Dr. Duane Gish

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 in Nuttings from the Front | 0 comments

  I am sad to report that one of the key leaders in the Creation ministry passed away last week on March 6. Dr. Duane Gish will certainly be remembered by Mary Jo & I. His book, Evolution, The Fossils Say No, changed our lives. Mary Jo & I believed in evolution years ago, when we picked up his book on the fossil record. That caused us to really begin thinking for ourselves, reevaluate our perspective, do our own research, and then led us not only to reject our beliefs in evolution, but eventually to embark on telling others through our ministry with Alpha Omega Institute. Dr. Gish always liked to have us share that when we were together at a ministry event. He’d say, “Tell them about my book.” Dr. Gish was also noted as being Creation’s “Bulldog” as he championed the cause through hundreds of debates with evolutionists. He caught many challengers off guard with his encyclopedic scientific knowledge of evolution and what was wrong with the latest evolutionary arguments. Many evolutionists began to warn others that they should not debate Dr. Duane Gish as they would certainly not win. Mary Jo & I were not only blessed by his extreme intellectual abilities, but also with his friendship over the years, his love of the Lord Jesus, as well as his contagious humor. I am sure that we are not alone. Many people have also been impacted by his original book as well as the later editions, through his debates, his seminars, and through his life. The abundant fruit of his ministry will be quite noticeable in Heaven. We certainly will miss this great man of God who changed our lives!   Dave Nutting If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

A Thought on the Recent Quasar Cluster Discovery

Posted on Mar 6, 2013 in Stepaneks from the Front | 0 comments

  Astronomy is a fascinating field of science, as are other branches of science.  New discoveries are being made which challenge old theories and develop new ones.  We have seen this trend through history, for example, the once believed Law of Abiogenesis where scientists believed dead material would evolve into life.  This idea was held to be true for many centuries, that is until scientists like Louis Pasteur and others debunked this theory and through scientific research formulated the Law of Biogenesis.  This law states that life can only come from pre-existing life. A new discovery in astronomy may have a similar effect.  The largest object in the universe, a large group of quasars, has been found by astronomers.  This large group of quasars is called the Large Quasar Group and it is four times larger than it should be. Below are some quotes from the article. “It is so massive that it might prove tricky for the Cosmological Principle, established by Einstein, that on very large scales the universe looks the same no matter where you observe it from.” “Even travelling at the speed of light, it would take 4 billion years to cross. This is significant not just because of its size but also because it challenges the Cosmological Principle, which has been widely accepted since Einstein. Our team has been looking at similar cases which add further weight to this challenge and we will be continuing to investigate these fascinating phenomena.” We must be careful in placing our trust in the wisdom of man, because as we discover new information, the old ideas and theories are many times revealed to be false.   Rich Stepanek If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

The Evolutionist’s Head

Posted on Feb 15, 2013 in Guest Blog | 0 comments

  Do you have to have your head in the clouds to be an evolutionist? Paul Salopek is about to start on a 21,000 mile walk from Africa to South America. The following quote is part of an article in the Portland Oregonian. (Jan 11, 2013) “The Ethiopia to Chile walk, which took human ancestors 50,000 years to make is called Out of Eden…” The idea that it took fifty thousand years for our ancestors to make this walk has become standard evolutionist doctrine. Modern evolutionists could walk it themselves in a year or so. Salopec himself is 50 years old, so he obviously expects to make the trip in far less than fifty thousand years. Why do so many believe it took their ancestors fifty thousand years? Evolutionists generally believe that people came from Africa, and that the ancient people were not as evolved as we are today. One belief fed another and many now believe that fifty thousand years passed before some people walked out of Africa. But what if people were created by God, and are not apes that grew up? When evolutionists consider the billions of years that they believe the earth has been here, fifty thousand years is hardly more than the blink of an eye. The other side of their mind, however is trusting that the people who lived before us were so poorly evolved that a walk which would take a 50 year old modern guy a few months, or at worst a few years, must have taken his ancestors 50,000 years! How many years will pass before evolutionists’ minds have evolved to the point that they understand that ideas like this don’t go with the evidence? What if the evidence is right, and people did not evolve from apes, but were created by God as people? That would also explain the lack of the transitional fossils which evolutionists believe should show the basic kinds of animals changing to become newer basic kinds. (apes to people) After all the years since Darwin, animals can still be classified. Even the atheists who read this can tell an ape from a person and a monkey from a donkey. The evidence does not show old basic kinds gradually becoming new basic kinds.   Please feel free to use this article in any way you wish: your publication, radio program, website, forward it to your list, or to atheists and evolutionists you would like to help.   Tom Heinze heinze@hevanet.com If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

