- County Council Resolution Opposing the proposed Travelers Rest Annexation for ‘The Inn at Altamont’
- Paris Mountain Hotel Developer Wants to Circumvent Greenville County’s Land Use Protection Laws
- USAID Funded Beginning of Ukraine War in 2014
- Proposed Hotel Complex on Paris Mountain
- Nice hotel, but the Wrong Place and the Wrong Way of Doing Things
- Why Conservative Republicans Aren’t Participating in the Greenville ReOrg
- PARIS MOUNTAIN HOTEL: The Divine Group's Traffic Study, Water Jurisdiction and Protected Species Impact Reports Dissected
- To Go in Peace and Be Left Alone
- Greenville Housing Fund Representatives Address Affordable Housing at First Monday
- South Carolina's Hootie and the Blowfish Darius Rucker
- Birth-Right Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment
- Record Number of Organizations Recognized for Excellence as Certified Best Christian Workplaces in 2024
- Confederate Navy Commerce Raiders
- Trump’s Terrific Agenda Impaired by Mistaken Ukraine Info
- We Must Be Living In “The Twilight Zone” - Part 1
The Propaganda of Calling Birds Dinosaurs
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the long-term claims of universal common descent evolution is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Now there are problems with this claim but that is not what we are addressing here. In recent days they have not just been claiming the birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they actually are dinosaurs. Yes, you heard me right, they are literally claiming the birds are living dinosaurs. The propaganda value for this is so obvious, particularly when dealing with young children is enormous.
The Propaganda of Calling Human Being Apes
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Another major example of the use of propaganda by evolutionists is in the area of so-called human evolution. The claim used to be that we evolved from apes. It has long been claimed that we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that was a type of thing. Recent changes in these claims don't reflect actual research in biology and genetics but clear propaganda.
The Use of Evolutionary Propaganda
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Despite being claimed as science, there is a lot of propaganda used in pushing the Big Band to man evolutionary view of origins. This can include making evidence look better than it really is, making evidence look more favorable to evolutionary models than it really is, applying labels that are more favorable to evolutionary models, is the tendency to not include evidence contrary to evolutionary models.
A good example of making evidence look better than it really is Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the fact that they were both eventually proven false shows neither one was sufficient to justify the claims made about them. Piltdown man was a skullcap and partial jawbone that could not even be demonstrated to belong to the same individual let alone the way they were depicted. It was even worse for Nebraska, which was based solely on a tooth that turned out to belong to an extinct pig. The problem is that they still do this kind of stuff today such that with most so-called transitional forms with so-called transitional parts often among what is missing. Tiktaalik is another good example because likewise, large portions of it are missing. This is quite common among so-called transitional forms. They tend to be fragmented, but evolutionary propaganda tends to ignore this.
Do Creationists Engage in Real Science?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the biggest claims used by evolutionists against creationists is that we do not do real science. Now there are some for whom the quality of the research and presentations of evidence are poor, but it is unfair to judge all creationists by this standard. If you take any group of people engaged in an activity, you will find some who do the activity well and some who do not. The same thing goes for creationists, there are those of us who seek to do science as well as possible and then there are those whose research is of low quality.
Conclusion on Reasons Abiogenesis cannot be Considered Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Abiogenesis does not qualify as science largely because it does not meet any of the main qualifications to be considered science. It is not based on observation, in fact, it is contrary to observation. It is not repeatable because if it happened it is a one-off event in the past for which there is no actual information. Ultimately it doesn't qualify as science because it is fundamentally untestable. Not only because it cannot be observed but because even if it can be proven impossible here on Earth it can always possible to move it to some distant place and time that makes testing it impossible.
Abiogenesis is Untestable
- Details
- By Press Release
If abiogenesis did occur on Earth, it can never be tested. It would be a one-of-a-kind event with no one present to observe and would not have occurred under conditions or on a scale that would leave a fossil record. Furthermore, even if all of the evidence proved beyond even an irrational doubt that abiogenesis did not occur on Earth, it could just be moved to Mars or some other planet. Once again, the ultimate rescue of abiogenesis would be that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. All this shows that abiogenesis is an untestable hypothesis and therefore does not qualify as science.
Abiogenesis is Unrepeatable
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Abiogenesis is ultimately unrepeatable even if it did occur, the best origin of life researchers could ever do is demonstrate that life could be produced under laboratory conditions. Not only would this require a lot of intelligence and deliberate manipulation of all the components involved, but as such it would not prove that such an event could actually happen in nature. The creation of life in a lab would only demonstrate that intelligence can produce life, it would not be repeating true abiogenesis. Also, the origin of life on Earth, whatever its source, is something that happened in the past and can't be repeated.
