Translate

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Scientific Arguments for God's Existence 1.b

The argument of the proteins specified complexity

1. The number and sequence of amino acids in proteins, such as enzymes, are crucial. One can destroy or randomly replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function of the protein.
2.  Only  specially-shaped  forms  (left-handed  configurations) of  each amino acid are used to form proteins.
3. Amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds to form proteins.
4. To link together, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme.
5. Multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end.
6. Out of many details even these few have specified complexity without which the proteins could not exist. Not even half of the functional proteins could survive without important function.
7. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned.
7. This is creation by an intelligent designer, and this is the dictionary meaning of the word God.

The argument of complex and specified information (CSI)

1. The scientific method consists of a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.
2. Performing many scientific experiments upon natural objects, now already for decades, in many of them, scientists discovered so highly complex and specified information (CSI) that it is very difficult or even impossible to make imitation of such complex units.
3. If scientists cannot make copies of complex and specified units what to say about the dull material nature, natural selection, and mutation creating these.
4. Natural objects containing a high level of CSI means they were produced by a super designer.
5. That super designer can be only God.
6. God exists.

The argument by cell complexity

1. By the advancement of microbiology, the great complexity of the cell is discovered in more and more details.
2. It is also more understood that for the harmonious coexisting of the different particles of the cell all parts are needed.
3. All this reveals the fact that these parts of the cell could not develop independently one by one.
4. No one of them is useful without the existence of another; particles like chromosomes, DNA, RNA, the Amino acids etc.
5. Man did not create such complex cells since according to Darwin’s theory there were no people at the very beginning of life’s coming into being.
6. Thus, the only option is God – the great creator, the one ultimate source who ever exists and gives facility for life for all different kinds of living entities.
7. God exists.

The evidence of the imitation

1. The hard work of the scientists to find and make the complex designs of nature is seeing and imitating the creation of the first creator who already created everything perfectly long time ago.
2. Thus, God the primeval supreme designer exists.

Arguments from anatomy

Proof of the signals in the neurons

1. A reflex signal from a bump on your knee needs to go in the direction of the controlling muscle and on to the brain, not any which way. What directs the placement of “one way” signs in nerve cells? According to a press release from the University of Georgia, it’s the enzyme MEC-17.
2. The MEC-17, which they studied in roundworms, zebrafish and human cancer cells, is responsible for placing the traffic signs, called acetylation marks, on the cellular highways made of microtubules. The paths with lots of these marks are on the sending end, and the paths with few of them are on the receiving end. When the marks are not set properly, bad things happen: zebrafish develop neuromuscular defects, and humans are subject to debilitating neural diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s. This discovery may lead to new treatment strategies by enhancing or inhibiting the action of MEC-17.
3. By noticing that MEC-17 works identically in animals as diverse as roundworms, fish and humans, the researchers deduced that “this microtubule acetylation process using MEC-17 is an evolutionarily conserved function.” Conserved means unevolved.
4. The following important question however the researchers did not answer:
a. What controls MEC-17, and what would happen to the living beings without having this enzyme fully developed from the beginning.
b. If this enzyme puts up the signs, who is the foreman?
5. We don’t control anything within our bodies. Many different processes happen without our knowledge.
6. If we are not in control of the processes in our bodies than who was the designer of those processes?
7. The infinite regress question is: who is the designer of the designer? However, the hierarchy of design must eventually stop at a Designer who is omniscient and omnipotent and that is God. Aristotle already taught us in his “on the motion of animals” about the Unmoved Mover; no mouse can climb a hill of grain, since it has no basis.
8. Hence God exists.

The argument of artificial intelligence computers,
human brain and its evolution

1. Computers and robots are very fast in searching particular info through vast amounts of data. They can also outperform chess champs. Still, even after decades and decades of improving them, computers have no common sense, no prudence, no sound judgment and cannot match some of the mental capabilities of even a 3-year-old toddler.
2. “We’re still very far from programs with common sense — artificial intelligence (AI) that can answer comprehension questions with the skill of a child of 8…Machines can’t yet be programmed to form intuitions about the physical world without doing extensive calculations, and they seem to fail at answering open-ended questions,” says Robert Sloan, a computer scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
3. Not only Neuroinformatics researchers from the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich have now made a breakthrough by making neuromorphic chips to imitate the brain’s information processing abilities in real-time, but also Intel succeeded to make the neuromorphic chip that looks to be an improvement over existing ones. However, it is still orders of magnitude away from the computational efficiency that real neurons achieve. Thus there’s a long way to go before synthetic systems can begin to match the capability of natural ones.
4. Human brains have some pretty sophisticated wiring like the method of signaling. For example, exosomes provide a kind of “delivery on call” capability.
In their study, Carsten Frühbeis, Dominik Fröhlich, and Wen Ping Kuo of the Institute of Molecular Cell Biology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz  found  that  oligodendrocytes  release  nano-vesicles  known  as
‘exosomes’ in response to neuronal signals. These exosomes are taken up by the neurons and their cargo can then be used for neuronal metabolism. “This works on a kind of ‘delivery on call’ principle,” explained Dr. Eva- Maria Krämer-Albers, who is leading the current study. “We believe that what are being delivered are ‘care packages’ that are sent by the oligodendrocytes (=from Greek, meaning cells with a few branches) to neurons.”
5. An article on Science Daily1 said that cells have a “zip code” capability that is linked to learning and memory, including redundancy to ensure proper delivery.
According to Trybus, a UVM (University of Vermont) professor of molecular physiology and biophysics, ensuring proper cellular function is challenging. “The proteins responsible for orchestrating this task are not uniformly distributed, but they often need to be in a certain place at a certain time,” she says. That’s where mRNA (messenger RNA) plays a role; cells employ a unique identifier signal in the mRNA called a “zip code” to ensure it transports to the place where the protein is needed.
6. PNAS2 published a paper that says “Flexible frequency control of cortical oscillations enables computations required for working memory.”
7. In another article of Science Daily3 we read that the brain finds it easy to pick out salient sounds from background noise by tracking frequency and time.
Our ears can effortlessly pick out the sounds we need to hear from a noisy environment -- hearing our mobile phone ringtone in the middle of the Notting Hill Carnival, for example -- but how our brains process this information (the so-called ‘cocktail party problem’) has been a longstanding research question in hearing science. Researchers have previously investigated this, using simple sounds such as two tones of different pitches, but now researchers at UCL and Newcastle University have used complicated sounds that are more representative of those we hear in real life. The team used ‘machine-like beeps’ that overlap in both frequency and time to recreate a busy sound environment and obtain new insights into how the brain solves this problem.
In the study, groups of volunteers were asked to identify target sounds from within this noisy background in a series of experiments.
Sundeep Teki, a PhD student from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL and joint first author of the study, said: “Participants were able to detect complex target sounds from the background noise, even when the target sounds were delivered at a faster rate or there was a loud disruptive noise between them.”
8. “The brain’s complexity is beyond anything imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief,” says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology. “One synapse5 [in the brain], by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
9. So there you have it. A microprocessor with around 1 billion transistors is in the same mental ballpark as … a worm. Rather an underwhelming result, don’t you think?
“What about the Internet as a whole?” you might ask. As we saw above, the number of transistors (N) in the entire Internet is 10^18, so log(N) is 18. log(Z) is log(2) or about 0.3, so C=(18*0.3)=5.4. That’s right: on Deamer’s scale, the complexity of the entire Internet is a miserable 5.4, or 40 orders of magnitude less than that of the human brain, which stands at 45.5.
Remember that Deamer’s formula is a logarithmic one, using logarithms to base 10. What that means is that the human brain is, in reality, 10,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more complex than the entire Internet! And that’s based on explicitly materialistic assumptions about consciousness. (Dr. Torley in December 7, 2012)
10. A typical, healthy [brain] houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies. (Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore 2010.)
11. Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology (in computers used to try to understand the biological interactions) speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge. (Modular Biological Complexity by Christof Koch – August 2012)
12. Human brain contains about 10 billion neurons, and each one can contain thousands of connections with other neurons.
13. “A single neuron can send 1,000 signals per second, each traveling at a sizzling 250 mph (400 km/h). Then there’s the early growth spurt most people don’t think about – half a million brain cells form every minute during the first five months in the womb.”[4]
14. The goal of the Human Brain Project is to provide the most detailed simulation ever of the complexity of human brain. The computing power for this will require super-computers thousands of times more powerful than what we have available today. So an aim of the larger research initiative is to develop computers with that kind of power.
Our prediction? Simply this. Much as in the case of the human genome, the study of the physical makeup of the brain will provide remarkable insight into its components and structure. However it will also unlock layers upon layers of (unfathomable) complexity. (Project Brain: Our Prediction – June 28, 2013)
15. James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he reported about a speech of Richard Lewontin who is a Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Lewontin titled his speech, “Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition.” Randerson reported that, in the lecture, the eminent Harvard professor “systematically dismissed every assumption about the evolution of human thought, reaching the conclusion that scientists are still completely in the dark about how natural selection prompted the massive hike in human brain size in the human line” (2008).
16. As the AI scientists are very slowly trying to approach the computer imitation of the brain’s capabilities by careful and thoughtful design, and as more and more discoveries are made about the complexities of the brain, the more and more the fact of its being designed by an intelligent designer is established.
17. Who can really believe that a computer network more vast and complex than the internet, packed into a three-pound lump of wet tissue that grows from a single cell and runs on potatoes, arose by an undirected, purposeless process essentially by chance?
18. Thinking about this fact falsifies Darwin’s evolution theory. The evolutionists didn’t even begin to try to start to commence to explain how all this astounding complexity evolved.
19. All of man’s internet-like connections in the brain could not develop by an unguided, purposeless, uncaring process.
20. Therefore, the complex design of the brain strongly suggests a much superior designer than any human being. All men call him God.
21. God necessarily exists.