Shark Skin Inhibiting Bacteria

Posted on Feb 14, 2013 in Johnsons from the Front | 0 comments

  In 2002, the U.S. Office of Naval Research hired Dr. Anthony Brennan, a materials science and engineering professor at the University of Florida, to find new antifouling methods to reduce use of toxic antifouling paints and trim costs connected with dry dock and drag.1   Dr. Brennan felt that using an engineered topography could be a key to new antifouling technologies. While visiting the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Dr. Brennan and several co-workers observed an algae-coated nuclear submarine entering port. To Dr. Brennan the submarine looked like a whale lumbering into the harbor, causing him to ponder which slow moving marine animals don’t foul. The answer seemed to be the shark. Dr. Brennan took an actual impression of shark skin (its dermal denticles) and, after examining the impression with scanning electron microscopy, he discovered that shark skin denticles are arranged in a distinct diamond pattern with tiny riblets. The ribs’ width-to-height ratios corresponded to his mathematical model for roughness – one that Dr. Brennan felt would discourage microorganisms from settling. Using this information, Dr. Brennan and Sharklet Technologies developed Sharklet, a patented, microscopic pattern. The first test of Sharklet reduced green algae colonization by 85 percent compared to smooth surfaces. Sharklet has also proven to be a surface upon which bacteria do not like to grow … a mighty defense against bacteria. Research suggests that Sharklet keeps biofilms from forming because the pattern requires too much energy for bacteria to colonize, resulting in bacteria finding another place to grow or simply dying. Sharklet Technologies, using Sharklet, have had success in inhibiting the growth of Staph a., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, VRE, E. coli, MRSA and other bacterial species that cause illness and even death. Sharklet Technologies have developed and manufactured adhesive-backed skins (using The Sharklet pattern) that may be adhered to high-touch areas to cut back the transfer of bacteria among people. They have also developed the Sharklet Urinary Catheter to help reduce hospital-acquired infections. Once again, whether they recognize it or not, many scientists and engineers are looking to God’s designs in nature for solutions to modern day problems. 1 Information for this blog derived from http://www.sharklet.com/technology/   Lanny Johnson If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

The Cosmic Hope of the Evolutionist

Posted on Feb 12, 2013 in Nuttings from the Front | 0 comments

  The search for extra-terrestrial life has preoccupied astronomers for years. Its discovery is the hope of evolutionists. I emphasize the word “hope” because it’s, well, uh, … purely hope. There is reason why this hope is so needed. To the ardent evolutionists, finding life elsewhere in the universe will be proof positive that life evolved here on Earth and therefore, there is no God who created us in the first place. I would say there is a “disconnect” in logic there, but that’s their hope. The first step in finding life out there is to find a suitable planet which also has a suitable star that is not going to fry it. Are there suitable environments? Perhaps, but read the following one-liners which express pure hope in last week’s Associated Press article by Marcia Dunn entitled Closest Earth-like planet “stroll across the park.’ (I’ve emphasized in bold their hope.) “Earth-like worlds may be closer and more plentiful than anyone imagined.” “. . . nearest Earth-like planet may be just 13 light-years away.” “That planet hasn’t been found yet, but should be there . . . “ “. . . their planets could be much older that Earth and their potential life forms much more evolved.” “Future spacecraft should be able to locate these planets . . . “ Keep in mind, they haven’t even found a suitable planet yet, but their hope is certainly that some future generation of Earthlings will find it and life as well. I can only hope, that the “wishful hope” of these evolutionists doesn’t keep them from experiencing the Blessed Hope of eternal life that is available to us right now through the Lord Jesus Christ.  Yes, that is faith.  However, the Bible says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1) Note the words “substance” and “evidence” – two things the article didn’t mention.  However, our faith is in the substance and reality of Jesus Christ who actually lived and who gave tangible evidence (through actual physical miracles) that He is the son of God.  Since this is true, we can trust that the promises he gave us which includes that Blessed Hope of eternal life. As John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”  Our hope is in the risen Savior. Now that life is something worth putting your hope in!   Dave Nutting If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

