ERV’s Don’t Prove Evolution

Posted in fossil record, Uncategorized on March 3, 2009 by egoeimi3

Presumably, the alleged prediction and fulfillment are:

  1. If universal common ancestry is true, then the same endogenous retrovirus (ERV) will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
  2. The same ERV exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

This is what is assumed by evolutionist if you read Talkorgins as one of the 29th proofs for evolution.  This doesn’t prove evolution at all.  This would be yet another interpretation of what you see under a microscope when it comes to genetics.  You still need for example to actuallysee it take place as they claim.  What do we continue to see in captivity with all the animals we have in the world at zoos?  Dogs give birth to dogs, and not a freak show animal.  And evolutionist contend that they don’t claim animals give rise to a half dog half sheep (this is only an example b/c evolutionist tend to take what is said to an extreme).  Bottom line is if you ask them, the common ancestor between apes and humans what was the % of that animal?  Was it 50% human and 50% ape and gave birth to a human being that was 90% human and 10% ape?  Did it give birthtoo twins an ape and a human where the ape was 90% ape and 10% human and the human had 90% human and 10% ape?  Do you see where I”m going with this?  The question remains, how and what did the common ancestor look like?  What did it give birth to?  You can’t continue to say well it takes millions of years, well bottom line if there is a common ancestor btwapes and humans then that ape like creature or human like creature is giving birth and rise to a half ape/human like creature and no matter how much you talk about it, eventually you get us 100% human or are we according to evolutionist.


ERV’sprove nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor, how it gave rise or have the question answered that did it give birth to twin creatures a ape and a human like animal, or what.  You just can’t show us an evolutionary tree and show common ancestry unless you are willing to say that the common ancestor had to give birth to some pretty odd offspring that kept branching to you get humans, apes, whales, bats, whatever, there should be a fossil record full of strange transitional, but you see fossils that look like modern day creatures which is not consistent with what we see in evolutionary where there is suppose to be this common ancestry.  If  it takes millions of years of slow change then you should have that in the record but you have animals that look like what you can find on earth with argues against slow change.

Here is what is some of the scientific statements about ERV’s outside of my own thinking.


“Since this is the concept of “shared errors” applied to endogenous retroviruses (and since retroviruses are a type of transposon), much of the two preceding responses is applicable.  It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same ERVs will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.  Evolution does not even predict the existence of ERVs, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species.  After all, evolutionary theory was considered robust prior to the discovery of ERVs.  This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution.”


“Moreover, ERVs are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald’s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms.  To quote Dr. Max once again, “Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ‘shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . .  Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ‘shared errors.’”

You can find a scientific response to this ERV claim by Talkorgins here at:


Population Growth falsifies Evolution

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on January 8, 2009 by egoeimi3

You ever wonder how evolution explain population growth enlight of the religous based theory?  You should because they don’t explain it very well, and it falls under the fallcy credulity.  Let me give you a quote from creationist scientist on the issue and you can do this yourself, factoring in birth rates, death rates, war, famine, etc, which the evolutionist give such a sad answer if we were acutally around that long.  Heck Neaderthals falsify evolution on population growth alone.  If they were here a 100,000 years ago, and applying the the current growth rate and factoring in all those things, there should be in the neighborhood of 4,000,000,000 bones in the ground, but there has only been 300 found in the ground?  Wow, just ad hoc it away as the story go’s.

‘Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it!’ 

Try that on for size.  Even given a small growth rate applied to the claim of evolving from ape like creatures in that time frame, it doesn’t work.  But leave it to them, they will explain it away and here is a perfect example of that.

‘Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.”    10 Even if the population were a million, the low reproductive rate would not be sufficient to eliminate harmful mutations. The mutational load alone would have ensured extinction. For details, see ReMine, W., The Biotic Message, St Paul Science, St Paul, Minnesota, 1993

So as you can see, with a little common sense and checking the numbers, it just doesn’t add up in the faith of Evolution.

Macro-Evolution has never been observed!

Posted in Macro-Evolution on January 4, 2009 by egoeimi3

Below I will place the debate between what talkorgins says and creationwiki documented response.

It’s funny how this go’s because evolutionist want you to believe it without seeing the truth of what creationist are saying clearly.  This debate you can judge for yourself.

Claim: CB901

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.

Source: Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6. Response:

Creation Wiki response: (Talk Origins quotes in blue.)