NOTE:
1. Thomas Sladewski, a University of Vermont graduate student working in the laboratory of Kathleen Trybus, Ph.D., and colleagues. (July 15,
2013)
2. Flexible frequency control of cortical oscillations enables computations required for working memory by Mario Dipoppaa et al. approved June
21, 2013.
3. Researchers from UCL and Newcastle University, July 23, 2013.
4. Livescience.com, Inside the Brain: Museum Exhibit Will Blow Your
Mind by Jeremy Hsu.
5. In the nervous system, a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell (neural or otherwise)…Synapses are essential to neuronal function: neurons are cells that are specialized to pass signals to individual target cells, and synapses are the means by which they do so. At a synapse, the plasma membrane of the signal-passing neuron (the presynaptic neuron) comes into close apposition with the membrane of the target (postsynaptic) cell. Both the presynaptic and postsynaptic sites contain extensive arrays of molecular machinery that link the two membranes together and carry out the signaling process.
6. Presynaptic terminals are nervous system structures located at the terminal of the axon or sometimes along its length. They are specialized structures that form junctions (synapses) with other neurons and with muscle cells. Presynaptic terminals, seen by light microscope, look like small knobs and contain many organelles.

The evidence of the brain cells change over lifetime and the ability to hear, see, smell etc.

1. Previously it was believed that brain cells and the genetic make-up of brain cells remains static throughout life.
2. However, scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, working in collaboration with scientists from the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, Japan and  the  United  States,  have  identified genes  called  retrotransposons responsible for tiny changes in the DNA of brain tissue, BBC reported Sunday.
4. The genetic makeup of human brain cells is not static but changes thousands of times during the course of our lifetimes, researchers in Scotland said. (Edinburgh, Scotland, Oct. 31 2011)
3. “If we can understand better how these subtle genetic changes occur we could shed light on how brain cells regenerate, how processes like memory formation may have a genetic basis and possibly link the activity of these genes to brain diseases,” Geoff Faulkner of the Roslin Institute said. “This research completely overturns the belief that the genetic make-up of brain cells remains static throughout life and provides us with new information about how the brain works.”
4. The researchers said the study shows for the first time that brain cells are genetically different from other cells in the body and are also genetically distinct from each other.
5. Already in 2004 the Harvard University researchers found that 20 genes critical for learning and memory begin to decline in function as early as age 40.
6. As one becomes older, genes became damaged, reducing their effectiveness. “Some genes begin to decline much earlier than expected, as early as the early 40s,” says senior author Bruce Yanker, a professor of neurology and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital in Boston.
7. In the older brain samples, the researchers found that genes whose job is to protect and repair neurons from damage had been working overtime. That compensatory activity may delay the effects of the damage, and could explain why damage to cognitive function often doesn’t show up until later in life, and why some individuals retain their intellectual acumen longer than others. The effectiveness of the compensatory activity “may be a function of genetics, and lifestyle, probably a combination of both,” Dr. Yanker says.
8. As seen from the researches, brain cells and genetic make-up of the brain cells are changing. Moreover all the different cells in the body are changing, i.o.w all of them have their turnover.
9. The turnover of all cells in the human body proves that we are not the body and that the combinations of chemicals and cells in our brain are not the cause of our consciousness.
10. Consciousness or awareness is not the symptom of the combinations of dead chemicals but only a symptom of life, which everybody calls the soul.
11. The individual self or the soul is not aware nor understands the complex workings of the brain’s functions, namely seeing, hearing, tasting etc. in the different parts of the brain.
12. The different signals in the neurons and brain tissues have to be converted to us (to the soul) into a meaningful message and then we can understand what we see, hear, taste smell etc.
13. The decoder of all the different signals in the brain has to be done by a person who has superior knowledge than us, who understands everything.
14. That person is the Supersoul within the body or God.
15. God necessarily exists.

The argument by hemoglobin

Part A
1. The hemoglobin is a protein made of 564 amino acids.
2. The hemoglobin’s three dimensional structure; the amino acid sequence and the 4 iron atoms in the central region of the hemoglobin are all together enabling the special function of the hemoglobin - the transfer of the oxygen.
3. An alteration of any part of this structure of hemoglobin would cause inability to execute its duty of carrying oxygen.
4. Conclusively, such a structure is a proof of perfect design.
5. Behind a design there is an intelligent designer.
6. That designer is God.

Part B
1. If the bond between the oxygen and hemoglobin in the lung would be not enough strong than the oxygen would not combine with the hemoglobin.
Thus, the oxygen would not be carried to the tissues where it is needed and consequently the tissues would die.
2. Conclusively, there could be no any intermediary development of hemoglobin.
3. To perfectly function it must have been existed from the very beginning in its very perfect state.
4. The natural conclusion of this is that the hemoglobin must have been designed to be able to immediately carry out its important function of giving life to the material body.
5. Where there is a design there is also a designer all men call God.

The argument from assassins

1. Moving quietly through the blood streams, the assassins travel around, looking for their targets.
2. Having license to kill, these natural killer cells (NK), part of our immune systems are removing the disease causing bad cells.
3. Scientists do not yet fully understand how NK cells recognize and distinguish dangerous microbes and disease causing cells from friendly, healthy cells. Nor they understand how assassins remember all the infections to speed up their response the second time.
4. However it is understood that NK can make holes in the membranes of the invading bad cells and injecting poisons into them they neutralize and kill the potential danger.
5. Because the living entities cannot control the necessary needful processes within their body, like the supposed development of the defense system and because they could not have survived without a developed immune system from the very beginning of their existence, even 300my ago or earlier, all this points to a designer who knows the necessities of the living beings.
6. That Supreme intelligent designer is God.
7. Hence God exists.

The argument from wound healing cilium

1. The cilium that looks like an antenna on most human cells, orients cells to move in the right direction at the speed needed to heal wounds, and so acts like a Global Positioning System (GPS) that helps ships navigate to their destinations.
2. “The really important discovery is that the primary cilium detects signals, which tell the cells to engage their compass reading and move in the right direction to close the wound.”
3. “Protruding through the cell membrane, primary cilia occur on almost every non-dividing cell in the body.”
4. “Once written off as a vestigial organelle discarded in the evolutionary dust, primary cilia in the last decade have risen to prominence as a vital cellular sensor at the root of a wide range of health disorders, from polycystic kidney disease to cancer to left-right anatomical abnormalities.”
5. The unavoidable importance of the primeval cilium for the survival of the cell and its wonderful design proves the existence of the primeval designer God.
6. God necessarily exists.

The argument of the development of an embryo

1a. During the development of an embryo, everything happens at a specific moment. In about 48 hours, it will grow from the top to the bottom, one slice at a time – scientists call this the embryo’s segmentation. “We’re made up of thirty-odd horizontal slices,” explains Denis Duboule, a professor at EPFL and Unige. “These slices correspond more or less to the number of vertebrae we have.”
1b. Every hour and a half, a new segment is built. The genes corresponding to the cervical vertebrae, the thoracic vertebrae, the lumbar vertebrae and the tailbone become activated at exactly the right moment one after another.”
1c. The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.
1d. “A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics; it is so remarkably precise.
1e. The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of the species.
2. The scientists don’t offer any evolutionary explanations. By discovering more and more complexities, the God arguments are increasing; we can only explain the complexities as being by God’s creation and control.
3. God exists.