Trying to Copy the Bombardier Beetle*

Posted on Feb 7, 2013 in Johnsons from the Front | 0 comments

  One of my favorite insects to talk about, to show God’s design in nature, is the bombardier beetle. Even though the bombardier beetle is only ½ to ¾ of an inch long (1.27 to 1.9 cm), it packs a powerful defense mechanism to protect itself from predators. When in danger, the bombardier beetle mixes different chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) from different glands and then injects them into an explosion chamber containing mostly water. Within the explosion chamber another chemical is added (catalase), which causes a rapid chemical reaction to an explosive force. The resulting water/steam (2120 F or 1000 C) is then fired out through 2 ‘cannons’ (nozzles) at 65 ft. (20 meters) per second. The bombardier beetle opens and closes the inlet valve to its combustion chamber with great precision to prevent blowing itself up. The beetle can also control the pressure and direction of the explosion with pinpoint accuracy at whatever is trying to eat it. What once appeared to be one explosion has now been shown to be multiple discharges of around 500 pulses per second! Andy McIntosh, professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds, has been studying the bombardier’s combustion mechanism, hoping to engineer more efficient reigniters (small devices that shoot charged chemicals into the engine if it stops at high altitude) in aircraft engines. Professor McIntosh stated, “It’s become evident that the dimensions of the chamber and the nozzle coming out of the back are crucial.” However just copying the dimensions of the bombardier’s explosion chamber does not make a more efficient reigniter. He went on to say, “In reality the combustion involved is complicated by the catalytic processes associated with the muscle lining of the chamber.” Professor McIntosh, with many years of engineering research experience, readily admits that all the complex machinery that God has designed in nature is far more complicated than man’s. “They can even repair and reproduce themselves,” he says. “So how much more do they declare ‘… his eternal power and divine nature.’ (Romans 1:20).”   *Much of information derived for blog is from, Bombardier Idea, David Catchpoole, Creation27 (3):50-51   Lanny Johnson If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

Response to a Common Argument

Posted on Feb 1, 2013 in Nuttings from the Front | 0 comments

  University professors, who should really know better, state that “evolution is everywhere,” referring to minor changes in coloration, nose size in family members, or whatever change you might notice. So how should one answer that line of reasoning? First of all, it is appropriate to point out that you have to start with something to get any changes at all. So, how do we get the genetic pool in the first place that spells out coloration, nose size, etc. It is an amazing faith to believe that “no” genetic information existed, and suddenly, out of that “nothing,” without any higher power, all of the genetic information arose which would fill billions of encyclopedias. Secondly, those who hold to the argument that minor changes or “micro” evolution surely leads to major changes or (what used to be called) macro-evolution must have a great deal of faith in time, and chance. Even many evolutionists (including a major conference of several hundred) have concluded that micro-evolution does not necessarily translate into macro-evolution. The type of minor changes usually presented to us as evidence of evolution are almost always a recombination of genetic information that is already present in the originally created genetic pool. Recombination of what is already present will never explain the origin of genetic information in the first place. You have to start with something! Let me explain it another way. Think about taking the 5 colors of paint that artists usually start with: black, white, red, yellow and blue. By mixing black or white with any one of the other colors, or by mixing the other colors together with varying amounts of each, you can get an endless variety of colors and shades. You might say you “evolved” a new color, but it is only a combination of what was there originally. If you don’t have all of the basic colors, it certainly limits the potential. For example, if all you had were black, white, and blue, all you would get are shades of blue. This is the problem with macro-evolution. Micro-evolution uses the colors of ink that are available to choose from; macro must get new basic colors. In fact, macro-evolution starts with nothing and somehow, mysteriously all the basic colors appear (of course, with the magic evolutionary wand of time and accidents). If yellow and red pigments are not present, you only get shades of blue. Try as you like, you can’t get any shades of yellow or red, so evolutionists will be left singing the blues. You might assume that some lucky “mutations” produced yellow and red colors from black, white, or blue, but that is only an assumption. To sum it up, macro-evolution starts with no colors and ends up with every color. This is supposed to happen by micro-evolution. However, micro-evolution has to have something there to begin with to even get minor variations. Since...

Read More

Does Yom Convey a 24 Hour Day in the Creation Account?