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


It’s remarkable that evolutionists do not see the faith that their worldview requires. They claim they have evidence in Speciation, which is not evidence for universal common descent in any shape or form. Then when asked for observational evidence for the theory of evolution (i.e. change beyond the kind barrier) they claim that would disprove Darwinian Evolution! It has been demonstrated, as far as the evidence goes, that minor change sometimes referred to as micro-evolution does not lead to evolution on a large scale.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


The evidences presented in that essay are things such as vestigal structures and developmental biology which are not evidence for evolution. See True Origin for a thorough rebuttal of this essay written by Ashby Camp. Furthermore, there are some major problems with macro-evolution:


  • Evidence for such an occurrence is lacking in the fossil record.
  • Common structures can support a common designer thesis just as well as one of common ancestry.
  • Macroevolution is implausible, proteins evolving in small increments fits the evidence, crossing the large gaps is not realistic.(Plaisted 2005)

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Very true, but it proves nothing close to universal common descent. Creationists would agree that speciation has been observed, but that is not what the debate is about. Walter Remine comments:

In creation-evolution debates, “evolution” isn’t mere ‘change in gene frequencies.’ Unless context indicates otherwise, it refers, ultimately, to naturalistic molecules-to-man transformation – anything less involves creation. “Macroevolution” makes the large-scale transformation fully explicit.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

Micro-evolution is observed, but there are limits to the variation.

1.) An observational limit which we see all the time, dogs always produce dogs, cows always produce cows, etc.

2.) Original amount of information available: From the original starting point information is only lost and not added. Mutations occur which scramble the existing DNA and over the years certain traits are selected and passed down. As this process occurs information is lost until there can be no more variation because there is nothing to select from. This creates a natural barrier that prevents evolutionary change on a large scale.

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.


Detailed series at the following link deals with this issue in depth. Transitional forms  This one will come later!



The Coelacanth falsifies Evolution

Posted in fossil record with tags on December 9, 2008 by egoeimi3

I know many evolutionist will not believe this for several reasons.  One is they are taught to believe something without critical thinking and are heavily indoctrinated.

Here is why I believe they are illogical about this great find back in the early 70’s.

The Coelacanth that was found looked virtually identical to what you see in the fossil record.  Go here to see what I’m talking about.

The problem I have with evolutionist calling the modern day Coelacanth a different species is this.  First off they don’t have a DNA sample to compare the genetic information in the earliest Coelacanth to make that claim.  It’s a fact things can have difference of appearance in areas but be identical in genetics.  Humans are a perfect example.  There are white, black, yellow, etc but the genetic comparison between all of us is identical but with different appearance in skin color, noses, eyes, etc and we are still human.  We are not looked at as different species of humans lol we are all human beings with differences in appearance.

With Coelacanth how can you call something that looks identical without genetic material to see that?  Or are the evolutionist going to call humans different species based on skin color, or nose size, or whatever?  That doesn’t make sense because we are genetically human.  You won’t find a human with 35 chromosomes (at least I don’t believe you will).  You will find those with downs “the presence of an extra copy of genetic material on the 21st chromosome,” is what the problem is with them but they are still human beings and I wouldn’t consider someone with this as a different species that to me would be flat out insulting to someone who is still as a Christian would say “Created in God’s Image” so they have worth and value and shouldn’t be aborted as so many do which is another subject in itself.

So getting back to this Coelacanth.  It can’t be consider a different species based on slight differences on the outside when we as humans are not.  Who makes that determination without genetic evidence?

It’s all ad hoc explanation.  Take this comment on wiki about the gap in the fossil record.

“the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.[citation needed]The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record”

Notice they say “the most likey reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters”  How #1 do they know this without ever being there?  Comparing to what happens to day could be very different millions of years ago if you logically think about it.  Then they said “Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossilrecord”  Again logically I disagree because fossils clams are pushed to the top of mountains due to shifting of continents (different worldviews from evolutionist and creations by the way) who’s to say that Coelacanth fossils couldn’t have been pushed to the top like those?  And they are assuming without a foundation that when those fish died and there had to be millions like there are millions in oceans in fish today there should have been some fossils of those fish that could have been preserved as they love to say “could have”, yes it could have left in between fossils that they love to want people like me to not think it thru.

So in short I find it illogical to call something a different species when they are under the assumption that there was a different species in between deeper Coelacanth as opposed to those at the surface.  There simply could have been nothing in between we are not talking about mystery fish here that suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth, no they are still here

Radiometric Dating Games

Posted in geology with tags on December 8, 2008 by egoeimi3

On my front page today (youtube front page) I was debating with along time rival evolutionist for quite sometime now.  He brought up the issue of give a fact that would falsify evolution.  There are a few things that would falsify evolution but the lack of critical thinking hinders the evolutionary mind that they can’t see pass the indoctrination of what they are lead to believe. 

So I brought up the issue of radiometric dating and the dating problems.  My long time debator is so sure that the dating methods are solid.  However they are not.  There is indeed rock that has been dated into the millions of years range, but the problem is the rock is only several hundred years old.

The way that my colleague and other evolutionist get away around that is to let the accusations fly.  They say things like “creationist don’t use the right tools,” or “creationist don’t know what they are talking about because they are ignorant,” yada, yada is what I say.

Here is the problem with the accusations in my opinion.  If you say a sample for example is contaminated which I have heard is the problem well that means the other samples can be contaminated as well to give a false reading of a million years, there is no difference.  If recent rock can date into the millions who’s to say that the rock that has been tested in the millions isn’t contaminated and simply is recent rock no older than a few thousand years?

I presented him with links to what the creationist have documented and they do get their results in some cases right from evolutionary info with the contradictions there, but the evolutionist will still be in denial.  Kinda like living fossils. 

If you have living fossils with incorrect dating methods what do you actually have?  You actually have living fossils that are not millions of years old because that would be a stretch of the imagination to see something virtually unchanged for millions of years like the environmental pressures wouldn’t change something with all that time to do so.  And the rock that dates into the millions only being a few hundred years old is actually young.  So put the two together and you actually have young fossils that are living and I hate that word living fossils, no they are animals or plants that have been hear a short time just like the rocks have LOL.

For more information on the research done that shows the problems with radiometric dating see the link:

It’s a fact that they don’t tell you all the problems.  Just indoctrinate you.

The Fossil Record Speaks

Posted in fossil record with tags on December 7, 2008 by egoeimi3

It’s funny how so many neo Darwinian faith believers overlook this plane fact that even Gould recognized the problems with the record itself.  Many people who debate these issues really like to over look the fact that the record is interpretation.  It either formed like evolutionary geologist believe which they will interpret it to fit their theory that it has to form slowly over millions of years otherwise the theory will be falsified.  But if it formed rapidly like the Creationist believe then it proves that it was formed in the Flood of Noah and will be interpreted that way.  I would argue it formed in the flood as evidence of it being sedimentary rock which forms in water and animals being caught in a very catastrophic event. 

If the average person was just driving along the road and saw a great number of fossils on the side of a mountain they wouldn’t have the idea that the layers they see in the side of the mountain that they formed one at a time but would think that they all appeared there at the same time.  Why would one think that layers form one at a time where they see a great number of fossils?  It’s because they were indoctrinated from as young as 4years of age thru 18 years of age at least in my country.  If you hear this stuff over and over you will adopt that line of thinking and heck even  Hilter the greatest Jewish hater recognize that if you tell a lie long enough over a period of time people will believe it.  Evolutionary science is built upon that. 

Take a look at what Gould said about the fossil record:

“What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists such as Gould now agree with what creationists from Louis Agassiz to Duane Gish have said all along, that the fossil record includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis. Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless.

Sudden appearance. In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed (Gould, ibid., 13–14).

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
It’s a fact this man notices what we notice that the record there is sudden appearance even for the bacteria found at the lowest level in the neo faith, they just are there.  The average person wouldn’t think hey they were the first thing living on earth then the next level up you have some very complex animals over them, and as you continue to go upward that this shows a progression of life evolving over time.  That is flat out non-sense, the average person would look at all those animals and say all of them existed at the same time because the first thought isn’t a layer at a time, but animals found buried in the ground, it’s the indoctrination of evolutionary scientist who oppose other alternative views that hurts their precious faith and their protection of it.

Responding to TelcontarRultz’s Terror Excuse

Posted in Debating TelcontarRulz with tags on December 4, 2008 by egoeimi3

TelcontarRulz Said:

All right, at airports, Muslims are being selected for random security checks. Their TVs are dismantled and quarantined because people think there are bombs in them. People call them names like ‘towelheads’ and draw insulting cartoons of their prophet. Westerners take their land and don’t give a damn if they live in poverty in refugee camps. Abu Ghraib. The ‘terrorists’ in Palestine who are fighting for their brethren. The ‘terrorists’ who are fighting U.S. convoys in Iraq. In his own twisted way, Osama bin Laden and his ilk are martyrs. Misguided, yes, but they believe they are working/dying for a just cause. You know, if he hadn’t decided to take this path, Osama would have been very rich and living in luxury. Now, he’s hiding somewhere in a cave, probably falling ill, and with very little except a position as a figurehead for the Mujahideen and inspiring them to be martyrs for Islam.

My reply:

Random Secuirty checks is ok if it prevents lose of life.  An interview done by Bob Dudtko on www.wmuz.comwith a Muslim woman who converted to Christianity had no problem with it as a Arab American.  And other Arab American’s shouldn’t have a problem with it if it’s their racial group doing it.  If my race was doing it, what’s a few mins to protect lives.

The insulting cartoon, not it was offensive is the proper term.  They were offended based on their views of Mohammad, and the cartoon wasn’t offensive at all, but they don’t take kindly to cartoon drawings of their prophet.  But I bet you don’t have a clue or you ignored that I mentioned the mocking Christians go thru.  Email Bob Dudtko on he did a piece on that where there is museums dedicated to mocking Christians on a greater level then what you are talking about.  And email isn’t expensive so no excuses to get better facts.

Palestians don’t care about taking land from the Jews and the President of Iran wants to wipe the Jews of the face of the earth due to their hatered of the Jews, ok so ignore that and Westerners are not doing that so be specific. 

The palestinians are not fighting for Abu Ghraib war prisoniers specifically but fighting the Infidel as the Quran calls Jews and Christians.  It’s way bigger than that so don’t kid yourself.

