My Two Cents (03/14) – Creationism
- Underground Oceans: Jesse Lawrence from the University of California, San Diego has found a reservoir holding as much water as the Arctic Ocean deep below Earth’s surface. "PEOPLE keep asking if we’ve found the water that dripped underground from Noah’s flood." You can bet creationists will be all over this, and with good reason. As YEC sites have long proclaimed, " So, the “fountains of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11) are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the flood account, it could mean both." I love it when I’m right ;)
- Mine Your Own Business: A new documentary that "looks at the dark side of environmentalism. It talks to some of the world’s poorest people about how western environmentalists are campaigning to keep them in poverty because they think their way of life is quaint. It is the first documentary to ask hard questions of the environmental movement."
- Evolution and Medicine: The Alliance for Science is sponsoring a high-school essay contest entitled "Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?" While I’m sure evolutionists will come up with some ‘impressive’ justifications, it really comes down to the fact, not that evolution adds a whit to medical science, but that someone with their belief system must be smarter than others.
- Phylogenetic Tree of Life Falling? A recent article at Physorg.com explained that increasingly, "a minority of biologists and
evolutionists have questioned the accuracy of the TOL hypothesis." The
basic problem is that similar genes appear in organisms in patterns
which do not fit a universal "tree." As one of the scientists quoted,
W. F. Doolittle, elsewhere stated: "Molecular phylogenists will have
failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are
inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the
history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree." Of course, this is not the collapse of evolutionary nonsense, but the ‘healthy modification’ of a robust theory. NOT.