Arguments from evolution

Proof by origin of life and natural selection

1a. Natural selection can only eliminate the weak members of the particular species but it has no power to create the first living cell or organism and to transform one species into another. Nor is there any other impersonal force, since their existence can’t be proven.
1b. Who is this sir natural selection selecting and eliminating species;
this can only be done by an intelligent person.
2. Thus, because natural selection, chance cannot explain the origin and development of life, God exists.

Proof from artificial selection

1. Performing experiments, from 1975 for 35 years, scientists looked for evidence of a “selective sweep” – the signature of a beneficial mutation becoming fixed in the population – and could not find it. They did the selection artificially, forcing the fly embryos to evolve toward faster embryonic development.
2. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
3. Despite lots of mutations, they found the flies resistant to change. Not only that, the experiments showed that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations, which suggests that any soft sweeps in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect.”
4. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations…”
5. Natural or artificial selection cannot create new species.
6. There had to be an intelligent force that could arrange all the varieties of species to exist.
7. Intelligence and power to create belongs only to God.
8. Hence God exists.

Reference: Burke, Dunham et al, “Genome-wide analysis of a long- term evolution experiment with Drosophila,” Nature 467, 587-590 (30
September 2010); doi:10.1038/nature09352.

The evidence of human-chimp genome similarity

1. For the past several decades, the standard has been that humans are 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees.
2. The well-known chimpanzee genome paper published by evolutionists in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated. [1, 2]
3. Geneticist Richard Buggs took an exacting approach in calculating genome-wide DNA similarity using data from both the 2005 chimp genome report and the human genome project in a brief news report published in 2008. Because Buggs’ estimates closely match the outcome of this study, his work is quoted below.
“To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein- coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.”
“Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.”
“In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single “letter” is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.”
“We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This “copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.”
“This figure does not include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or “scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled (Buggs 2008).” 
4. The details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome- wide.
5. The preliminary analyses of Buggs (2008) and Progetto cosmo (2012) indicate that in conflict with evolutionary claims, overall chimp DNA similarity compared to human may be as low as 70% or less.
6. Hypothetical evolutionary processes cannot explain the extremely broad differences between chimp and human DNA when the whole genomes (full DNA sequence of an organism) are considered.
7. The similar regions between genomes indicate the basic reuse of effective code what is known and done by software engineers. Expert DNA engineering in nature points to the Great Designer or God, who has manufactured all the wondrous diversity of life on Earth, and who bridged the gaps between the species.
8. God exists.

References
1. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business— estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100.
2. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.

The argument of the vanishing act of human evolution

1. There is more and more tension between observation and evolutionary story telling.
A. 1. Update on the status of the hyoid bone (=U-shaped bone at the base of the tongue that supports the tongue muscles) in a Neanderthal fossil found in 1989.
2a. “It has long been believed that other beings, including the Neanderthals with whom our ancestors shared Earth for thousands of years, simply lacked the necessary cognitive capacity and vocal hardware for speech.”
2b. We humans like to think of ourselves as unique for many reasons, not least of which being our ability to communicate with words. But ground- breaking research by an expert from the University of New England shows that our ‘misunderstood cousins,’ the Neanderthals, may well have spoken in languages not dissimilar to the ones we use today.…
2c. “By analyzing the mechanical behavior of the fossilized bone with micro x-ray imaging, we were able to build models of the hyoid that included the intricate internal structure of the bone. We then compared them to models of modern humans. Our comparisons showed that in terms of mechanical behavior, the Neanderthal hyoid was basically indistinguishable from our own, strongly suggesting that this key part of the vocal tract was used in the same way.
2d. “From this research, we can conclude that it’s likely that the origins of speech and language are far, far older than once thought.”
3. The facts in the article essentially destroy the myth that Neanderthals were sub-human, but then it goes on to assume the origin of language must have evolved earlier.
B. The Laetoli tracks in Africa
1. Everyone acknowledges that the Laetoli tracks “look” like modern human footprints. But they can’t be, according to the evolutionary timeline, because they date back to almost 4 million years.
2. Science Daily, giving an advertisement for the new book ‘Apes and Human Evolution’ by Russell Tuttle states “How Apes and Humans Evolved Side by Side.”
3. The article states, “The book explains how apes and humans evolved in relation to one another, and why humans became a bipedal, tool-making, culture-inventing species.”
4. Some excerpts from the article show a striking disconnect between observational evidence and the evolutionary story. Here are few:
A 1. The footprints are the oldest evidence that early hominids came down from trees and began walking upright.
A 2. “If you look at the footprints, they are quite similar to the footprints of modern humans,” said Tuttle.
B. Although apes share some characteristics of humans, such as being able to walk upright and being able to communicate with each other, a notable behavioral gulf separates them from people, Tuttle said.
C. “They represent one of several early hominid species that evolved, succeeded and then faded away — leaving behind fossils that are the record of our origins.” So is his story.
5. Observational facts are against Tuttle’s story, and against the Neanderthal myth. The tracks are modern. The hyoid bone is modern. Nothing evolved!
6. But over and over, Tuttle weaves his tale, using words like developed, emerged, became, grew, or glimpse into the origin of that rather indicate design than evolution.
7. The number of guessing words – could, would, should, may have, might have, maybe, possibly, probably, perhaps, suggests – used by Tuttle is sky-high. This clearly shows how the evolution story is a complete fabrication, a fictional, self-refuting myth. Although there are discoveries against Tuttle’s speculations he continues his storytelling as if nothing happened.
8. Evolution is a myth, creation by a creator or God is the truth.
9. God exists.

References:
1. Talking Neanderthals challenge the origins of speech, March 2, 2014, University of New England
2. How apes and humans evolved side by side, March 4, 2014, University of Chicago

The argument of no observable evidence

1. There is not even one observable evidence that one kind of species changes into another.
2. All different proofs of evolution show only micro-evolution like the Galapagos finches changing the shapes of their beaks, stickleback fishes undergoing genetic change after the ice age.
3. These two species are still finches and fishes that underwent only some adaptation through microevolution or the limited variation that takes place within the species.
4. According to evolutionists billions of microevolution mutations in the genome can create new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes will result in evolution.
(a) most mutations will be lost due to drift, so a mutation will have to appear many times before it gets fixed in the population;
(b) necessarily, the mutation rate will always be much greater than the fixation rate;
(c1) Kimura is famous for showing that most mutations are nearly- neutral, and therefore are not subject to selection.
(c2) To understand the effect of the near neutral mutation we can give the example of the aging of our bodies. We can repair teeth, do facelifts, even replace hearts. But it is the cumulative aging of the individual cells (principally due to mutations) which places a specific limitation on our lifespan. This is true even though each individual cell is trivial and entirely expendable. Just as the human body rusts out due to countless microscopic mistakes (all of which in themselves are insignificant), the human genome must also be “rusting out” due to near--neutral mutations [that are very subtle]. No selection scheme can stop this process. This is the essence of the near-neutral mutation problem.
5. The explanation of evolution by mutations has a real problem.
6. Also, experiments on fruit-flies showed that genetic changes are limited and cannot create new species.
6. Macro-evolution or changing of one species into another is not proven. No genetic changes are reported.
7. Evolution is false; creation by an intelligent God is true.
8. God exists.

The argument of the broken down evolution tree

1. The fundamental tenet of evolution theory is that species evolved according to the evolutionary tree; one after the other evolved, as a genealogical family tree.
2. However, since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern.
-- For example, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on neighboring twigs of the evolutionary tree, are routinely found to have profound differences. Here is an example: a. In 2010 an article in the journal Nature[4] released the results of a human-chimp DNA study with implications that was very surprising for the scientific community because the result of the research contradicted the long-held hypothesis of their similarity.
b. Already the title summed up the research findings: “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content.”
c. The chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome.
d. The chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome.
c. The researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories and they found a shocking 33 percent difference. e. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories-- entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.
f. Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments I.o.w.
70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that
50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent.
g. The Nature article we can read, “Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”
h. So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.
i. However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures.
-- On the other hand, species that are obviously quite different, which evolutionists have placed on distant limbs of the evolutionary tree, are often found to have profound similarities.
a. Humans, Arabidopsis (A genus of the mustard-family having white, yellow or purplish flowers), and nematodes (Unsegmented worms with elongated rounded body pointed at both ends) all have about the same number of genes.
a. A research team from Heidelberg from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL][1], compared human and fruit-fly introns[2] with those of a roundworm thought to be 600 million years old. Surprisingly, introns were already in the worms from the beginning of their appearance and remained the same all the way to the human line, changing rapidly and losing many of them only in other species like insects. One of the researchers remarked, “Now we have direct evidence that genes were already quite complex in the first animals, and many invertebrates have reduced part of this complexity.” Yet another said, “The worm’s genes are very similar to human genes…That’s a much different picture than we’ve seen from the quickly-evolving species that have been studied so far.” Additionally, the genome too “has been preserved over the last half a billion years.” In their research they did not explain how the early-Cambrian roundworms got their complexity and ability to remain unchanged for millions of years. The discovery is obviously changing the evolution tree.
b.  Molecular  evolution  trees  often  do  not  fit  a  morphology-based evolution tree. For example, there are several TRAF genes in humans and Drosophila, and obvious prediction of Darwin’s model is that there must be an ancestral gene in a common ancestral organism from which the modern TRAF genes were derived. In reality, however, a TRAF gene from Hydra does not fit criteria of an ancestral gene, which must be somewhat of a mix of all human TRAF families, but rather clearly belongs to the major group of TRAF genes along with human TRAF1, TRAF2, TRAF3 and TRAF5, while human TRAF4 and especially TRAF6 belong to different groups together with Drosophila TRAFs. [3]
3. For years evolutionists attempted to explain the growing list of contradictions using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around.
4. In recent years evolutionists have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.
5. Thus, even nowadays students are taught that the species fall into the expected tree pattern. But some venturesome writers are beginning to mention this unmentionable, forbidden archeology.
6. Few years ago, for instance, the Telegraph reported that “Charles
Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading.’
-- They believe the concept misleads us because his [Darwin’s] theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries.
-- Researchers say although for much of the past 150 years biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree it is now obsolete and needs to be discarded.
-- “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”
-- More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like either.
-- Dr Rose said: “The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What’s less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” He says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.
7. Contrary evidences were/are continuously openly discussed. But none of them is allowed to cast any doubt on evolutionary theory itself. As the article reported:
8. “If you don’t have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology? At first it’s very scary – but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds.” Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn’t mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.
9. The theory has to be repeatedly modified and augmented to try to fit the data. At some point the theory becomes little more than a tautology. Namely, whatever discovery is made in biology, evolution must have created it, no matter how contradictory and unlikely.
10. However such tautology is one of the fallacies in logic. By definition: “Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such.”
11. Thus the only logical explanation of differences between similar species and similarities of different species is an involvement of an intelligent designer using similar genetic patterns. This all men call God.
12. God exists.

Notes:
1. Vertebrate-type intron-rich genes in the marine annelid Platynereis dumerilii F. Raible, K. Tessmar-Raible, K. Osoegawa, P. Wincker, C. Jubin, G. Balavoine, D. Ferrier, V. Benes, P. de Jong, J. Weissenbach, P. Bork and D. Arendt.
2. intron - Part of a gene whose sequence is transcribed but not present in a mature mRNA after splicing.
3. Mali B, Frank U. Hydroid TNF-receptor-associated factor (TRAF) and its splice variant: a role in development.Mol Immunol. (2004) 41:377-84
4. Hughes, J.F. et al. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure gene content. Nature. 463 (7280): 536-539.

The argument of unexpected evidence

a. Evolution by subtraction.
1. The growth of the evolution tree of life from the root to the top branches should have been accompanied by a huge amount of new genetic information.
2. Normally, according to the evolution theory, related species should have closely related genomes.
3. However, the lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre- leaved rock cress are contradictory to these above tenets.
4. In a press release from Max Planck Institute we read, “It would appear reasonable to assume that two closely related plant species would have similar genetic blueprints.” But the lyre-leaved rock cress has a genome fifty percent bigger than the other. Moreover, these changes arose over a very short period in evolutionary terms.”
5. It doesn’t look at all that the lyre-leaved cress has gained new genetic information; on the contrary, “considerable elements have been lost from some parts of the thale cress genome.” To the further amazement and frustration of the scientists it was observed that, “A smaller genome appears to offer advantages during the natural selection of individuals.”
6. One of the researchers is asserted, “We consider the thale cress with its more streamlined genome as the form derived through evolution.”
7. This contradictory evidence to Darwin’s evolution theory is one of the many where a species in a lower part of the evolutionary life tree has more genes than those on the higher branches.
8. This suggests that species were designed and not evolved from one into another.
9. The ultimate designer all men call God. God exists.

The evidence of punctuated equilibrium theory

1. The large gaps between major kinds of organisms in the fossil record is an embarrassment to Darwinists. It has given rise to radical theories like punctuated equilibria, which tries to explain why the evidence is not there.
2. Stephen Gould of Harvard University, working with Niles Eldredge in
1972 announced a new alternative theory to Darwin’s gradual changes of the species. They named it “punctuated equilibrium.” This term means that for 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an “equilibrium” without any evolution). And then, suddenly (in a very rare “punctuation”) and by total chance, two totally different life-forms will emerge.
3. In 2007 Dean Falk wrote: “Punctuated equilibrium argues convincingly that speciation confers stability, with new species emerging only when external factors throw ecosystems into disequilibrium. A clear example of this, supported by the fossil and geographic record, is the sudden end of the dinosaurs after a meteor hit Earth rendering it uninhabitable by dinosaurs and giving mammals a selective advantage.”[1]
4. Also in 2007 Gene Hunt undertook a study of “The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages,” and found a lot of stasis. After his “large-scale, statistical survey of evolutionary mode in fossil lineages,” involving some 250 sequences of evolving traits, he wrote in PNAS, “The rarity with which directional evolution was observed in this study corroborates a key claim of punctuated equilibria and suggests that truly directional evolution is infrequent or, perhaps more importantly, of short enough duration so as to rarely register in paleontological sampling.”[2]
5. Hunt found only 5% of fossil lineages could be attributed to directional evolution. Of the rest that showed change over time, it was mostly for body size, not body shape. This does not seem to be a vindication for Darwin’s prognosticative powers. In the evolutionary rat race, if a bigger or smaller rat wins, it is still just a rat.
6. “Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free ‘just-so stories’ concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists.” (Richard Milner 1990)
7. Gould’s critics, on the other hand, viewed punctuated equilibria as deficient in mechanisms that could generate functional innovation.
8. So both theories fail completely. We are left with nothing else then the only plausible possibility that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer all men call God.
9. God exists.

Reference:
1. Dean Falk, “Delving into the ancient brain,” Nature 450, 31-32 (1
November 2007) | doi:10.1038/450031a.
2. Gene Hunt, “The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online before print November 14, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0704088104.

The evidence of statistics

1. E. coli cells contain roughly 3 million proteins within a box that is roughly one micron (1,000 nanometers) on each side. Less than 10 nanometers separate each protein from its neighbors. “There’s no room for anything else,” Phillips says. “These cells are really crowded.” (The physics of going viral: Researchers measure the rate of DNA transfer from viruses to bacteria – June 27, 2012)
2. There are anywhere from 50 trillion to 100 trillion cells in the average human body, thus the conservative estimate of 10^19 to 10^20 protein molecules per one human body. According to other estimate the human body has over two million proteins, coded for by only 20,000 - 25,000 genes.
3. The enzyme machine that translates a cell’s DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is “shocking” and reveals just how much of a stickler (insisting) the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis. (Rachel Green, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and professor of molecular biology and genetics: The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors, 2009)
4. Comparing ATP1 binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution (if it were true) would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function. (How Proteins Evolved
– Cornelius Hunter – December 2010)
5. Considering these irreducible complex systems, evolution is impossible and intelligent design by an intelligent designer is the true theory. That intelligent designer all men call God.
6. God exists.

NOTE:
1. A nucleotide derived from adenosine that occurs in muscle tissue; the major source of energy for cellular reactions.