Osama isn’t a martyrs nor are the terroist because they are dying for a ideology that say killing the Infidels gains more woman in Heaven when they die, that isn’t like Steven in Acts being stoned for his faith in Jesus, or the other Apostles.

Osama wouldn’t be living rich in my opinion he would have been planning more attacks against Jews and the West.

And your comment that  the Romans had not invented electrocution what is electrocution, who said they invented that?  No the Apostles were dying thru Cruxicfixion get it straight and that’s a fact supported by science that the Romans had that sytle of murdering someone.

Agreements Between Catholics/Protestands & Differences

Posted in Bible with tags on December 3, 2008 by egoeimi3

This material posted here is taken from the book that I have in my library on my hard drive from my personal study materials.  The book is:  

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

Protestants and Roman Catholics find they are not as separated theologically as they may have thought in this comparative study of beliefs. Shows what joins and what divides the two faiths, laying out the essential issues.


And below if you choose to read why Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha here is why.  If you want me to post the Catholic position leave a comment.  See below from the book stated above.


A Response to Catholic Arguments
in Favor of the Apocrypha

Our response will follow the order of the arguments given by Catholics discussed above. Thus, the numbering will correspond point by point.

1. There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but there are no clear New Testament quotations from it. Not once is there a direct quotation from any apocryphal books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. 5  Further, although the New Testament cites the Hebrew Old Testament, it never once quotes any of the fourteen (or fifteen) apocryphal books as divinely authoritative or canonical. For example, they are never cited with introductory phrases like “thus says the Lord” or “as it is written” or “the Scriptures say,” such as are typically found when canonical books are quoted.

2. The fact that the New Testament often quotes from the Greek Old Testament in no way proves that the apocryphal books contained in the Greek manuscript of the Old Testament are inspired. First, it is not certain that the Septuagint (LXX) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth century a.d. Further, even if they were in the Septuagint of apostolic times, Jesus and the apostles never once quoted them, although they are supposed to have been included in the very version of the Old Testament (the LXX) that they usually cited. Finally, even the notes in the current Roman Catholic Bible ( nab ) make the revealing admission that the apocryphal books are “religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.” Instead, they “were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘deuterocanonical’ (second canon) books.” 6 

3. Citations of the church fathers in support of the canonicity of the Apocrypha are selective and misleading. While some Fathers accepted their inspiration, others used them only for devotional or homiletical (preaching) purposes but did not accept them as canonical. As a recent authority on the Apocrypha, Roger Beckwith, observes,

When one examines the passages in the early Fathers which are supposed to establish the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra (1 Esdras) or from additions or appendices to Daniel, Jeremiah or some other canonical book, which . . . are not really relevant; that others of them are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all; 7  and that, of those which are, many do not give any indication that the book is regarded as Scripture. 8 

So unqualified Catholic appeal to the use of the Apocrypha is misleading. For, as Beckwith notes, in many cases the Fathers were not claiming divine authority for one or more of the eleven books infallibly canonized by the Council of Trent. Rather, they were either citing a book that was part of the Hebrew canon or not quoting the apocryphal books as Scripture.

4. Although some individuals in the early church had a high regard for the Apocrypha, there were many who vehemently opposed it. 9  For example, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed the Apocrypha (see below). Even the early Syrian church did not accept the Apocrypha. In the second century a.d. the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha. 10 

5. As even many Catholic scholars will admit, scenes from the catacombs do not prove the canonicity of the books whose events they depict. Such scenes need not indicate any more than the religious significance that the portrayed events had for early Christians. They may show a respect for the books containing these events without recognizing that they are inspired.

6. None of the great Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) contain all of the apocryphal books. In fact, only four (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]) are found in all of them, and the oldest manuscripts (B or Vaticanus) totally exclude the books of Maccabees. Yet Catholics appeal to this manuscript for proof of their deuterocanonical books that include the Apocrypha! What is more, no Greek manuscript has the same list of apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent ( a.d. 1545–63). 11 

7. There are some important reasons why citing these church councils does not prove the Apocrypha belonged in the canon of the Christian church. First, these were only local councils and were not binding on the whole church. 12  Local councils have often erred in their decisions and have been overruled later by the universal church.

Second, these books were not part of the Christian (New Testament period) writings and hence were not under the province of the Christian church to decide. They were the province of the Jewish community that wrote them and had centuries before rejected them as part of the canon, for books were accepted by the contemporary generations who were in the best position to verify the prophetic claims of their authors (cf. Heb. 2:3–4 ).

Third, the books accepted by these Christian councils may not have been the same ones in each case. Hence, they cannot be used as evidence of the exact canon later infallibly proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in a.d. 1546.

