goal was clearly stated in the abstract of their paper.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Perhaps they compared the 46 human chromosomes with the 48 chimp chromosomes. They could not possibly have done that and come up with a figure exceeding 97.8% Here’s why:

Let’s compare the chromosomes of a boy and his mother. A boy gets 23 of his chromosomes from his mother and 23 from his father. Clearly, at least 23 of the chromosomes will be identical to his mother. Therefore, the similarity will be at least 50%.

But one of the chromosomes he gets from his father must be different because his mother has two X chromosomes (if she didn’t, she wouldn’t be female), and the son has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (because he is male). Therefore, at most, 45 of the 46 (97.8%) chromosomes will be identical.

So, the boy’s Y chromosome is guaranteed to be different from his mother. What about the other 22 chromosomes he gets from his father? Societies generally try to discourage incestuous relationships, and scientists have discovered that there is a good reason for this. It reduces the chance that a baby will inherit the same defective gene from both mother and father. If the boy’s father and mother come from unrelated families, it is almost certain that most of those 22 chromosomes will have at least one different gene.

So, if you determine genetic similarity by counting identical chromosomes, the genetic similarity of a boy to his mother is likely to be closer to 50% than 100%. “Scientists” certainly could not have found that humans and chimpanzees are 98% alike by counting chromosomes.

Of course we know that they didn’t count chromosomes when making the comparison. We only mention it to make the point that what you count will affect the result you get. You can use a method of counting that gives close to 50%, or you can use a different method that gives a much higher number.

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

We need to know two things. First, are their figures accurate? Second, if they are accurate, what does it mean? Is genetic similarity really evidence for evolution?

Accuracy
We have always been skeptical of the 98% figure because we know that 82.3% of all statistics used in debates are simply pulled out of thin air. (For the benefit of other readers who didn’t get the joke--certainly not you--we will explain the joke to them. It is very unlikely that anyone has ever done a study of debates in which statistics were used to make a point, and then gone to the trouble to determine if the statistics are based on studies or not. So, the humor in the joke comes from the irony that someone is pulling a statistic out of the air to prove that statistics are often pulled out of the air to prove a point.)


For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees. 2

But the human DNA sequence was just recently decoded. (It was published in the 16 February, 2001, issue of the journal Science.) Work on decoding the DNA sequence of chimps is just beginning. (See Monkey Business, in the Evolution in the News column in this issue.) How could they have been able to calculate the similarity of two sequences “decades” ago when neither had been decoded? How can they calculate it now when only one of them has been decoded? Did they just pull 98% out of the air?

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

98% Chimp??!??!?!? (written 2003)

Is our DNA really more than 98% the same as chimpanzees? And, if so, what does that really mean?

You have probably heard an evolutionist claim that chimpanzees and humans are almost identical genetically. Statements like the one below are common.


We humans like to think of ourselves as special, set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom by our ability to talk, write, build complex structures, and make moral distinctions. But when it comes to genes, humans are so similar to the two species of chimpanzee that physiologist Jared Diamond has called us "the third chimpanzee." A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music. 1

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:53 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

In response to [www.theotrek.org] It is not a hyperbole. Evolution is inherently anti-Christian and to make a concession to its scientific legitimacy is both uninformed and unnecessary. Evolution is used on a daily basis to both attempt to explain the origins of life and to discredit creationism. How can Christians, live God’s love reflected in John 15, remain intimately in Christ, join in unity, extend the gospel etc.. etc.. if the 1st critical step of doing that, which is accepting Christ as your personal savior is sabotaged. And yes evolution sways people away from Christ. Even if evolutionists are NOT atheists the most common view is of an unchristian god which set things in motion as a primordial goo for us to evolve from. This leads an interesting world view and morality becomes quickly boiled down to “its okay as long as it doesn’t hurt me”. WITHOUT using the Bible or trying to interpret it, one can look at evolution from a scientifically critical perspective and realize that its assumptions are inherently wrong. Science objectively it points emphatically away from evolution. From there theological apologetics, historical and many scientific arguments supporting Biblical events lead us to accept Christianity as the absolute truth and Jesus as our Saviour. Finally in regards to your comment that, “it boils down to an argument of Biblical interpretation, not the fundamentals of faith and following Christ Jesus as Lord.” I am reminded of Luke 6:46-49 about the wise builder building his house on the rock so it would not be washed away. What is blind faith but a house without a foundation? Wisdom is a gift from God. Remember Solomon?. 1 Kings 4:34 Men from all nations came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom! I challenge us all to pray for wisdom and to become more scientifically equipped to stand up for the truth!
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

thebioman »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:39 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

The greatest challenge facing Christianity and our children is evolution. As your child grows into a young adult the Bible is harder for them to accept with "just cause", or "you can feel God", or "just have faith". If God is a God of science then Physics, Chemistry, Math and yes even BIOLOGY, should all lead us to Him... AND IT DOES! When faced with pseudo-science like evolution you have to first educate yourself and then teach your children the SCIENCE behind creation, and the SCIENCE AGAINST Evolution. They will not get this critical view of evolution in the real world in public schools or universities. So educate yourself its easy to do, you don't need a PhD. Find and read scientific articles bring them to the pastor to read and others both within and outside your church. Then as you learn you can carry a Scientific argument with those that embrace evolution with talking about feelings and faith. Feelings and faith change from day to day...but the facts of science are true. Some good websites with scientific articles reviewed and explained are http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/evidence.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp

Battling for the Hearts of Youth

thebioman »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The greatest challenge facing your children is evolution. As your child grows into a young adult the Bible is harder for them to accept with "just cause", or "you can feel God", or "just have faith". If God is a God of science then Physics, Chemistry, Math and yes even BIOLOGY, should all lead us to Him.. AND IT DOES! When faced with pseudo-science like evolution you have to first educate yourself and then teach your children the SCIENCE behind creation, and the SCIENCE AGAINST Evolution. They will not get this critical view of evolution in the real world in public schools or universities. So educate yourself its easy to do, you don't need a PhD. Find and read scientific articles bring them to the pastor educated scientists both within and outside the church that you know. However, the most important thing is to read them together with your children and cultivate a scientific minds to see all the flaws in evolution that are otherwise swept under the carpet. Some good websites with scientific articles reviewed and explained are http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp