Farlina made some videos in an attempt to debunk creation and prove his fairytale of evolution. He made other videos about topics like molecular genetics, palaeontology, and abiogenesis. Of course, soon I will debunk these nonsensical claims and “arguments” he made when I finish reading more articles that address these points, basically when I will finish my research. 

Note : not everything in this video, I will address. 

At 0:51, Farlina begins by saying that creationists believe that there must be a creator for the universe (Note I don’t believe in the big bang theory nor this model of the universe that he showed in the video rather I believe what the Quran says).

He says:

"All creationists, top to bottom insist that the existence of the universe is totally nonsensical without a deity to have created it. They are perplexed as to how something could exist without cause, yet they do not apply this logic to their deity, which also needs its existence explained, thus inevitably resulting in an infinite regression of deities."

Of course this is a garbage strawman. No one is perplexed as to how something could exist without cause, rather anyone who has two brain cells will be perplexed about the claim that something begins existing while it doesn’t have a cause for its existence, which is obviously illogical, because something that occurs requires a cause for it’s occurrence. 

The universe began existing and hence it has a cause. The creator doesn't have a cause, because he didn't begin existing. There must be a first cause that all things depend on or else nothing will exist, that’s why a chain of creators is impossible because if assumed that there’s creator 2# who created the Creator, then who created the creator 2# so creator 2# could exist and create the Creator ? If we say creator 3# created the creator 2# so creator 2# could exist and create the Creator, then who created the creator 3# ? This is what we call “chain of creators”, and this chain will continue infinitely, and hence no creation will be created, nor the universe will be created, because they are dependent on each other for existing.

Farlina continues by saying : 

“They are perplexed as to how a universe could exist without a cause, so they invent an infinitely more complex deity that somehow exists without cause. If they are comfortable with their deity simply existing, why can’t the universe simply exist ? There is no consistency to their logic.”

It’s not about being comfortable or uncomfortable. The answer for why the universe can’t be eternal is very simple since, If the universe is eternal, then everything within the universe is eternal that means humans, animals, plants and all things that are in the universe will be also eternal, but that’s not the case, since all creatures and all things in the universe have a cause. Another point is that creatures are composed of elements, since we know that we are caused, then the element/matter that composes us are also caused, because it’s impossible that we are eternal and at the same time we are composed of caused elements. We know that we and the universe are composed of the same elements (ex. Atoms), based upon this, we can conclude that the universe is also caused, because it’s composed of caused elements. It’s simply impossible that something is eternal and at the same time is composed of caused elements.

Of course these things are beyond Farlina. What Farlina can understand and realize is how to get more branding and money. 

Farlina after that claims that creationists have an emotional attachment and he continues saying nonsense. I don’t need to respond to this nonsense.

Farlina continues by saying in the minute 4:00 :

“...because science does not understand how the universe began, when creationists insist that it must been god, this is called a god of gaps argument. “I don’t know therefore god” is the essence of this argument” 

Science is about empirical evidence and not about logical evidence. It’s limited to observable events and phenomena. Someone usually will not use the scientific method as to prove the existence of the creator similar to the fact that no one will say that I need empirical evidence for math, since proving math is with using logic and not empirical evidence, so I don’t see the point of Farlina shoving science and after that claiming that creator exist is false, since there’s no relation whatsoever, but for even proving the existence of the creator then using logical evidence with scientific evidence can also indicate to us that there’s a creator. For example, we know that DNA is information and through knowing that it’s information and we know that information is immaterial, which proves that the immaterial exists. We also know that the mind is immaterial and hence immateriality exists and not only matter exists. 

Of course no one says “I don’t know therefore god”, this is just an accusation from the bag of farlina and other evolutionists that holds no basis. When someone says that creatures must have a creator. It’s because we can observe purpose, intention, reason in creation. For example, a motor device has a purpose, intention and a reason which indicates that it’s indeed created by someone who has knowledge and not randomness similar to the fact that we can conclude that the bacterial flagellum has a creator, since it has a purpose, intention and a reason. There’s simply no distinction between the two, except that one is mechanical and another is biological (Figure 1) and claiming that one who has a creator but the other doesn't is against common sense.

(Figure 1)

Farlina continues by saying : 

“Various gods have been kicked out of their respective gaps countless times in human history, as we began to learn how everything actually works…”

Claiming that there’s secondary causes for something doesn’t change the primary cause which is the creator. One can say the statement of “God created humans” knowing  the process of humans being created (embryology) doesn’t change the fact that the primary cause is the creator even if there’s other secondary causes.

