For more than 30 years one robotic machine after another have landed to explore the rusty martian surface trying to unlock its geological mysteries and solve NASA’s perplexing questions: Can Mars support life? And more importantly: Is there life on the red planet?  Recently in the news, NASA announced that salt and other akaline minerals have been discovered that could in fact support life. But will NASA find life…ever?

Before we go any further let me say that Evolutionists criticize Creationists for not using their unique faith based understanding of science to make predictions.  It is true that the evolutionary model does predict and it seems that many of their predictions come “true.” But I would like to take this opportunity, as a creationist, to make my own prediction regarding life on Mars. Allow me first to qualify my prediction.

My prediction is based on the Word of God.  I’m basing my prediction on biblical references that state God alone is life and God alone creates life and places life where He may. That Earth is the only planet that God created life in the solar system. Therefore not on the moon or Venus or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn will we find life.  God does not create life by starting things off with some microbes or algae. His distinctive signature is the ability to get it right the first time with all the complexity, interdependent systems and recycling mechanisms necessary for an entire world of living things to stay in balance and thrive.  Therefore, as hard as NASA tries to find life on Mars, my prediction is NO life will be found on Mars. There are probably beings throughout the universe that God has created since He obviously desires and enjoys companionship. So we may find soil. Yes, even water perhaps, but no life.  Not even a Exo-microbe.

Should my perdiction come true, does this prove the Bible is true?  No, however, let it be known that this young earth creationist made a prediction based on his understanding of the Biblical model of how life got here and how it is sustained.  Again, simply put “Mars does not have life.”   You can quote me.

John F. Adolfi. 

The purported remains of Noah’s ark have surfaced once again and a Chinese Christian Ministry exploring the region of Mount Ararat, Turkey since 2004 believes they have found petrified wood that maybe Noah’s
Watch the two minute video here on Youtube. See what has led up to this discovery in the rare two hour documentary Days of Noah.

This February an unusual documentary will expose the private censure of schoolteachers that dare to criticize Evolution. How long could Evolution’s supporters suppress those who dare to tread on their narrow Darwinist territory? Could it be that the time is come for a public outcry? A movement for equality is making its theatrical rounds before hitting our local video stores, in Ben Stein’s EXPELLED No Intelligence Allowed.

Stein is tired of intelligent men and women getting fired or made to leave educational institutions because of their belief in I.D. (Intelligent Design) theory. Stein openly admits that I.D. might be false. But since Evolutionists have not soundly filled in some major gaps in their theory, Stein believes there is room for everyone to place their origin’s theory cards on the academic table with out oppression. Not so states the often vehement doctor’s of science. Intelligent Design, in their mind, breathes of God, and that is unthinkable.

So why are good, honest hard working Americans getting “EXPELLED” click here to watch a most fascinating movie trailer.

In 1976 famed anthropologist Mary Leaky discovered 70 human footprints in stone in Tanzania known as the Laetoli tracks. Leaky felt they looked like they were made by modern human beings, but that created a problem. The depressions left by our ancestors were in a stratum dated at 3.6 million years. No modern human could have laid down that track since we were not around yet according to evolution.

What happens when evidence doesn’t support a theory?

In spite of Mary Leaky’s declaration of a modern look to the prints, notice what happens when evidence seems to contradict the evolutionary model. Enter the scientists, scrutinizing the prints (as they should) but looking for an alternative explanation – one that will “fit”. Some said the prints resembled a humanoid like creature,. Others thought the prints were from another creature altogether. In the end they concluded that a type of Lucy - half man, half monkey like being were responsible for these tracks. Phew! Evolution was safe again - end of story.

But could these several million year old imprints in stone simply be as they appear - from a modern human? To the scientific community it’s unthinkable and unacceptable. Why? Because they would have to conclude that…

either modern man is much older than we have thought or that our dating techniques are faulty. Either way, there is a big problem for scientists. So, “interpretation” of evidence is an important tool that often comes to their rescue.