Fourth, the local councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa were influenced by Augustine, who is the most significant voice of antiquity that accepted the same apocryphal books later canonized by the Council of Trent in a.d. 1546. 13  However, Augustine’s position is ill-founded for several reasons. (a) His contemporary, Jerome, a greater biblical authority than Augustine, rejected the Apocrypha (see below). (b) Augustine himself recognized that the Jews did not accept these books as part of their canon. 14  (c) Augustine erroneously reasoned that these books should be in the Bible because of their mention “of extreme and wonderful suffering of certain martyrs.” 15  On that ground one could argue that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs  16  should also be in the canon! (d) Augustine was inconsistent, since he rejected books not written by prophets yet accepted a book that appears to deny being prophetic ( 1 Macc. 9:27 ). 17  (e) Augustine’s acceptance of the Apocrypha seems to be connected with his mistaken belief in the inspiration of the Septuagint, whose later Greek manuscripts contained them. 18 

8. The Greek church has not always accepted the Apocrypha, nor is its present position unequivocal. At the synods of Constantinople ( a.d. 1638), Jaffa (1642), and Jerusalem (1672) these books were declared canonical. But even as late as 1839 their Larger Catechism expressly omitted the Apocrypha on the grounds that its books did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. This is still their position.

9. At the Roman Catholic Council of Trent ( a.d. 1546) the infallible proclamation was made accepting the Apocrypha as part of the inspired Word of God. 19  Unfortunately, the proclamation came a millennium and a half after the books were written and in an obvious polemic against Protestantism. 20  Furthermore, the official infallible addition of books that support prayers for the dead is highly suspect, coming as it did only a few years after Luther protested against this very doctrine. It has all the appearance of an attempt to provide ecclesiastical support for Roman Catholic doctrines that lack biblical support (see chap. 16 ).

10. Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. 21  While Anglicans and some other non-Roman Catholic groups had a high regard for the devotional and historical value of the Apocrypha, they did not consider it inspired and of equal authority with Scripture. Even Roman Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his Complutensian Polyglot ( a.d. 1514–17) on the very eve of the Reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament ( a.d. 1532) many years after the Reformation began which did not contain the Apocrypha. Luther spoke against the Apocrypha in 1543, placing its books at the back of his Bible. 22 

11. The discovery at Qumran included not only the community’s Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament apocryphal books. But the fact that no commentaries were found on an apocryphal book and that only canonical books, not the Apocrypha, were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Qumran community did not view the apocryphal books as canonical. 23  The noted scholar on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Millar Burroughs, concluded: “There is no reason to think that any of these works were venerated as Sacred Scripture.” 24 

Actually, all that the arguments used in favor of the canonicity of the apocryphal books prove is that various apocryphal books were given varied degrees of esteem by different persons within the Christian church, usually falling short of canonicity. Only after Augustine and the local councils he dominated mistakenly pronounced them inspired did they gain wider usage and eventual acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church at Trent. This falls far short of the kind of initial, continual, and complete recognition of the canonical books of the Protestant Old Testament and Jewish Torah (which exclude the Apocrypha) by the Christian church. It exemplifies how the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church proclaims infallible one tradition to the neglect of strong evidence in favor of an opposing tradition because it supports a doctrine that lacks any real support in the canonical books. 25 