Farlina says in minute 5:55 : 

“In science, theories are better than laws. We can say the same about evolution. Evolution factually happens. We observe evolution every single day. We observe how genetic information changes over time, how the distribution of alleles changes over time, we observe speciation events. We observe evolution, evolution happens. There is no arguing this. What creationists mean, of course is that it isn't proven that all life evolved from a common ancestor over several billion of years. That’s where evolutionary theory comes in…”

What Farlina means by “evolution happening” is that diversity in the gene pool occurs and is there, which obviously is not evolution, but just diversity. After that he claims that alleles distributions means evolution occurs, which is again nonsensical for the following reasons :

1. Variations in allele frequencies lead to differences in the number of copies of existing genes within a population, influencing the prevalence of certain traits. However, merely adjusting the frequency of existing genetic information does not generate the novel information necessary for evolution to occur. The emergence of entirely new characteristics, features, and ultimately distinct organisms cannot be explained by simply shuffling existing genetic data. To illustrate, akin to how one cannot create assembly instructions for a motorcycle by rearranging those for a bicycle.
2. Modifying allele frequencies in populations results in increased heterozygosity for some alleles while decreasing it for others over time. Rather than introducing novel traits, this process can lead to the loss or increased prevalence of existing traits, which does not drive any so-called “evolutionary change” as it does not create new genetic information.
3. Continual changes in allele frequencies can cause certain genes to become recessive and go unexpressed in a population, representing a loss of genetic information. This phenomenon contrasts with the theory of evolution, which necessitates a continuous influx of new genetic data. Mutation, as it currently stands, does not generate the required genetic information claimed by the theory.

Farlina says :

“Creationists are constantly enacting defense mechanisms to deny this obvious fact. We can see these defense mechanisms in action with other terminology that they themselves have created. First, they will refer to anyone who accepts evolutionary biology as an "evolutionist", which is not a real word. This is done to liken science to a belief system that people can subscribe to, just like a religion.”

The word “evolutionist” is actually a real word. Farlina, If you are ignorant of this, then you can just try to check the dictionary to find out that it is indeed a word and if you have a trauma from typing the word “evolutionist” on the dictionary, then checking these links will help you : 

EVOLUTIONIST | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Evolutionist Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Medical

evolutionist noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Farlina continues by saying : 

“They will do this with Darwin as well. As we mentioned before, they will complain about Darwinism, and Darwinists. This serves to denigrate Charles Darwin and paint him as not a scientist but a prophet."

Darwin is actually not a scientist but rather a philosopher. If you read The Origin of Species or letters by Charles Darwin you will see him philosophizing rather proving his theory through empirical evidence and example of that is : 

“There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [a kind of parasitic wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.”

C. Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, Darwin Correspondence Project.

So we see that Charles Darwin in here rather than giving an explanation based on evidence for how the eye supposedly “evolved” he uses the so-called “dilemma of evil” to argue that the eye was not created.

Farlina says in 9:26 : 

"They pretend that nothing has happened in evolutionary biology since Origin of Species."

No, no one believes that the Darwinian theory didn’t change or didn’t get edited after years. Creationists know that there’s the neo-Darwinian theory. So this is just a stupid accusation. 

Farlina says in 9:43 : 

“Finally, they will often use the word the “materialism” as a dirty word for describing the secularity of real science. Creationists believe in souls because they’re afraid to die. Science does not support the notion of souls because there is no evidence for them existing”

Notice how Farlina shoves a lot of garbage as a way to make a case. He changes the meaning of the word “materialism” claiming that it means science or as what science means, while ignoring the fact that the word “materialism” is about describing a philosophy and not about science. For example, someone uses the scientific method, but he can say that he doesn’t believe in materialism. Farlina literally plays with the word and tries to fuse it together to make a case that materialism is science and science is materialism, while in reality materialism is a philosophy that states that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Another definition is a philosophy that states that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all beings and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. A creationists is against this philosophy, but he’s not against the scientific method or natural sciences. 

The cud muncher continues by claiming that creationists believe in souls because they’re afraid to die, which is a stupid claim and it’s not even generalization. He’s literally pulling this from his trash. Why claim that every creationist believes in souls because they’re afraid to die ? For example, I believe that souls exist because my religion is the truth and since it’s the truth, then anything that it says is also true.

Farlina saying “Creationists believe in souls because they’re afraid to die” is worse than saying that “psychopaths don’t have morals” because many psychopaths indeed don’t have morals, but it doesn’t mean that every psychopath doesn’t have a moral code.

After that he claims that science doesn’t support the notion for souls, because they don’t exist, but the point is that science is limited to a specific area, which is observable matter and has nothing to do with souls. So what’s the point that Farlina tries to make ? 

Farlina says in 15:43 : "...since they try and paint the picture there is a serious discussion going on within academia surrounding these. Teach the controversy! In reality, among actual experts, there is no controversy."

While they (evolutionist scientists) do not question the theory of evolution, they will question Neo-Darwinism and try to bring alternatives. For example, there’s something called the “third way of evolution” (Figure 2).

(Figure 2)

There’s also an article titled “Do we need a new theory of evolution?”. It discusses problems about the evolutionary theory. 

“scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly?...the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers... is absurdly crude and misleading...it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”

"Do we need a new theory of evolution?" The Guardian (28 Jun 2022).

Farlina says in 17:55 : 

“....They will simply exclaim that evolution is like a religion because it's not testable or repeatable. Once again, this is ridiculous. We already discussed the types of observations and predictions that evolution can make. But creationists are specifically complaining about the fact that we did not watch the entire history of life on earth with 3D glasses and popcorn. Of course we didn't. It doesn't matter. In science, we don't need to watch or even able to see things in order to learn about them."

No one is saying that we need to watch the history of life on earth with 3D glasses and popcorn, but if you are going to claim that the theory of evolution is scientific, then you must present the evidence for it, which is the so-called “transitional forms” which are nowhere to be found. If you claim that embryology, genetics are evidence for the theory, then it can also be explained in a creation model and it won’t be a problem. The only evidence that will really prove your theory is to actually show these so-called “transitional forms”, so where are these ? (Figure 3) (Figure 4). Also let’s not forget about your theory that claims that there’s also hundreds of so-called “failure products” (Figure 5) which are again literally nowhere found. Don’t go and speculate about some shattered bones and claim that this is undeniable evidence for evolution, because it can just be explained in a creation model. 

(Figure 3)

(Figure 4)

(Figure 5)

Farlina continues by saying :  

"...We can't see atoms, yet we do chemistry. We can only see a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, yet every portion has some practical application."

Atoms can be seen by using the microscope. No one needs to know that atoms even exist, to do chemistry. So this is not similar to the theory of evolution at all. Existence of atoms is literally undeniable, but as for your theory then the so-called “undeniable evidence” is speculating some shattered bones is ridiculous. 

Farlina says : 

“...We did not watch billions of years of evolution, but we can make reliable inferences based on the data available to us, which we have discussed throughout this series. Imagine a crime scene. Does a detective say: "Aww shucks, I missed it! I guess l'll go home" No, they begin to gather clues. Fingerprints, blood samples, and so forth. These clues will help elucidate what happened and hopefully identify a culprit. This is an empirical approach to sloving a case, like a scientist would behave with their particular research question. "You weren't there is an argument against science, ever. With no actual argument to make, this is why creationists and intelligent design proponents are forced to lie about the evidence supporting evolution. It is undeniably consistent beyond reasonable doubt..”

First off, there's a difference between a crime scene and the theory of evolution. Your theory claims that there’s millions of common ancestries for many creatures and thousands  so-called “transitional forms”

Imagine someone claiming that hitler had connections with some inhuman super intelligent creatures. Someone asks him what is the evidence for that from books, images, etc. He goes and tells him that we infer that hitler had these connections because the nazis have Horten Ho 229 (Figure 6), and since it looks very strange then nazis probably had connections with inhuman super intelligent creatures. This is speculation and not actual evidence, but imagine this same person says that it’s like a crime scene and the investigator will try to collect evidence. 

Anyone knows that this is completely not the same, similar to the fact that the theory of evolution and a crime scene is not the same.

(Figure 6)

According to Farlina, you don’t doubt these shattered bones (Figure 7), nor you question about how they inferred with some footprints ("laetoli") to draw this (Figure 8) and how the so-called “hominids” look like this. According to Farlina, these question will make you a "science illiterate" and "anti science". This is the so-called “undeniable evidence” for the theory.