The evidence of the hopeful monster

1. Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California had spent most of his adult life trying to prove that fruit flies could change into new species, but without success.
“After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
Richard Goldschmidt was a veteran genetics researcher, and after many of his experiments on the fruit flies he gave up the idea that one-by-one mutations could accomplish the task of evolution.
After all Goldschmidt proposed his new “theory of saltation,” in which no transitional forms would be necessary. (“Saltation” means “sudden leap” in German.)
This theory is also popularly known as the “hopeful monster theory.” It taught that one day a reptile laid an egg and a “brown furry thing” hatched out of it. Chance would have it that, when it grew up, this mammal found a mate that had also suddenly by chance hatched out of another reptile egg—and the result was a new species of animal.
2. But Darwin, always said, “Natura non facit saltum” (nature does not take leaps).
3. In 2010 Tanguy Chouard a senior editor of the scientific magazine Nature, discussed evidence that nature does take leaps – big changes that can occur within a single generation. “Experimental evidence has shown that individual genetic changes can have vast effects on an organism without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap,” he said. (The evolutionary rubbish heap would be the slow Darwinian evolution). In a bit reconciling way with Darwin theory Chouard continued: “But small- effect mutations still matter – a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow.”
4. For evidence, Chouard exhibited an evolutionary pet, the stickleback fish. Offspring can vary substantially between armored and naked forms. This is due to a single gene location responsible for 2/3 of the spines. Chouard explained, “the reigning gradualist dogma regarded these as artificially protected monstrosities that would never survive the harsh hand of natural selection.” Later he continued, “How could a mutation in such a crucial gene result in anything but a hopeless monster?” However, Chouard added, “It remains to be seen, whether such elementary mechanisms of adaptation, often referred to as microevolution, can instruct the higher processes that constitute macroevolution, such as speciation and the emergence of biodiversity or complex organs.”
5. Also Goldschmidt, the hopeful-monster champion, doubted leaps that large could be made. And Jerry Coyne cautioned generalizing results from asexual bacteria with small genomes and high mutation rates.
6. Chouard admitted, “Large effect or small, evolution begins to look like an endless list of special cases...One reason is the general lack of knowledge about how changes in genes contribute to function and how this affects fitness.”
7. This  is  really  essential  for  understanding  evolution.  So  it  seems way premature to claim that evolutionary biology has settled on a comprehensive theory of speciation, even 150 years after Darwin.
8. Despite the great advancement of science, many experiments and so- called advanced knowledge, all the possible explanations of evolution are still speculative, imperfect, incomplete and not proven by experiments.
9. The truth is that no mammoth mutations can or would occur. None occurred at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl. Yet, in regard to number of mutations suddenly occurring, they are the monster mutation capitals of the world.
They did not occur in the irradiated budding eyes of research roses or the thousands of laboratory fruit fly jars. If they had occurred, we would have seen new species form. The 20th century, with all its laboratory and nuclear radiation, has been the century—above all others—for new species to arise. But it has not happened.
10. The only plausible theory therefore is that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer. That designer all men call God.
11. God exists.

The argument by impossibility of gradual development

1. Evolutionists try to proof that the eye, ear, blood clotting and heart could develop in small steps.
2. But in this gradualistic concept each change has to provide some advantage.
3. Natural selection selects only for functional advantage.
4. Natural selection eliminates things that has no function and can even harm the organism.
5. Thus, the half functional blood clotting; flagellum of E-coli; heart etc are impossible scenarios.
6. These must have already existed in their full functionality to facilitate the survival of the living being.
7. Therefore, a creator exists and all men call Him God or Krishna.

Arguments from animal kingdom

The argument by e-coli bacteria

1. The e-coli is one of the first living entity to arise out of the cosmic soup or Big-bang.
2. The e-coli’s flagellum (turning propeller for movement in the water) has about 40 different proteins facilitating the work of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of about 300 atoms.
3. All particles are very important and one cannot exist without another just like parts of the car engine. And the proteins will disintegrate if they are not in the flagellum structure.
4. The evolutionists are unable to give any explanation how all these
1200 parts appeared simultaneously in the right position and started to work together out of the cosmic soup or Big-bang.
5. Therefore, the only option is creation. Just like no car engine has ever come out of an explosion in an oilfield or tank of petrol.
6. The Supreme Ultimate creator is God.

The argument of the ant’s life

1. Pheromone is a chemical substance produced and released into the environment by an animal, especially a mammal or an insect, affecting the behavior or physiology of others of its species. For example ants use pheromones to leave chemical trails that can be followed by other members and to also identify which nest an ant is from, along with its social status in the colony.
2. Studying European ants scientists now found that they have “a specialized appendage on their abdomen that it strokes with its hind legs to create sound signals. Other ants can detect and process these signals, resulting in various complex social responses that are key to survival of the colony.”
3, Thirdly, it is now also discovered that the developing larvae back in the nest also use this technique, which is important for the ant colony’s survival.
4. In short, all the ants would die in one generation if you remove any one of these features:
a) early maturing abdominal acoustic appendage, b) instinct to “strum” it,
c) sensors in adults to detect it,
d) ant brains to interpret the sounds, and
e) the instinct to protect the mature larvae.
5. All these necessary complex features of the ants are proof of an intelligent design which could not happen without designer or by chance.
6. Evolution is also impossible because if all these features just partially developed this would either harm the survival of the ants or make it impossible that they come to exist.
7. A designer was a must and all men call him God.
8. God exists.

The argument of astonishing design in animals

1. Peregrine falcons can dive at 200 miles an hour, an article on Science Daily1 says. Experiments with specially designed wind tunnels shows that their feathers appear to act as “self-adaptive flaps” during dives. The body also changes shape during descent.
2. Ants are capable of sustaining “astounding pressures” on their necks, Science Daily2 said, calling their necks “amazing” and worth studying for improving robot strength. These aren’t specially trained ants, either, but just common American field ants. Measurements with centrifuges show the neck can withstand 5,000 times the ant’s body weight, due to a combination of materials and the structure of the joints. These leave the muscles free to lift and position objects.
3. A video clip on the BBC News, and an accompanying article, show that some snakes in Southeast Asia can shape themselves a bit like an S-shaped Frisbee and glide through the air for long distances after flinging itself off tree branches. “Scientists say that the serpents radically alter their body shape to generate the aerodynamic forces needed to perform this feat.” A photo caption reads, “The aerodynamic forces are comparable with those generated by a plane’s wing.”
4. Science Magazine4 reported that bumblebees appear capable of flying higher than Mt. Everest. “The last thing you’d expect to see out your airplane window is a bumblebee cruising by,” the article says. “But a new study suggests that the insects might be capable of such high-altitude jaunts.” Chinese researchers studied some bees found at high altitude, and experimented with their limits, finding some capable of thriving 100 meters above the elevation of Everest. The bees appear to compensate for the lower air pressure by flapping at the same speed but with greater amplitude.
5. These are only some of the examples of astonishing designs found in the animal kingdom. The touchy question for the scientists here is how could have any of these attributes and feats develop by a blind, aimless force? And if they weren’t qualified that way, the species would have gone extinct.
6. Good design is a result of engineering. The elegant, exquisite, astonishing design of these animals points to the omniscient, omnipotent wisdom of a person with a plan. That person is God.
7. God exists.

References:
1. Falcon feathers pop up during dive. February 6, 2014, PLOS
2. With their amazing necks, ants don’t need ‘high hopes’ to do heavy lifting. February 10, 2014, Ohio State University.
3. BBC, Secrets of flying snakes revealed, 30 January 2014
4. Sciencemagazine.org, Bumblebees Capable of Flying Higher Than
Mount Everest, 4 February 2014

The evidence of the mallee bird

1. The mallee bird lives in the Australian desert. In May or June, with his claws the male makes a pit in the sand that is just the right size: about 3 feet [9 dm] deep and 6 feet [18 dm] long. Then he fills it with vegetation. As it rots, it heats up. The bird waits patiently until the rains, which increase the heat to over 100o F. [38o C.] at the bottom of the pile. The bird waits until it is down to 92o F. [33o C.]. When the right temperature is reached, he calls for his wife; they mate; she lays one egg a day for
30 days; and then leaves. The male then covers the eggs with sand, and continually checks the temperature with his amazing thermometer bill for
7 weeks. He cannot let the temperature go up or down even one degree. If it cools at night, he piles on more sand. If it overheats in the day, he pulls off sand. At hatching time, the chicks break their shells—and crawl up through as much as 2 feet of sand! Arriving at the top, each one is fully able to fly and is on its own. Neither father or mother mallee bird gives it any further attention or training. When it grows up, it does just as its parents did.
2. Evolution could not do this. If all the required irreducible conditions would be not there like temperature regulation and immediate knowledge without training etc., the continuation of the malle bird species would stop.
3. Intelligent design by an intelligent designer is obvious. Him all man call God.
4. God exists.