Posted on Jan 30, 2013 in Johnsons from the Front | 0 comments

  In the Bible, the Hebrew word for day is Yom. By looking up the word yom in a concordance you will see that it can have a variety of meanings:  a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.1 As I shared in my last blog (Compromising the Word of God) the meaning of the word yom or “day” is understood by its context. In the Genesis account of creation, God gave us parameters by defining the word day with ‘evening and morning.’  “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Gen. 1:5) [Emphasis added]. Every day of creation thereafter – ending with, “And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (v. 31) – always use the term “evening and morning.”  Also note that the Genesis creation account always uses a number with the word “day.” (Genesis 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.2 The plural of yom can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “… all the days of Noah.” (Gen. 9:29) However, the plural of yom does not appear in the Genesis 1 creation account. Also, there are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that could have been used to convey long periods of time, or indefinite time3 … however; none of these words are used in the creation account. Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), a skeptic on the historicity of Genesis, had this to say: “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience …” 4 When we look at how the word yom is used in the creation account and its use outside of Genesis 1, it seems clear to me that the days God was describing were literal 24 hour days.   Lanny Johnson 1.  Online Bible Edition, Version 4.08.04, Mar. 20, 2011, 10.13, Copyright ©1987-2011, Larry Pierce, 11 Holmwood St., Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada, NOB2VO, Archaeology, Creationism and Science Archaeology, Creation, The...

Read More

Evolution and a Matter of Degrees

Posted on Jan 25, 2013 in Nuttings from the Front | 0 comments

  Brrrr… It’s cold here. So far this year, it warmed up once above 30 °F.  One month ago, Mary Jo & I stepped onto an airplane in Mexico saying goodbye to temperatures in the 80’s. About 5 hours later, we landed at home and immediately began a month of saying, “Brrrrrrrr, it’s cold!” From highs of 85 down to a low of -5 is huge. But it’s a matter of degrees! Dave Harper, the president of our Board, came down recently for our last Board meeting.  The temp was 15 degrees and heading downward. Dave had the gall to say how balmy the temperature was and that it felt like spring time. OK, he lives in Pinedale, Wyoming.  Someone told me the coldest winter they ever experienced was the summer they spent in Pinedale. Yep, it’s a matter of degrees and what you get used to. One morning in Mexico it was about 70 degrees — to me, quite balmy. However, to the family with the little boy all bundled up in a full snowsuit, 70 felt cold. I thought that family was ready to enter a snowmobile race in the arctic the way they were bundled. Someone recently posted on Facebook  that it was  a -20 degrees. Wow!  It didn’t seem that cold to me. Maybe, I was starting to get used to cold again. Then I realized  they meant -20 Celcius,  not Fahrenheit. A -20°C is actually -4°F.  Still too cold, but at least I felt warmer. Perhaps, I should consider reporting temperatures in degrees Kelvin, which refers to how many degrees it is above absolute zero. So a  -4°F would be 253°K. It is still the same actual temperature, but I sure could deceive myself into feeling much warmer. In fact, I might even grab my swimsuit to sunbathe in a snow drift! Defining terms is really important. All of this relates to the evolution debate. We have to define our terms.  Students are taught that evolution is merely change. They even become comfortable with believing that minor degrees of change is actually evolution (such as color variation in moths). In reality, this is nothing more than simple genetic variation in a created kind (such as big dogs and little dogs). We point this out to students who are hot about evolution. It is a matter of the degree of change and type of change, rather than merely change that is important. You might deceive yourself into thinking it is evolution, but minor variation certainly does not explain the broader degree of evolution – how goo changes into you by way of the zoo.   Dave Nutting If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to...