(Figure 7)

(Figure 8)

After that Farlina says that the creator is making him and his fanboys get punished because they are using logic, while in reality they are cud munchers who do not want to try and challenge their beliefs in evolution. They keep making stupid assumptions and claims and make a whole philosophy and claim that this is science and logic, while these observations in fossils and embryology, genetics, etc can be simply explained in the creation model. 

They go against common sense and claim that the appearance of purpose, intention and reason in creation is not evidence of a creator and rather than believe that there must be a creator for the world, since we see order and purpose they claim that so-called “randomness” made it and that the so-called “natural selection” made it appear as created.

What is the point of trying to help cud munchers like that ? Who literally believe that the so-called “randomness” created the world without guidance or a purpose. 

Farlina says in 23:39 : 

“...They need high stakes, so they pretend evolution is tied to moral bankruptcy, linked to Nazis, eugenics, and so forth. This is all a script of lies. Altruism is the product of evolution. Nazism was a christian movement. As philosopher of biology Robert J. Richards pointed out, leading Nazi theorists specifically rejected Darwinian evolution because of its materialistic character. Whatever they bring up in this arena, It's total bullshit."

Altruism is actually a problem for the theory of evolution. I will make a thread about this later on. No, Nazism is not a christian movement. That’s just a nonsensical claim. Hitler himself was against christianity (Figure 9). There’s many statement of hitler that shows that he was against christianity like this (Figure 10) : 

(Figure 9)

(Figure 10)

“Richard Evans also reiterated the view that Nazism was secular, scientific and anti-religious in outlook in the last volume of his trilogy on Nazi Germany: "Hitler's hostility to Christianity reached new heights, or depths, during the war;". Hitler's Table Talk has the dictator often voicing stridently negative views of Christianity, such as: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.” - Wikipedia.

As for the picture that Farlina showed about hitler saying “We are a christian movement” (Figure 11) then it’s actually a political statement and not personal. Of course, I am not surprised that Farlina doesn’t understand how politics works which is indicated by his blind belief that the government will never lie.

(Figure 11)

Note : I am not defending Christianity, but rather I am pointing out the ignorance of Farlina and how he’s even ignorant about history.

In reality, Hitler was a deist or a pantheist. He was more likely between the two (Figure 12). Even the major figures of the Nazi party were actually either agnostic, or atheists or deists and not Christians. 

(Figure 12)

Himmeler was a deist and he rejected christianity (Figure 13). So, why is Farlina lying about history ? Let’s not also forget about the “Positive christianity movement” which indicates that Christinity didn’t fit in the nazi party ideas, which is why they reformed it. 

(Figure 13)

Farlina after that claims that Nazi theorists rejected Darwinism, but Farlina, they accepted social darwinism ? So they are going to accept social darwinism but reject the theory itself ? Even if we were to say that they rejected many things of the theory. It doesn’t change the fact that they accepted aspects of it and that there must be a root for nazis ideas and not that they brought this from nowhere. Even if you say that the Nazis had spiritual ideas or pagan ideas. It still doesn’t change the fact that their racism was based on the theory of evolution.

Darwin himself said that there’s superior races and inferior races : 

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Charles Darwin - The Descent of Man Page 105 

In fact, Darwin himself was assured by his German disciples: “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail,” (Charles Darwin to Willhelm Preyer, 1868).

Even Ernst Haeckel advocated for racial theories. He even made a ladder that goes from monkeys and baboons to a white man (Figure 14).

(Figure 14)

Thomas huxley also said that whites are superior to blacks : 

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man..."

Thomas H. Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, Appleton, New York, USA, p. 20, 1871. Quoted in Morris, The Long War Against God, Baker Book House, Michigan, USA, p. 60, 1990. 

Of course Farlina doesn’t care if he promotes lies. The most important thing for him is get that money fast. 

Farlina says :

"The most egregious misrepresentation is the notion that morality is impossible without a deity. But we exist with morality, and there is no evidence for a deity, so clearly no deity is need for morality to exist. Morality may not be objective, as we quickly realize with people having different notions of what is moral. But atheists are at least as moral as religious people..."

1. There’s evidence for the existence of the creator. 
2. If there’s no god, then there’s no good or evil and everything is neutral. What is even the point of good and evil existence in an atheistic materialistic worldview? In this worldview, there’s no purpose and life is meaningless and hence what’s the point of doing good and not doing evil ? 
3. Farlina admits that according to his worldview, morality is not objective, but rather subjective. So what does that mean ? It means that there’s no basis of judging someone based upon your opinion and hence the atheist has no basis to judge someone, since it’s just based upon his opinions.
4. Atheists say that they have morals, but again their morality is not justified. It’s just their opinions and it’s not evidence.