5 There are, of course, allusions to pseudipigraphal (false writings) that are rejected by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, such as the Book of Enoch ( Jude 14–15 ) and the Bodily Assumption of Moses ( Jude 9 ). There are also citations from pagan poets and philosophers ( Acts 17:28 ; 1 Cor. 15:33 ; Titus 1:12 ). But none of these are cited as Scripture nor as a divine authority. The New Testament simply refers to a truth contained in these books which otherwise may (and do) have many errors. Roman Catholics agree.
6 New American Bible, p. 413.
7 “Thus, Epistle of Barnabas 6.7 and Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.22.5, are not quoting Wisd. 2.12 but Isa. 3:10 LXX, and Tertullian, On the Soul 15, is not quoting Wisd. 1.6 but Ps. 139.23, as a comparison of the passages shows. Similarly, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 129, is quite clearly not quoting Wisdom but Prov. 8.21–5 LXX. The fact that he calls Proverbs ‘Wisdom’ is in accordance with the common nomenclature of the earlier Fathers.” See Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 427 n. 208.
8 Ibid., p. 387.
9 J. D. N. Kelly’s comment that “For the great majority [of early fathers] . . . the deutero-canonical writings ranked as scripture in the fullest sense” is out of synch with the facts just cited by Beckwith.
10 See Norman L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), chaps. 27–28.
11 See Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, pp. 194, 382–83.
12 Some Catholic apologists argue that even though the council was not ecumenical its results are binding since they were confirmed by a pope. However, they acknowledge that there is no infallible way to know which statements by popes are infallible and which are not. Indeed, they admit that other statements by popes were even heretical, such as the teaching of the monothelite heresy by Pope Honorius I (see chap. 11 ).
13 The Council of Rome did not list the same books accepted by Hippo and Carthage. It does not include Baruch, thus listing only six, not seven, of the apocryphal books later pronounced canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic scholars assume it was part of Jeremiah. However, Trent lists it as a separate book. See Denzinger, Sources, 84, p. 34.
14 Augustine, City of God 19.36–38.
15 Of the books of Maccabees Augustine said, “These are held to be canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs” ( City of God 18, 36).
16 John Foxe (1516–87), Acts and Monuments of Matters Happening in the Church (1563).
17 This verse denies there was a prophet during the period it was written, which would mean the author was not a prophet. In response, Catholics appeal to verses that say there were no prophetic visions in Israel before God raised up Samuel ( 1 Sam. 3:1 ). But this misses the point: the books of Samuel were not written before God began to speak to Samuel but after. Likewise, Psalm 74:9 refers to no prophet being left “in the land,” since the Babylonians had destroyed the temple (v. 3 ) and the prophets were in exile (e.g., Daniel and Jeremiah). And Lamentations 2:9 does not say there were no prophets anywhere (Jeremiah, who wrote it, was a prophet) but that there were none in the land who were getting a “vision from the Lord.” By contrast, the writer of 1 Maccabees was bemoaning the fact that there were no longer any prophets in Israel, even after they had returned to the land. Nor does 1 Maccabees state that the prophetic lull in Israel was to be only temporary. Indeed, Judaism has acknowledged that even before the time of Maccabees the prophetic spirit had departed from Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities, Against Apion 1.8: “From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased.”
18 However, Augustine’s later acknowledgment of the superiority of Jerome’s Hebrew text over the Septuagint’s Greek text should have led him to accept the superiority of Jerome’s Hebrew canon as well, which did not include the Apocrypha.
19 Some Catholic scholars claim that the earlier Council of Florence ( a.d. 1442) made the same pronouncement. However, this is a disputed council, and its action here does not have any real basis in Jewish history, the New Testament, or early Christian history.
20 Even before Luther, the Council of Florence ( a.d. 1442) had proclaimed the Apocrypha inspired, which helped bolster the doctrine of purgatory that had already blossomed in Roman Catholicism. However, the manifestations of this belief in the sale of indulgences came to full bloom in Luther’s day, and Trent’s infallible proclamation of the Apocrypha was a clear polemic against Luther’s teaching.
21 Even knowledgeable Catholics acknowledge that the appearance of apocryphal books in Protestant bibles does not prove they were accepted as inspired but only that they were valued.
22 See Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 181f. Luther also had some initial doubts about James, but he eventually placed it alongside the other New Testament books.
23 Menahem Mansoor, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 203, lists the following fragments of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Tobit, in Hebrew and Aramaic; Enoch, in Aramaic; Jubilees, in Hebrew; Testament of Levi and Naphtali, in Aramaic; Apocryphal Daniel literature, in Hebrew and Aramaic; and Psalms of Joshua. See New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2:390.
24 Millar Burroughs, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 178.
25 The (proto) canonical books were received immediately by the people of God into the growing canon of Scripture (see Geisler and Nix, General Introduction, chap. 13). The subsequent debate was by those who were not in a position, as was the immediate audience, to know whether they were from an accredited apostle or prophet. Hence, this subsequent debate over the antilegomena was directly over their authenticity, not canonicity—they were already in the canon. What some individuals in subsequent generations questioned was whether they rightfully belonged there. Eventually, all of the antilegomena were retained in the canon. This is not true of the Apocrypha, for Protestants reject all of the books and even Roman Catholics reject some of them (e.g., 3–4 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh).
Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.


Paley’s Watch all over Again!

Posted in evolutionary news articles with tags on December 1, 2008 by egoeimi3

Paley’s Watch Found in Bacteria   10/31/2008    
Oct 31, 2008 — A clock with cogs, gears and ratchets that keeps accurate time – what more could William Paley wish for?  The 18th century natural theologian used the illustration of stumbling upon a watch in a heath as an example of reasoning from design to a Designer – as from watch to watchmaker.  Skeptics like David Hume challenged such reasoning of the natural theologians as a mere argument from analogy: living things are very different from mechanical machines, he argued.  One can only wonder how their debate would unfold with the discovery of a ticking watch inside one of the simplest forms of life.
    Scientists have long wondered how living things keep time.  We are all aware of our own natural cycles throughout the day.  Organisms without eyes and ears, though, like bacteria, also keep time with diurnal cycles.  How do they do it?  The secret has only been coming to light in the last few years (see 05/17/2005)  Johnson, Egli and Stewart wrote a review article in Science this week that describes what is currently known about the circadian clock present in cyanobacteria.1  They could not help but use mechanical terms for this biological machinery.  It began right in their opening paragraph:

An endogenous circadian system in cyanobacteria exerts pervasive control over cellular processes, including global gene expression.  Indeed, the entire chromosome undergoes daily cycles of topological changes and compaction.  The biochemical machinery underlying a circadian oscillator can be reconstituted in vitro with just three cyanobacterial proteins, KaiA, KaiB, and KaiC.  These proteins interact to promote conformational changes and phosphorylation events that determine the phase of the in vitro oscillation.  The high-resolution structures of these proteins suggest a ratcheting mechanism by which the KaiABC oscillator ticks unidirectionally.  This posttranslational oscillator may interact with transcriptional and translational feedback loops to generate the emergent circadian behavior in vivo.  The conjunction of structural, biophysical, and biochemical approaches to this system reveals molecular mechanisms of biological timekeeping.