The tail of the peacock

1. Darwin once remarked the tail of the peacock made him sick because the unnecessary extravagance of nature was suggestive of Intelligent Design. What made Darwin sick then still holds true today, he never solved the problem, and it is more in evidence by the problem of Irreducible Complexity (IC).
2. The peacock tail contains spectacular beauty because of the large feathers, bright, iridescent colours and intricate patterns. The colours in the tail feathers are produced by an optical effect called thin-film interference. The eye pattern has a high degree of brightness and precision because the colour-producing mechanisms contain an extremely high level of optimum design. According to the theory of sexual selection, the peacock tail has gradually evolved because the peahen selects beautiful males for mating. However, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful features. In addition, there is irreducible complexity in both the physical structure of the feather and in the beautiful patterns.
3. When a peacock displays his tail feathers during courtship, a magnificent
‘fan formation’ of feathers forms a beautiful backdrop to the body of the peacock. An adult peacock has an average of 200 tail feathers and these are shed and re-grown annually. Of the 200 or so feathers, about 170 are
‘eye’ feathers and 30 are ‘T’ feathers. The ‘eyes’ are sometimes referred to as ocellations (an eyelike spot or marking).
4. It is difficult to determine how many genes would be required to specify the aesthetic features of a peacock tail feather because it is not known how the tail feather grows. However, a conservative estimate can be made by assuming that each separate aesthetic feature is specified by one gene. By assuming that each colour and each shape within the eye pattern represents a separate feature, and taking into account the other features of the feather, the total number of aesthetic features in a single feather comes to about 20…In particular, it may be that many genes are required to produce each shape in the eye pattern since the eye pattern is formed from the coordinated arrangement of over 100 barbs. In addition, the fanning-out of barbs in the top of the feather, where there is no stem, is a complex feature that may well need several controlling genes.
Even if only 20 genes are required to specify the beautiful features of the peacock tail, this still amounts to a lot of genetic information. A gene typically consists of 1,000 chemical units of information (base pairs). Therefore, 20 genes would contain many thousands of chemical units of information. According to evolutionists, all of this information has appeared gradually by genetic mistakes and by sexual selection.
4. The problem is that goals are achieved via the simplest means, but via extravagant and irreducibly complex means with great depth of integration.
5. New discoveries might prove that an IC system could be reduced a bit but it is not possible to reduce it too much because the system would stop to be functional. Thus any simplest functional system is an IC system.
6. IC systems prove an intelligent designer who must be a person.
7. That person all men call God.
8. God exists.

Argument from the DNA of elephant shark

1. Even though the elephant shark is much more distantly related to humans than the teleost fish (a subgroup of ray-finned fish) its genome bears a much greater similarity to the human genome.
2. There are a greater number of conserved DNA[1] sequences and more extensive synteny (gene order along the length of the chromosomes) between humans and elephant sharks, than between humans and teleost fishes.
3. According to the evolutionary theory, DNA sequences should increasingly differ and synteny should progressively dissipate as organisms diverge from one another.
4. To explain this anomaly the scientists speculate that after the ray-finned and lobe-finned fish diverged, the genomes of the ray-finned fish must have undergone much more extensive genetic change and rearrangement than  did  the  genomes  of  lobe-finned fish (including  tetrapods)  and cartilaginous fish.
5. However, both teleost fish and tetrapods first appear in the fossil record about 385 million years ago. It’s troubling to think that the teleost fish have undergone such extensive changes to their genomes with relatively little  morphological  and  physiological  change  while  in  the  same time period (385 million years) tetrapods have undergone incredible morphological and physiological change (moving from the water to the land, followed by the transformation from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals, and from shrew-like creatures to modern humans) with relatively limited genetic change compared to cartilaginous fish.
6. Another nail in the atheistic naturalistic evolutionist theories’ coffin. The intelligent designer, all men call God, used similar templates of DNA for the creation of the species.
7. God exists.

NOTE
1. “Conserved DNA” is DNA that is similar across many different species. In the simplistic evolutionary view, DNA that is very important will be very similar in many different organisms, because important DNA cannot change very much.

The argument of new living fossil and others that must have changedrapidly or not at all

1a. A paper in Geology journal[1] describes the discovery of living cysts of a dinoflagellate (a marine unicellular organism with a flagellum) in southeast Asia, that was supposed to have gone extinct in the early Pleistocene, but then has reappeared today in several spots from Japan to the Philippines.
1b. Evolutionists have a difficulty to explain its persistence unchanged for millions of years. It is a unique living fossil, a species discovered first as a fossil and believed extinct, but now found living.
1c. A press release from the University of Ghent commented: “This unicellular species, with planktonic and benthic stages, was previously thought to have become extinct within the early Pleistocene. It evolved more than 50 million years ago and is the last survivor of a major early Cenozoic lineage. The discovery of living D. pastielsii in the IPWP [Indo-Pacific Warm Pool] suggests that this stable environment served  as  an  important  refuge  for  thermophilic  dinoflagellates, and its  disappearance  from  the Atlantic  following  the  early  Pleistocene implicates cooling.”[2]
1d. The early Pleistocene starts at 2.5 million years ago. That’s a long time for isolated locations on earth to maintain a stable environment while the rest of the world was cooling. It’s also a long time for the creature to escape evolution so much that it is recognizable from fossils more than
50 million years old on the geologic time scale.
2a. Another case. “Polar bear evolution was fast and furious,” a headline from Science Magazine[3] reads. How fast? The new estimate puts the split between brown and polar bears at about 353,000 to 493,000 years ago – a “blink in time” compared to the previous estimate of 600,000 to
5 million years.
2b. The article adds, however, that modern polar bears can interbreed with brown bears. This makes them mere varieties of the same species, according to the widely-trusted “biological species concept.”
3a. Third case. PhysOrg[4] describes how certain genes for butterfly and bumblebee patterns seem to mutate predictably over and over again. These genes affect mimicry patterns only, and sometimes it’s not the gene, but how it’s regulated that causes the effects.
3b. Researchers were somewhat surprised to find that the changes were predictable, not random, implying there are mutational “hotspots” that allow the species to adapt to the environment. Nothing was said about the origin of new organs or functions.
4. None of these cases support Darwin’s view of the world: slow, steady, gradual evolution. For one thing, they militate against millions of years. They all support complete design from the beginning, rapid variation from built-in mechanisms for designed adaptation, and the complete absence of “evolution” for new information or function. In other words, they support the Vedic theistic view of creation by an Intelligent Designer.
5. God exists.

References
1. Living fossils in the Indo-Pacific warm pool: A refuge for thermophilic dinoflagellates during glaciations, Kenneth N. Mertens, Yoshihito Takano, Martin J. Head and Kazumi Matsuoka. (26 March 2014. )
2. Living fossils in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool: A refuge for thermophilic dinoflagellates during glaciations
07 May 2014 Ghent University
3. Science Magazine, Polar Bear Evolution Was Fast and Furious By
Elizabeth Pennisi 8 May 2014
4. PhysOrg, Colorful patterns of evolution mark butterflies and bumblebees, May 15, 2014 by David Pacchioli

Arguments from plants

The argument of photosynthesis

1. One article in New Scientist magazine about green leaves under the bright sun states: “Catching up with nature’s innovation,” remains tantalizing but frustrating. “Take sunlight, add water, and there you have it: free energy,” the article teased. “Plants have been doing this for quite some time, splitting water’s hydrogen apart from its oxygen, but our efforts to turn water into a source of free hydrogen fuel by mimicking them have borne no fruit.”
2. A team led by Dr. Sun who is at work in Stockholm, Sweden is experimenting with different kinds of electrodes that produce more- desirable hydrogen gas instead of hydrogen ions. Unfortunately, “the efficiency is abysmal” for these and all other electrodes tested so far, said rival John Turner in Colorado at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Dr. Sun would be happy to get 10% efficiency – far below the near-100% efficiency plants get from the sun. Turner has achieved
12% efficiency, but his electrodes are only stable for a few days. (The best solar cells achieve 27% efficiency.)
3. The great difficulty of imitating the marvelous structures of the nature is indicative of very complex design.
4. And even if the scientists ever succeed to mimic nature they will only prove intelligent design to account for the exquisite engineering we observe in living things.
5. Hence the supreme scientist and designer who is impossible to be imitated exists.
6. All men call Him Krishna or God.