Farlina says : "...and it does not contradict evolutionary principles whatsoever. Take a look at bees and ants. Animal behavior is complex. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean kill everyone around you. Sometimes it means form cooperative networks and take care of one another..."

Bees and ants and animals in general are not thinking about morality or have morals in general. It’s just something programmed in their genome to act like that and be cooperative.

For example, a lion after he kills the lion king he also kills his cubs. This is hard wired in the lion’s brain and it’s not about morality. 

Ants cooperate with each other that’s true, but they will cooperate as species and attack other species of ants. They sometimes even attack baby birds. 

According to the theory of evolution, the word “survival of the fittest” doesn’t necessarily mean to kill each other, but to kill others that aren’t from the species.

So, what is the point of Farlina ?

In conclusion, I’ve refuted Farlina on many points he made through his video. He can’t formulate logical conclusions and he's ignorant of history and politics.  To be honest, I suffered from his stupidity and the worst of all is his fans that portray themselves as “intellectuals”, while they are in reality nothing but a combination of ignorance + arrogance. Next post, I will probably refute his “evidences for evolution” videos and refuting the one on molecular genetics and paleontology.

I'm always skittish about claims like this, and even more so about Ron Wyatt's claims, and especially the Durupinar "ark site", but this was an interesting enough claim I thought I'd submit it to the minds here who are far sharper and more educated than my own.

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/scientists-have-deciphered-the-worlds-oldest-map-and-it-reveals-the-location-of-noahs-ark/

In the bible 2 Samuel 21:20 is mentioned the giant with six toes/both feet and six fingers/hands.

I suggest this man did not have a physical problem with the extra digits but was in great health. It suggests that when bodies are created in our mothers. if the child would be a giant then the body instantly allows extra digits to be added on. Its not a abberation except being a giant. this is a important matter in biology ability to change as needed. The dna of the body must be so interwoven as to innately know how to redesign itself. From this we can see how easuly all humans changed slightlt after the ark into the present varieties of mankind plus the option for people called neaderthals. They are just the same peoples, in same languages, that morphed slightly as needed. Yet all from Noahs family.

Memories are not only in the brain, human cell study finds

Having been researching certain concepts in physcios recently especialy on light i conclude there is many errors in the old Spacetime thing from Einstein and how is relevant to creationism on deep time.

The big point is how light speed/fastest speed they say changes physics into crazy conclusions in what is called spacetime. Aside from that however for creationists is the obvious biblical fact. On day one God created light and then separated the light from the darkness so it was again datk so as to make use of light. this means, as is shown in physics, light can be interfered with. I suggest the obvious. Darkness interferes with light. So when light is proboked out from behind the separation boundary it still moves througfh darkness with resistence. That empty space out there is resisting lightspeed. I say light speed is instant and crosses the universe in a instant if that long. so deeptime from light from stars on this point alone is not a demanding conclusion. light from stars is being slowed down. In some way on creation week os was not slowed down but its natural speed. so Adam saw the light from stars etc.

The darkness must be interfering with light and so a great option it interferes with light as it moves through space today. Thus helping toward a explanation of deeptime issues and fixing this stuff about spacetime and time dilation errors.

Dinosaur Figurines, Fact or Fraud Dr. Don Patton

Dear community,

if everything was buried during the flood, where are all the human artifacts, like their housing, Tools & cuttlery? Im not asking about humans and mammals, but their artifacts. I did a Google search & read some articles, so I feel like I know of the common arguments, but I am not satisfied. Any contributions to this topic please?

I don't know how influential this article might be, or if it's "rigorous" enough to warrant publication, but I find it interesting that it is published, recently, in a journal called "ScienceDirect".

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610724000786

Almost all fish have an integrated system to balance themselves in the water and swim in 6 directions guided by waves controlled by the fin system.

Dean, Bashford. 1987. Fishes: Living and Fossil. p.1

The fin system is highly integrated with the streamlined body and the tail, which acts as a rudder. All of this integrates with the swim bladder that fish use to regulate their depth in the water, and the dense muscle system that makes up a significant portion of the fish's body to enable it to swim in another model of integrated complexity for multiple systems. Add to that the so-called "lateral line", which is responsible for converting changes in water pressure and waves into electrical signals to help the fish detect movement around it through the water, to determine the location of prey or escape from predators. According to evolutionists, this biological submarine was not created, but rather "randomness" did it.