“Conformational change” is jargon for bending, springing, unfolding and other kinds of motion that take place as the proteins operate.  Proteins are therefore the “moving parts” of the clock.
    Later, they spoke of “cogs and gears” in the “clockwork mechanism” evident in the Kai-ABC proteins.  Each protein, in turn, is made up of multiple parts, composed of hundreds of amino acids.  KaiC, for instance, is a barrel mechanism with two donut-shaped rings, each made of six toothed parts that make it look like a gear wheel.  The clock runs on ATP energy pellets.  It accumulates hydrogen bonds through phosphorylation events that force it to “tick” like a ratchet in one direction.  It keeps an accurate 24-hour cycle, releasing its energy for the next round in conjunction with feedback loops from the nucleus and cytoplasm.  These, in turn, affect what genes are expressed by the transcribers in the nucleus and translators in the ribosomes.
   In his description of the clock posted last April on Reasons to Believe, Dr. Fazale Rana described how the KaiA and KaiB parts interact with KaiC like a rotor and wing nut.  He made the same connection to Paley.  Describing this as a “biochemical watch on a heath,” he showed how it refutes David Hume’s criticism of natural theology.  The discovery of molecular machines like the circadian clock have revitalized the watchmaker argument for the existence of God, he said.
    The Science article pointed out that several questions remain.  How is the clock robust against temperature fluctuations?  Does the eukaryotic clock, which employs very different molecular systems, operate on similar design principles?  They referred to evolution twice, but only in a very indistinct, indirect way:

The benefit of a clockwork that is imperturbable even when buffeted by the massive intracellular changes of cell division could have provided an evolutionary driving force for convergent circadian clock mechanisms among diverse organisms.
    We now recognize KaiABC as a dynamically oscillating nanomachine that has evolved to precess unidirectionally and robustly. 

These sentences, however, merely assume that evolution produced the machines in the first place.  Since the clocks are present in some of the simplest forms of life, it would seem a grand challenge to believe that a blind, directionless process stumbled upon all this interacting, mechanical system by chance.  Incidentally, they pointed out that each cell has 10,000 KaiC proteins.  If it is difficult to imagine getting one clock by chance, imagine getting 10,000 that tick together. “The challenges ahead,” they ended, “are to delve deeper into the molecular nature of its temperature compensation … and to discover if the clocks in our own cells have attributes that are similar to those of bacteria.”

1.  Johnson, Egli and Stewart, “Structural Insights into a Circadian Oscillator,” Science, 31 October 2008: Vol. 322. no. 5902, pp. 697-701, DOI: 10.1126/science.1150451.

Oh, for the sight of David Hume and Charles Darwin being confronted with a ticking clock inside a “simple” cell.  We can get an idea of their reaction, though, by looking at the fact that the three authors of this review, after having described an intricate mechanism of oscillators, ratchets and feedback loops, attributed it all to evolution.  The many biochemists aware of these and other exquisite molecular machines follow suit.  In spite of overpowering evidence for design, their minds are made up: they will follow Charlie to the bitter end and die with him rather than acknowledge design.
    The Apostle Paul said in Romans 1 that the evidence for God and His attributes is clearly seen in creation, so that men are without excuse.  Each generation has evidence of sufficient clarity for its knowledge base.  For the Romans and Egyptians, the diurnal cycles of the sun, moon and stars have been more than sufficient to remove their excuses for unbelief and mistaken belief.  For today’s scientists, the diurnal cycles of nanoscopic protein clocks throughout life is more than sufficient.  The true challenge ahead is not just to delve deeper into the molecular nature of the design we already see, but to hold it up for display and preach the implications, so that it takes effect in the human mind – as Paul said, “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” (II Corinthians 10:5; cf. 01/17/2007).
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyAmazing Facts

  A swarm of bee stories abuzz with design, from 10/27/2006.