The argument of modern leaves and caterpillars 50 million years ago

1. Original material in a fossil has been detected, this time from a leaf that is identical to modern leaves despite an alleged 50 million years age.
2. The fossil leaf examined in X-rays, in the University of Manchester, was identical to modern leaves. It even had the feeding tubes of caterpillars on it, as if they had munched on the leaf yesterday. It contained primordial material from the living plant. The leaf, though, found in the Green River Formation in Wyoming, is supposed to be 50 million years old.
When the researchers shined the equivalent of a “million suns” in X-rays on this leaf, they found details that were exquisite – and familiar.
3. The distribution of copper, zinc and nickel in the fossil leaves was almost identical to that in modern leaves. Each element was concentrated in distinct biological structures, such as the veins and the edges of the leaves, and the way these trace elements and sulphur were attached to other elements was very similar to that seen in modern leaves and plant matter in soils.
4.  “In one  beautiful  specimen,  the  leaf  has  been  partially  eaten  by prehistoric caterpillars – just as modern caterpillars feed – and their feeding tubes are preserved on the leaf. The chemistry of these fossil tubes remarkably still matches that of the leaf on which the caterpillars fed.”
The answer how could this leaf be so well preserved for so long, over millions of years is that copper acts as a natural biocide to preserve the original leaf tissues.
5. This specimen is a direct evidence that this plant and the caterpillar that ate it had not evolved at all in 50 million years.
6. Another proof that the Darwinists are going to be an extinct species. The only explanation of the existence of leaves and caterpillars 50 million years ago is creation by an intelligent designer everybody calls God.
7. God exists.

Reference:
1. Press release: Million suns shed light on fossilised plant, (26 Mar
2014), Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, The University of
Manchester.

The evidence of the angiosperms (flowering plants)

1. Evolutionists since Darwin called the sudden appearance of angiosperms an “abominable mystery” because they could not find any evidence for their evolution.
2. Researchers at Penn State published a paper titled: “Study helps to solve Darwin’s mystery about ancient plant evolution.” They wrote: “The  evolution  and  diversification of  the  more  than  300,000  living species of flowering plants may have been ‘jump started’ much earlier than previously calculated…two major upheavals in the plant genome occurred hundreds of millions of years ago -- nearly 200 million years earlier than the events that other research groups had described.”
3. “Upheavals” in the plant genome “produced thousands of new genes that may have helped drive the evolutionary explosion that led to the rich diversity of present-day flowering plants.”
4. Not knowing the cause of the “upheavals” nor having a proof that it really happened they opine that the “upheavals” in the plant genome “produced thousands of new genes that may have helped drive the evolutionary explosion that led to the rich diversity of present-day flowering plants.” No matter what caused these events, these were genetic miracles as they write: “one or more important genetic metamorphoses had occurred in the ancestor of flowering plants, and we also knew that these metamorphoses could explain the enormous success of so many species living on the Earth today.”
5. The metamorphosis was “a special kind of DNA mutation — called a polyploidy event — that revolutionized the flowering-plant lineage.” Polyploidy mutations are generally lethal in vertebrates, but “Plants, on the other hand, often survive and can sometimes benefit from duplicated genomes.” “Some of these new genes led to true innovations and have become vital parts of the genetic toolkit for the regulation of flower development,” Claude dePamphilis explained. He also remarked, “The further we push back the date of when these events happened, the more confidently we can claim that not most, but all flowering plants are the result of large-scale duplications of the genome…It’s possible that the important polyploidy events we’ve identified were the equivalent of two
‘big bangs’ for flowering plants.”
6 The Penn State press release neglected to go into details of how in detail a copy of DNA mutated further to innovate new things full of functional genetic information, leaving their whole ‘big bang’ theory unproven and on the level of mere scientific speculation. Moreover, it is very unclear if the big-bang theory of flowering plant evolution provides understanding on the origin of orchids any more than saying, “Stuff happens,” namely that anything can happen, anywhere, anytime, without any reason, and we can never know why.
7. The sudden appearance of angiosperms is still an “abominable mystery” because there is no evidence for their evolution, only a theory for how things could have happened. A scientific theory can be fully accepted only when proven by an experiment.
8. Conifers and other gymnosperms were already successful before the above mentioned metamorphosis.
9. Because of the complexity of conifers, gymnosperms and angiosperms and their unknown sudden appearance, the only possible explanation of their coming to existence is intelligent design and creation by the intelligent designer all men call God.
10. God exists.

The evidence of the plants internets

1. Plants may be mostly stationary, but they have connections. In fact they have both intranets, extranets and internets. Inside their own vessels, they communicate with proteins and RNA molecules from root to shoot; outside, they have many social relationships with other organisms. They even “friend” their partners, just like humans do on Facebook.
2. On the 29th of March 2011, Ferris Jabr wrote about plant communication in New Scientist magazine. “The botanical underground is a social network of powerful alliances and nepotism,” he wrote. “We’ve known for some time that plants respond to one another, but only now are we realizing how subtle and sophisticated their interactions can be. Plants continually  eavesdrop  [listen  without  the  speaker’s  knowledge]  on each other’s chemical chatter – sometimes sympathetically, sometimes selfishly. Some plants, like the Scandinavian rhododendron, assist their neighbors by sharing resources. Others recognize close relatives and favor them over strangers. And at least one parasitic plant homes in on its host’s telltale chemical scent....
“Plants don’t go out to parties or to watch the movies, but they do have a social network,” says Suzanne Simard, a forest ecologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. “They support each other and they fight with each other. The more we look at plant signaling and communication, the more we learn. It’s really incredible.”
3. Beneath the forest floor, each spoonful of dirt contains millions of tiny organisms. These bacteria and fungi form a symbiotic relationship with plant roots, helping their hosts absorb water and vital elements like nitrogen in return for a steady supply of nutrients.
Now closer inspection has revealed that fungal threads physically unite the roots of dozens of trees, often of different species, into a single mycorrhizal network. These webs sprawled beneath our feet are genuine social networks.
4. “When a caterpillar starts to munch on a tomato plant, for example, the  leaves  produce  noxious  compounds  that  both  repel  the  attacker and stimulate neighboring plants to ready their own defenses.” Plants recognize their own species and work together for the common good. But plants are also within communities of diverse organisms that benefit from each other’s contributions to the community.
5. Did these capabilities evolve slowly over millions of years? Darwin’s “abominable mystery” – the emergence of flowering plants, the largest and most diverse group of plants on earth – was already dealt a blow. Beautiful, detailed leaves that look like they were pressed in a book were found exquisitely preserved in the Jehol strata in China, reported New Scientist. Being dated at 123 million years old puts an advanced angiosperm “roughly contemporary with the ancestors of all flowering plants around today.”
Reporter Colin Barras claimed that “Flowering plants had an evolutionary edge over the conifers and other gymnosperms that were around at the time, and rapidly took over.”
6. The problem with such explanations, though, is not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest.
7. Even assuming their own timeline, evolutionists have no explanation for how complex plants, communications networks and all, appeared abruptly, fully formed, without ancestors.
8. The work of an intelligent designer all men call God is obvious.
9. God exists.

Arguments from archeology

The argument by archeology

1. When God descends in this material world He leaves special signs on this planet like for example the impressions of His feet like in Rameshvaram, Mathura, Vrindavan, Prayag, Jagganatha Puri etc.
2. God also establishes famous cities like Dwaraka, Mathura, Vrndavan, Ayodhya.
3. There are thousands of holy places with temples and Deities (forms) made after God’s original spiritual form, which He showed, when He descended or incarnated at those places.
4. In this way, people have, since the time the avatara or descent appeared, for many generations appreciated and worshiped the activities of God, who is super-excellent because of His activities.
5. Therefore, God exists.