Fish are extremely diverse, so it is expected that we would find the so-called "numerous transitional forms" required to produce all of these species among the millions of marine fossils discovered. However, this has not happened. Quite simply, aquatic organisms are highly diverse; some live in deep waters, while others inhabit shallow waters. Some crawl on the bottom of the aquatic flat they live in or even burrow into it, and some can crawl on mud, like mudskippers, or even lie in ambush in a manner similar to terrapins in the heart of the mud during periods of receding water.

Each of these creatures is equipped with features that suit and benefit them in their lifestyle, and this does not imply that their diversity indicates a transformation from one type to another. Evolutionists often draw the famous arrow between one type and another. For example, evolutionists often point out that some fish living near the water surface have a flattened skull and raised eyes like those of amphibians, claiming that this is a step towards quadrupeds and terrestrial life, and draw the famous arrow. In reality, these fish have a skull and eyes shaped like this because they need to see upward more than their counterparts living in the depths, both to catch their prey of insects and small birds that come near the water's surface and to avoid any attack from a land or aerial predator coming from above.

(Figure 1)

"Lost world: Invasive palms and WWII damaged an island paradise. Could fungi help to restore it?" Nature | Vol 618 | 21 June 2023

The contemporary fish in figure 1 is anatomically successful not because it is on the path to transitioning into a terrestrial organism, but because this anatomy is more suitable for the shallow waters in which it resides. You will notice that the same article in Nature, which is an entirely evolutionary article, acknowledges the existence of complex networks for food transfer from birds to plants, fungi, marine organisms, and coral reefs. Therefore, there is no need to impose an evolutionary interpretation on the data.

The presence of organisms in shallow and deep waters, each adapted to its own conditions, is not because these were evolving into those suited for land, but due to the creation for the interconnected food chain and the varying environmental conditions of different habitats.

Today, we also know of a type of fish with lungs and gills. When transferred to land, its body undergoes multiple morphological changes in the limb bones, muscles, and some organs like the lungs to adapt to terrestrial life. This occurs within a single generation and is repeatable... not over millions of years, trial and error, or step by step, but as a rapid, clear, and direct programmed transformation in the organism in response to changing environmental pressures. It is a programmed transformation in the organism's genes because its environment and lifestyle demand it.

“Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies Polypterus senegalus, AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but they are “much more content” living underwater, she says. But when Standen took Polypterus that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. “They resembled the transition species you see in the fossil record, partway between sea and land,” Standen told me. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years. But, says Armin Moczek, an extended synthesis proponent, the Senegal bichir “is adapting to land in a single generation”. He sounded almost proud of the fish…”

Stephen Buranyi "Do we need a new theory of evolution?" The guardian (June 2022).

Now, imagine finding a creature like this as a fossil without any way to study it alive... Evolutionists would classify it as a “transitional form” on the path to transitioning from the sea to land over millions of years, while in reality, this organism quickly exhibits and disables these traits to adapt to the environment. Perhaps another sample of the same organism is found in the water with aquatic adaptations, and evolutionists draw an arrow between them without realising they are literally the same species. Hundreds of DNA sequences distributed across a large number of chromosomes are used by fish as building blocks for various adaptations that suit different environments and can be used to produce hundreds of adaptations - pre-equipped within the same organism to adapt to different lifestyles, not gradients from one type to another. Of course, if all this were found solely in fossils without studying the genes, many would confidently conclude that these are stages of evolution from one species to another, rather than all being the same species with a high capacity for adaptation to different environments.

“They found hundreds of distinct DNA regions strongly tied to different ecological niches and scattered across 22 chromosomes. “We think that’s the key to make hundreds of species and not just two or three,” Seehausen says. When the fish hybridize, they can rearrange these modular genes, “almost like Lego bricks,” he says, to build many possible combinations suited, for example, to a rocky inshore fish that feeds on insects, or one that eats the same bugs but lives in weedy lake grass.”

Amy McDermott "Inner Workings: Reeling in answers to the freshwater fish paradox" PNAS September 7, 2021 118 (36).

Structures highly specialised for feeding allow the same types of fish to switch between them repeatedly across generations based on the type of food... Once again, if these structures were found solely in fossils, evolutionists would confidently assert that they represent “transitional stages” from one organism to another and allegedly "evolved" in jaw structure, or a “transition” from jawless to jawed creatures, or any other evolutionary narrative. However, when viewed as mere adaptations that living populations easily shift between as they enter new environments, the group dynamics of life become more fluid.