Abiogenesis is Contrary to Actual Observation
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The main reason that abiogenesis is contrary to observation is that life has only been observed to come from life. It has never been observed to come into existence from dead matter spontaneously. The simple fact is that the line between life and non-life spontaneously only goes one way, that is a living thing dies such that life becomes non-life. We do not see corpses spontaneously come back to life such that anyone seeing a dead person come back to life would rationally conclude that it was an act of God. Not only are there no examples of abiogenesis being observed, but everything we observe says it cannot happen.
Abiogenesis is Unobservable
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
There are several reasons why abiogenesis is unobservable. The first is that if it did happen, it happened in a place and time beyond our observation. The second reason is that if abiogenesis happens current ideas of it happen to take too long to be observable. Finally, any observation of a new life where it had previously not been seen, could have numerous other explanations other than abiogenesis. They could include simply missing it before, contamination by our own actions or presents, the life that we find could simply come from another location, and there are many more possibilities. All of this adds up to abiogenesis being unobservable.
Because observation is a major aspect of science, this means that abiogenesis cannot legitimately be considered science since it is completely unobservable. The entire idea is nothing but a result of the presupposition of atheistic naturalistic materialism, not science.
Thermodynamics is a Problem for Abiogenesis
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Before starting on about the second law of thermodynamics, I am not using the second law of thermodynamics nor am I saying that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible. What I am saying is that it does have thermodynamic issues.
First of all, the energy applied to any prebiotic soup is going to be more likely to break down the organic compounds that produce them. This problem gets worse the more complex those organic compounds become.
Second, many aspects of a living cell do not result from chemical necessity. The arrangement of the nucleotides in DNA is a perfect example of this problem. The arrangement of the nucleotides in DNA is not compelled by chemistry but it is based on the information that it holds. The DNA can be arranged as needed to hold that information. The point is that there are many aspects of a cell necessary for life that cannot simply be produced by chemical processes but are easily broken down by thermodynamic processes.
The Only Evidence for Abiogenesis is the Assumption that It Had to Have Happened
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The simple fact is but there is no real evidence for abiogenesis actually occurring. The reason why this would be is that even if it did occur such chemical processes do not leave fossils. However, this still means but there is a lack of actual evidence.
No Alternative to Abiogenesis is Allowed
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
For something to be considered scientific you know it has to be the possibility of it being false but for this to be the case you have to allow for other possibilities to be considered. Because abiogenesis is the only naturalistic possibility by definition as long as naturalism rules the research no other possibilities such as an intelligent designer will even be allowed no matter how much the evidence points to it.
Abiogenesis Is a Necessity of a Naturalistic Origin
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Abiogenesis is not a specific theory of the origin of life but rather by definition abiogenesis is the idea of the naturalistic origin of life. That is, it is the general concept of a naturalistic origin of life. It is a 100% philosophical concept based on complete atheistic naturalistic materialism.
It is ultimately a necessity of insisting on a totally naturalistic origin to life, the universe, and everything. Abiogenesis is not necessitated by science, or even implied by science. It simply results from an insistence on a naturalistic origin.
Abiogenesis is an Atheistic Presupposition
- Details
- By Press Release
Abiogenesis is by definition a totally naturalistic concept of the origin of life. Rather than being created by God as indicated in the Bible, the entire concept is one of the light laws of chemistry just working together to spontaneously produce life given the right conditions. Not only does the notion of abiogenesis exclude God but it does so deliberately and before even considering a single bit of evidence.
Its connection to atheism goes beyond this, but it is a needed necessary presupposition of atheism and philosophical naturalism. While there are scientific reasons for life having a beginning, there are no scientific reasons requiring that it be by way of abiogenesis. Even ignoring God as a possible answer, there is no reason to not simply conclude that we do not know and cannot know the answer. After all the origin of life took place in the past, and there are many details of the past that simply cannot be reconstructed. This is particularly true in one-off events for which there were no humans around to observe and record.
Reasons Abiogenesis cannot be Considered Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
This is not a statement against abiogenesis itself. It is not saying that it is impossible or even wrong. It is just that it cannot be considered scientific. The following articles are reasons why it cannot be considered a scientific concept. As a result, abiogenesis has no place in a public-school science class. Not because it runs afoul of any religious beliefs but simply because it does not qualify as science. This series will address 10 Pacific reasons for abiogenesis cannot be considered science.
Which is more believable, Genesis or the Big Bang Theory?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The one that you will find more believable between Genesis and the Big Bang Theory depends upon your philosophical starting assumptions. If you look at the evidence from a theistic creation perspective, you will find Genesis to be the most believable. If on the other hand you look at the evidence from an atheistic, naturalistic materialistic perspective, then you will be forced to accept the basic Big Bang to man story regardless of what the evidence actually is.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