The argument of the Cambrian explosion

1. The Cambrian period began 570 million years ago and the Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago over 2-3 million years or less. At the time of the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every animal phyla (=the major taxonomic group of animals and plants) on Earth (more than
70) suddenly appeared).
NOTE: “Taxonomic Group” means the distinct group comprising one or more Species based on their taxonomic relationship and common approaches  to  mitigating  adverse  effects  (i.e.,  fish, mussels,  turtles, snakes, amphibians, birds or plants).
2. Evolutionists cannot explain the abrupt “evolution” of diverse life forms all over the world at about the same time, as per the words of Niles Eldredge, “Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.”
3. Dated at about 540 to 515 million years ago, Cambrian rock contains an impressive collection of diverse life-forms without identifiable ancestral forms.
4. “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
(Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1982)) 45-46.
5. Although many paleontologists initially showed interest in the possibility that the Cambrian animal forms might have evolved from the Ediacaran organisms, paleontologist Peter Ward explains that “later study cast doubt on the affinity between these ancient remains preserved in sandstones [the Australian Ediacaran] and living creatures of today” (that is, animals representing phyla that first arose in the Cambrian). (Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 181)
6. In the last 10 years more than 30 hypothesis were presented about how this biological explosion could have happened. “Most of the hypotheses have at least a kernel of truth, but each is insufficient to have been the single cause of the Cambrian explosion,” says Oxford University’s Museum of Natural History paleontologist Paul Smith.
7. One of the problems with Darwinian evolution is that the Cambrian explosion did not happen in just one spot on the planet. It appeared suddenly everywhere, as if somebody decided to seed the entire ocean with many new species at the same time. If the Darwinian hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see a spreading of the species from one area to another over a certain period.
8. The infinite probabilistic resources of the many world’s scenario actually greatly increases the amount of totally chaotic information one would expect to see appearing in the fossil record. i.e. one would expect to see far more bizarre events “popping” into existence, than the nice tidy “ecologically complete” appearance of fossil forms we do see (where are all those failed experiments of evolution by the way?)
9. “The rapid diversification of animals in the early Cambrian is likely to have been the result of a complex interplay of biotic and abiotic processes.” (Smith, 20 September 2013 issue of Science)
a. Biological research has never demonstrated that natural processes can convert abiotic, non-living elements into primordial living organisms.
b. They simply conclude that life must have evolved from non-life long ago and then progressed to become “the earliest members of many animal groups, including sponges, cnidarians1, and bilaterians2, [which] lived
850 million to 635 million years ago.”
10. Evolutionary biologists commonly use molecular clock analysis to estimate the timing of evolutionary events.
11. Molecular clock calculations are, however, based on evolutionary presumptions, the presumption that, in essence, we are here, so molecules- to-man evolution must have happened.
12. Till now evolutionists neither could explain any mechanism by which so-called primitive organisms could then evolve into progressively more complex “higher” organisms, nor have biologists ever observed simpler organisms evolve into more complex, new kinds of organisms.
13. Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10-9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million year in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. (Susumo Ohno, “The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93 (August 1996): 8475-78.)
14. Current hypotheses concerning the ancestor-descendent relationship between the Cambrian Period higher-phyla body plans and earlier organisms recognize a definitive lineage isolation between the two and thus beyond argument illustrate the absence of definitive evidence that the later group, and their descendents, connect to a common ancestor.
15. Because there is no common ancestor to the species of Cambrian period, the best explanation of their complex design and sudden appearance is creation by intelligent design.
16. W. H. Freeman concludes: “The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.” (Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions, New York: 1992)
17. Considering all these points, intelligent design is the only explanation for the origin of great diverse animal body plans in the Cambrian fossil record.
18. The ultimate designer of everything in the material world is God.
19. God exists.

The evidence of ‘Guadeloupe Woman’

1. The ‘Guadeloupe Woman’ is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, complete in every respect except for the feet and head. It belonged to a woman about 5 foot 2 inches [15.54 dm] tall.
2. This skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old— which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth!
3. Since such a date does not fit evolutionary theory the “Guadeloupe Woman” is not mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations.
4. When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was first put on exhibit in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed as a proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly taken down to the basement and remains there to this day.
5. The ‘Guadeloupe Woman’ is burying the evolution theory. She proves creation and intelligent design.
6. God exists.

The evidence of fossilized tracks

1. In 1987, paleontologist Jerry MacDonald discovered a wide variety of fossilized tracks from several different species of animals and birds, located in a Permian strata. Among the various fossilized tracks were the clear prints of a human foot.
2. However, the Permian strata has been dated from 290 to 248 million years ago- millions of years before animals, birds, dinosaurs, and yes, man, was supposed to exist. How then can these prints be explained?
3. In July 1992, the Smithsonian Magazine had an article on these tracks called  “Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling  Parade  of  Permian  Beasts”. [1] The  magazine  acknowledged  the  mystery,  acknowledging  “what paleontologists like to call, ‘problematic.’” It described what appeared to be large mammal and bird tracks that, “evolved long after the Permian period, yet these tracks are clearly Permian.”
4. While it is commendable that MacDonald and the Smithsonian clearly acknowledge the existence of these tracks in a strata that contradicts the current evolutionary theory, it is noteworthy that they highlight only the mammal and bird prints, and don’t mention the human footprint found with them. Of course, mammal includes human, but truthfully they should have listed the human footprint.
5. Interestingly enough, since these tracks been discovered, evolutionists have not tried to argue their authenticity or debunk them. Nor have they tried to argue that the footprint isn’t human. (Often they claim that it’s a print that just “looks like” a human footprint.)
6. All this again proves the work of an intelligent designer all men call
God.
7. God exists.
Reference: [1] See “Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts” by
Jerry MacDonald, Smithsonian, July 1992, Vol. 23, Issue 4, p. 70-79

Cosmological arguments

Argument by ‘the position of our planet’

1. If the sun where closer to the earth, we would burn up; if farther away we would freeze.
2. If the earth was not tilted at 23 degrees, the areas near the poles would be dark and cold all year long.
3. If it tilted too much, the seasons would be very extreme for example, on the planet Uranus the winter is 42 years of total darkness!
4. If Earth did not have a large revolving moon, we would have no tides, causing the ocean waters to grow stagnant and produce no oxygen for its creatures.
5. What we see is a planet that is perfectly balanced for our habitation. We see design in the perfect balance.
6. When we see a design we know there is a Designer.
7. The structure of the universe, which is also like a universal clock, can be designed only by a greatest person.
8. That greatest person to design such huge things as a universe can be only God.
10. God exists.

The evidence of the plasma shield

1. In Science Magazine1, a team of geophysicists found another way that the earth’s magnetosphere protects life on the surface. When high- energy ions in the solar wind threaten to work their way through cracks in the magnetosphere, earth sends up a “plasma plume” to block them. The automatic mechanism is described on New Scientist2 as a “plasma shield” that battles solar storms.
2. Joel Borofsky from Space Science Institute says, “Earth doesn’t just sit there and take whatever the solar wind gives it, it can actually fight back.”
3. Earth’s magnetic shield can develop “cracks” when the sun’s magnetic field links up with it in a process called “reconnection.” Between the field lines, high-energy charged particles can flow during solar storms, leading to spectacular auroras, but also disrupting ground-based communications. But Earth has an arsenal to defend itself. Plasma created by solar UV is stored in a donut-shaped ring around the globe. When cracks develop, the plasma cloud can send up “tendrils” of plasma to fight off the charged solar particles. The tendrils create a buffer zone that weakens reconnection.
4. Previously only suspected in theory, the plasma shielding has now been observed. As decribed by Brian Walsh of NASA-Goddard in New Scientist:
“For the first time, we were able to monitor the entire cycle of this plasma stretching from the atmosphere to the boundary between Earth’s magnetic field and the sun’s. It gets to that boundary and helps protect us, keeps these solar storms from slamming into us.”
5. According to Borofsky this observation is made possible by looking at the magnetosphere from a “systems science” approach. Geophysicists can now see the whole cycle as a “negative feedback loop” – “that is, the stronger the driving, the more rapidly plasma is fed into the reconnection site,” he explains. “…it is a system-wide phenomenon involving the ionosphere, the near-Earth magnetosphere, the sunward boundary of the magnetosphere, and the solar wind; and it involves diverse physical processes such as ionospheric outflows, magnetospheric transport, and magnetic-field-line reconnection.”
6. The result of all these complex interactions is another level of protection for life on Earth that automatically adjusts for the fury of the battle:
“The plasmasphere effect is indicative of a new level of sophistication in the understanding of how the magnetospheric system operates. The effect can be particularly important for reducing solar-wind/magnetosphere coupling during geomagnetic storms. Instead of unchallenged solar-wind control of the rate of solar-wind/magnetosphere coupling, we see that the magnetosphere, with the help of the ionosphere, fights back.”
7. Because of this mechanism, even the most severe coronal mass ejections (CME) do not cause serious harm to the organisms on the surface of the Earth.
8. The necessary timings when this system should be activated and the whole complex, very important protection system of plasma shield, battling the solar storms is an evidence of intelligent design, for the purpose of maintaining the life of the living entities on the earth planet.
9. This intelligent designer, the creator of such a great system, all men call God.
10. God exists.

References:
1.  Science  7  March  2014: Vol.  343  no.  6175  pp.  1122-1125,  DOI:
10.1126/science.1247212, Report: Simultaneous Ground- and Space- Based Observations of the Plasmaspheric Plume and Reconnection: B. M. Walsh, J. C. Foster, P. J. Erickson, D. G. Sibeck.
2. Newscientist: Earth raises a plasma shield to battle solar storms, 06
March 2014 by Lisa Grossman.