This is not the first set of prints that have attempted to shake up the evolutionary apple cart. The Taylor Track, Burdick Track, Zapata Track and more all are begging to dethrone evolution’s iron grip on the answer to the human origin’s question of ‘How did we arrive to where we are today?’ Did we evolve over millions of years through environmental pressures and “positive” mutations? Were our ancestors alien like creatures from outer space, with advanced genetics and technology who assisted our race? Or are we the product of special creation as outlined in Genesis? These footprints stamped in time help solve this ancient mystery. Read the rest of this entry ?

We noticed last time that science is unwilling to allow for an intelligent designer no matter where the facts are leading. I say unwilling rather than unable because I think the rules that govern the permissibility of evidence are questionable or unintentionally biased.

But let’s be fair. Scientists are proud of science being a testable, provable, repeatable process of learning; as well we all should be. And evolutionists would say that it is necessary to exclude anything other than natural explanations precisely because they are not provable and testable. But the question then arises, what exactly does it mean to be provable or testable?

Take gravity – something we can’t see. I can drop a set of keys and it will always go down. Is that what makes it provable? Or is it because I can quantify its speed as it falls? Is that what makes it testable? Why can’t things we can see, such as the widespread existence of symmetry, function as evidence? Do I have to measure the frequency of it to legitimize it? What governs the admissibility of it as evidence? Why should it be denied as evidence when it never used to be?

If I wanted to determine if a ship, car or plane (something we’ll pretend none of us has ever seen) was designed or had evolved, it would seem reasonable to include the following observations or facts:

• It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
• It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical propeller, wheel or wing assemblies.
• They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
• Perfectly fitting seats (seemingly designed for a human) in a beautiful, red Lamborghini or the luxurious housing area of sleek yacht….

So let’s compare that with what we see in the animal kingdom; perhaps a fish, cheetah or a parrot. We very quickly see that the same facts that convince us that the mechanical object was designed are seen in the animals.

• It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
• It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical fins, leg or wing assemblies.
• They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
• Peacocks, swans, leopards, polar bears, colorful fish on a stunning reef…

From one type of animal to another, we see beauty, grace, strength, and suitability to their environment, designs, symmetry and patterns. Now tell me again why these facts are not admissible as evidence that these living objects were designed? Why can’t science let facts lead us to whatever hypothesis seems the most logical? Why is it logical to deduce that a complex, aerodynamically perfect jet fighter was designed by an intelligent being and the living version of that – a hawk was not?

Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd said, “Even if all the facts point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” -  Todd S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

It is really interesting that he not going to accept an intelligent designer no matter what the facts say. And that is science… But how can it be that there is an instance where Facts don’t count?  I am all for people having the right to choose how to interpret facts, but something about that seems skewed. And everyone should definitely be aware that this is what is going on in “science”.  Or should I say that this is how evolutionists say science works? But the fact remains that you can show thousands of examples of design, patterns, symmetry, beauty, symbiosis, and many other types of evidence and it simply will be rejected out of hand because the facts don’t count it has to be explained by natural causes.

The question that comes to my mind is, shouldn’t Science be the search for any true explanation? Why does it HAVE to exclude an intelligent designer? Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because we don’t like where it’s leading, does that give us the right to reject a theory that fits the facts well? Something seems awful fishy here. Do I smell human bias? Doesn’t this seem to contradict how science normally always works? You make a hypothesis and look for facts or you look at facts and develop a hypothesis to explain it?  Ask yourself honestly. Is there any reason why science shouldn’t be capable of leading us to the best explanation whatever that may be?

Stay tuned for next week’s look at Science and Hypotheses

The question often raised is: Should Evolution and Creation get equal airtime in the schools? And in many people’s mind, the choice seems to be no because of the way the choices are portrayed. But is one science and the other fairytales? That is a fair question and one the Lost World Museum would like to weigh in on.

We feel strongly that each person should be able to make up their own mind on the question of origins without ridicule and that much more education needs to take place to allow everyone to understand the arguments and to clear up misrepresentations on both sides. In order to do that we are committed to placing an evolutionist and creationist interpretation next to every artifact we display.