Darwin Myths Debunked

Posted in evolutionary news articles with tags on November 25, 2008 by egoeimi3

Darwin Myths Debunked – By Darwinist   10/28/2008    
Oct 28, 2008 — An aura of legend has enveloped the memory of Charles Darwin.  To many, the white-bearded father of evolutionary theory was like a saint on a white horse, rescuing science from an age of superstition.  The true history is much more interesting.
    Darwin Day is coming next February 12.  It marks Darwin’s 200th birthday and also the 150th anniversary of the publication of his Origin of Species.  The Darwin Exhibition, a multi-million-dollar display produced by the American Museum of Natural History (
09/22/2005), is making the rounds of major museums, culminating in the 2009 Darwin Bicentennial year.
    Hiram Caton (Griffith University, Australia) felt compelled to pen “Getting Our History Right” when he saw the “Exhibition’s devotion to the legend at the expense of fact.” Here are six mythbusting theses Caton defended in his article:

  1. Publication of the Origin was not a sudden (“revolutionary”) interruption of Victorian society’s confident belief in the traditional theological world-view.
  2. The Origin did not “revolutionize” the biological sciences by removing the creationist premise or introducing new principles.
  3. The Origin did not revolutionize Victorian public opinion.  The public considered Darwin and Spencer to be teaching the same lesson, known today as “Social Darwinism”, which, though fashionable, never achieved dominance.
  4. Many biologists expressed significant disagreements with Darwin’s principles.
  5. Darwin made little or no contribution to the renovation of theology.  His public statements on Providence were inconsistent and the liberal reform of theology was well advanced by 1850.
  6. The so-called “Darwinian revolution” was, at the public opinion level, the fashion of laissez-faire economic beliefs backed by Darwin and Spencer’s inclusion of the living world in the economic paradigm.

Where did Hiram Caton print this Darwin-deflating piece?  Not in a creationist magazine, but in Evolutionary Psychology.1  (See 06/06/2008.)  He is no creationist; he just worries that distorting publicity can backfire.  “As a cadre who bear a public trust to get the facts right,” he ended, “we are obliged to correct misrepresentations directed to schools at a time when evolution is under challenge.  Besides, science history that includes the quirks, baseless claims, cheating, and battles is more engaging than the sanitized history meant to instill unquestioning acceptance.”

1.  Hiram Caton, “Getting Our History Right: Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence,” Evolutionary Psychology, – 2007. 5(1): 52-69.

What, exactly, are we supposed to be celebrating next year?  Ineptitude?  The gullibility of the public?  The power of fashionable ideas to distort history?  The inability of reasonable scientists with their significant disagreements to stop bad ideas at their onset?  Darwin Day can still be a worthy holiday if we make these the lessons.  We agree with Caton; first, we have to get the facts right.
Next headline on:  Darwin and Evolutionary TheoryEducation

  Darwinists refute ID claim about irreducible complexity!  See the 10/31/2005 entry.

Quote Mining Accusations

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on February 28, 2009 by egoeimi3

I like to post somethings said in debates about weather negative things about evolution should be allowed in Texas school books. See if this is quoting mining!

“Dateline September 10, 2003 , Texas State Board of Education Public Textbook Hearing, Austin , Texas : When asked for an example of a weakness of evolution being included in textbooks, two different pro-evolutionist witnesses responded with ‘the fossil record.’ When asked to identify the strongest evidence for evolution, another pro-evolutionist witness, responded in part, “The most overwhelming is the fossil record…”[1] Who is correct? ”

Is that a quote mine, here is the reference source.

[1] Texas Education Agency supplied transcript of the State Board of Education meeting, September 10-11, 2003 .

Check out what the WallStreet Journal says about the American country I live in.

“The Wall Street Journal reports editorially that:

A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin ‘s theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”[13]

How sad!


Posted in fossil record with tags on December 7, 2008 by egoeimi3

People need to take notice about fossilization.  It’s a fact that this process doesn’t take a lot of time and it’s also a fact that you find animals today that look exactly like animals in the fossil record.  What are we to call this a coincidence?  I don’t think so because it’s a fact that this millions of years of evolution of bacteria to man theology never happened, but that all the animals existed at the same time is what I would argue opposed to the alternative view evolutionist want you to think. 

Living fossils is another one.  Notice that the term itself is very strange.  Why call something a living fossil when for years a person is taught things went extinct but when they find out that they were wrong (human error like the bible writers get) they simply explain it away.  Call it a different species but it still looks the same.  Yeah that really means something but not once do they have a DNA sample to actually prove it’s actually different?  Especially when there has been DNA found in fossils which DNA by the way can only last approx. 10,000 years and how is that for contradictory to the fossilization of fossils or the fossil record for that matter.  Take a look at what says on the issue of fossilization which people should check it out for alternative views and arguments presented against the only currently accepted view allowed in secular humanist science where the trump card is evolution and evolution only.  Thought that man can error like the bible writers get but the evolutionary scientist just can’t do no wrong LOL.

Creationwiki’s Take on the Issue:


Main Article: Fossilization

Today fossilization is an extremely rare event and is simply not expected to occur on a global scale. Decomposition is instead the rule following death, unless the matter is buried rapidly and to a depth that would prevent microbial digestion and oxidation. Hard shelled animals that burrow into sediment are somewhat expected to be found as fossils, along with large and heavy bones through random circumstances. However, every kind of animal alive today is found in the fossil record. Many of these are completely intact, and some specimens show literally no signs of decomposition. Other evidence such as polystrate fossils, or the fact that marine fossils are found throughout the geological column, points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil record. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors, which argues strongly against their having been fossilized millions of years ago.