My New Favorite Website:

Answers In Genesis: This has got to be the funniest website I’ve ever encountered, much better than The Onion, mainly because these guys actually mean the crap they write, The Onion knows their stuff is a joke.

Here’s a paragraph from an article about Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria:

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

Hahahahaha, I love it! Unless you’re evolving into a man by sprouting eyes, arms and a brain you clearly aren’t evolving, you’re just adapting!

Can creationists be “real” scientists?

I’ll give you a hint, the answer is a resounding, no. But they try, oh they try:

Some evolutionists have stated that creationists cannot be real scientists. Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that biological evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.” Famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2

But is a belief in particles-to-people evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Have any technological advances been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all. In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”

Well clearly if it’s contributed nothing to biomedical research that Dr. David Mention has been involved in, then it has no use and should be thrown away. I have an idea, let’s replace it with magic, that sound way more fun; from here on out, magic is what drives the universe!

Here’s a great article proving creationism is true! Of course there’s no actual proof outside of the writings in the bible.. but that’s ok, who need real life evidence when you can read from a book of fiction and treat it as reality.

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.