Read More

Compromising the Word of God

Posted on Jan 22, 2013 in Johnsons from the Front | 0 comments

  In my last blog I showed that to understand all the different meanings of the word UP you needed to know the context, which is derived by the word or words before the word UP. If you take a word out of context, it will have a different meaning. In the Bible, the Hebrew word for day is Yom. In the creation account, Yom has been taken out of context by those believing that those days are not literal 24 hr. periods. In the Genesis account of creation it says “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Gen. 1:5) [Emphasis added]. Every day of creation week thereafter – always ends with the term “evening and morning.” I have worked with children and adults for over 20 years, and one of the questions I have asked many of them is, “What is a day?” The three main responses to this question that I hear repeatedly are: “A period of dark and light”, “Morning and night” or “24 hours”. Notice that God gave us parameters (or context) by defining the word day with “evening & morning” … just as we describe a day today – 24 hours. One of the great problems with adhering to the idea that each of these days were long periods of time – say a thousand or even millions of years – is what do you do with the vast amount of time of dark and vast amount of light that would make up one day? How would the plants that God created on day 3 of creation survive 500 years of darkness (assuming your day is 1000 years) without the Sun, which was not created until day number 4? To get around this problem (and scripture I might add), progressive creationist Hugh Ross states that the sun, moon and stars were not created on the fourth “day” of Creation. He explains that most of the stars existed long before earth’s creation; approximately 10-15 billion years of stellar evolution occurred prior to the Creation Week.1 Therefore he not only contradicts the days of creation account but also Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them…”. “Dr. Ross claims that Genesis 1 describes Creation from the point of view of one standing on the earth; and that the sun, moon and stars did not become visible until the fourth day. He believes the stars were not created instantaneously; rather, they evolved by the physical laws of nature put into place by God. ‘This entire process of stellar evolution is by natural process alone. We do not have to invoke Divine intervention at any stage in the history of the life-cycle of the stars that we observe.’- Hugh Ross” 2 [Emphasis’ added] [Notice that he takes God out of the picture of Creation!] “According to Hugh...

Read More

One man’s junk is another man’s treasure!

Posted on Jan 18, 2013 in Stepaneks from the Front | 0 comments

  Junk DNA, vestigial DNA, and leftover DNA from our animal ancestors are evidence for evolution… right?  On the contrary!  God doesn’t make junk!  Everything has a function, even though it has been corrupted by Adam’s fall. Continued research on Junk DNA reveals the complexity of our bodies.  Our bodies are composed of about 100,000 different proteins, but there are only about 20,000 protein-coding gene regions.  How can this be? This is where the Junk DNA comes in.  Both exons (protein coding DNA) and introns (non-coding DNA) work together to make the extra transcripts needed to code all the body’s additional proteins, by splicing and sometimes reassembling RNA. A quote from the article: “Wang further observes that splicing ‘is a tightly regulated process, and a great number of human diseases are caused by the ‘misregulation’ of splicing in which the gene was not cut and pasted correctly.’ This implies that important protein products are produced by splicing, meaning that the splicing code plays an important functional role in cells.” No random chance and accident in your genetics!  Everything is designed and planned, but it has been corrupted and this corruption sometimes causes disease and death.  Sounds like I have heard this before.  We had a perfect creation and then came corruption.   Rich Stepanek If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More

Magic-Wand of Naturalism

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 in Nuttings from the Front | 0 comments

  I just read an article about a young man who is campaigning to make sure all schools, including private and Christian schools, that receive any state money such as vouchers, would not be allowed to include creation in science. This person was arguing that only evolution fits the criteria of science: observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable… which he thinks “is everything that creationism is not.” Notice that he added and subtracted from the classical criteria of science, which is: Science is observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Naturalistic is added: Just by adding that word to a definition of science, he has already defined creation, intelligent design, or anything except atheism, totally out of science. This is a frequent ploy to try to discredit our position and everything we say. Since we are not “naturalistic,” we can’t be scientists and must have a religious bias. That redefinition of science has mainly surfaced in the last 30 years. Today it is regularly used as a bludgeon to keep creation and intelligent design out of the science classroom. Repeatable is left out. Evidently he is well aware that evolution is not repeatable (but neither is creation), so he left that out. Why? We can’t wait millions of years to see evolution repeat itself. For the same reason and since no one was around to see it happen, neither cell-man evolution or creation is observable, testable, or even falsifiable. Expandable is added. I find that interesting since it is not usually mentioned as an earmark of science. However, it is very fitting for evolution since a new fix-it-patch has to be applied to evolutionary theory frequently as new anti-evolution data surfaces. This has been especially true with much of the latest data on the genome project causing evolutionists to scramble faster than someone dodging bullets in a war zone. (See DiscoverCreation.org for those articles.) By the way, I suggest that all four of the classical tests for science certainly “is everything that evolution is not.”  “Naturalistic” and “expandable” are the only ones he listed that would qualify for what evolution “is” all about. However, even “expandable” would not often be naturalistic, because it frequently takes a “magic wand” to explain the anti-evolution data away.   Dave Nutting If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your...

Read More