Understanding the Arguments

Recently I watched a creationist and evolutionist in a debate and one thing seems to be happening so consistently that no one even realizes it. It happens with every issue argued about between creationists and evolutionists, but here’s one example:

The evolutionist said that we have back problems because we used to walk on all fours. And although I can’t remember the creationist’s response, this is enough to show what is happening.

There should be 3 columns – a fact column, a creationist interpretation, and an evolutionist interpretation.

The fact is that many people have back problems. Now an evolutionist should have the right to postulate that people have back problems because we used to walk on all fours, but it should be acknowledged that they have left the fact column.   And a creationist should have just the same right to say that many people have back problems because we are overweight, lazy and have a lifestyle that is not conducive to healthy backs OR to say it is the result of thousands of years of an earth suffering the results of sin - without ridicule. BOTH have left the fact column in order to “spin” it their way. Neither should be on stronger footing.

When people don’t realize that is being done, then people are left thinking that their choices are fairytales or science.  But there really is science, evolution and creationism.  There are no facts or evidence that could ever prove either one. There is only interpretation and both sides should be welcome to do it to their heart’s content.

One very interesting thing to notice in the origin issue is the tremendous volatility of the topic. The very existence of such hostility indicates what??? I will leave it you to postulate why it is that everyone is so unwilling to let the other side think the way they do. But does one side seem to have more of a need to suppress the other? Is one side hotter under the collar than the other and if so why?

Why can’t this issue be comparable to: “What kind of ice cream do you like? I like chocolate.” “Oh, I prefer strawberry.” Why is it that when I google “Creationists are idiots” that I have no lack for responses and when I google “Evolutionists are idiots” there seems to be a dearth? By NO means am I saying that there are not hotheaded creationists.  I have seen at least one for myself and it is never pretty when someone belittles another.   But from even a cursory examination, there seems a weighted tendency here.

One such website says “But creationism is for idiots, a pathetic, blinkered, morally and intellectually bankrupt substitution for thought, one that presents a sad, limited view of the universe.”

Another more polite website says “Despite massive scientific corroboration for evolution, roughly half of all Americans believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years. Many others believe the “irreducible complexity” argument of the intelligent design movement — a position that, while somewhat more flexible, still rankles most scientists. This widespread refusal to accept evolution can drive scientists into a fury. I’ve heard biologists call anti-evolutionists “idiots,” “lunatics”…. and worse. But the question remains: how do we explain the stubborn resistance to Darwinism?

This is not an article to tell you how to think or what the answers are to why there is such volatility within this topic. I simply want you to think for yourself. Dig deep, be honest. Ask yourself, no matter what your belief, why does what the other person says, matter so much to me?

We shot this last fall when the remains of a strange animal became the property of the museum. This 7 minute video contains the testimonials of the two teens, Geordie Decker and Josh Underwood, who captured the mangy looking hopping beast. Chupacabra’s don’t seem to be affecting the global economy so even if this is a new species overlooked by the scientific community, no worry, for now let’s just enjoy this hop along mystery.

On July 15, 2007 in Batavia New York, the museum will be represented at the Faith and Action Rally. It will be held at the Dwyer Baseball Stadium, starting time is 1PM. Admission is Free. Other than us there will be several speakers and a special featured guest Allen Asbury who will be sharing uplifting themes through music. All the area churches and outreach centers have been invited the expected crowd is 2,000, gates open at noon.

We are the first speaker at 1:30pm. Our main topic will center on Noah, a man driven by faith. His completion of an extraordinary 120-year task amidst ridicule and opposition strengthens our faith as we prepare for another worldwide event, the second coming. Noah was branded “insane” for believing what he did and I’m sure we can all identify with Noah on some level during our life.

Christen and I are very excited about the seminars we are making available to area Churches and organizations. I realize this is just a week away but if you can make it to the Rally please do so and introduce yourselves to us at our booth during the remainder of the program that ends at 6pm. Otherwise click and print or download the seminar fliers and e-mail them to your Pastor or Organizational leaders. Help us get the word out.
Thank you.

See you in Batavia New York next Sunday.