“The pharyngeal jaw apparatus of cichlids, a second set of jaws functionally decoupled from the oral ones, is known to mediate ecological specialization and often differs strongly between sister-species...Analyzing the lower pharyngeal jaw-bones we find significant differences between diet groups qualitatively resembling the differences found between specialized species.”

Moritz Muschick et al., "Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in the Midas cichlid fish pharyngeal jaw and its relevance in adaptive radiation" BMC Evolutionary Biology 2011, 11: 116.

The point to be clarified is: there are many variations and adaptations that the same living group of fish can produce to adapt to different environments, and if found independently, they would seem and be treated as distinct groups and different “evolving” species. Now let's take a look at the fossil record of fish.

(Figure 2)

Evolutionists claim that fish evolved from the fossil Pikaia (figure 2), which resembles a worm, but they say that it is just a “reasonable model”, and there is no real evidence for that, as its classification is highly dubious.

“Determining the phylogenetic position of Pikaia is problematic.”

Benton, M. J. 2015. Vertebrates Originate. In Vertebrate Paleontology.

Bond Carl E. 1996. Biology of Fishes. Second Edition. P.78.

Regardless of their acceptance or rejection, the allegedly “evolution from a worm to a fish” is not as simplistically portrayed by the theory of evolution. Worms are soft-bodied, hindering their ability to achieve the necessary balance for swimming. Therefore, they would need to increase their rigidity while maintaining flexibility. They would also require fins, a head, a brain, complex sensory organs, and all the transitional stages necessary to develop these complex structures, which are not evident.

Moreover, reliance on lancelets, to which this fossil belongs, for explaining the “origin” of the vertebral column highlights the co-occurrence of vertebrates and invertebrates in the Cambrian explosion, where neither evolved from the other.

The Origin of Fins:

Theory of Evolution, as usual, presents us with vague stories and reductionist hypotheses..."maybe fins may have evolved from folds in the skin or mutated scales" and as usual, the only "evidence" is "evolution certainly occurred, so there must be some scenario to explain it". Fins are not just protrusions from the fish's body; they have a support system of cartilage, muscles, nerves, and bones that work in coordination with them. Imagination does not solve the problem of claiming that the origin of all these structures is through the so-called "DNA replication errors”.

Janvier, Philippe. 1999. “Catching the First Fish”  Nature 402: 21-22.

(Figure 3)

Evolutionists claimed that the conodonts (figure 3) were “transitional forms”, only to later ascertain that they are complex, not primitive or “transitional shapes”.

Shu, D-G, S. Conway Morris, L. Zhang, L. Chen, J. Han, M. Zhu and LZ. Chen. 1999 “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China” Nature 402:42-46.

They also assumed that the fossilized calci-chordates were “evidence” of “transitional forms”, but they were contradicted by other morphological and anatomical evidence."

Lefebvre, Bertrand. 2000. Homologies in stylophora: A test of the Calcichordate theory. Geobios 33(3):359-364.

Agnathans:

They are the oldest types of fish in the fossil record. Therefore, even if we ignore the alleged claim that they "evolved", we should at least be able to observe this supposed "evolution" after their appearance. However, once again, the fossil record defies this, preserving consistent forms from their initial appearance until we reach their living counterparts today.

Colbert, Edwin H., Michael Morales, and Eli C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the Backboned animals through time, 5th ed. p.24

Bond Carl E. 1996. Biology of Fishes. Second Edition. p.78

Repetskil, John E. 1978. “A Fish from the upper Cambrian of North America” Science: 200:529-531.

Cephalaspids :

Extinct jawless fish groups. Evolutionists assume them as ancestors, but later they admitted the absence of suitable ancestral forms. Their extinction was not due to evolution.

Colbert, Edwin H., Michael Morales, and Eli C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the Backboned animals through time, 5th ed. p.50.

Romer, Alfred. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. University of Chicago press. P.22.

Jawed Fish:

Evolutionists consider the emergence of jawed fish a “great evolution” due to the significant differences between the ability of the jawless system to filter and absorb nutrients from the environment and the ability of the jawed system to consume prey. They claim that this is a great advancement and that it's supposed to have come step by step along the path of evolution. However, discoveries often bring unwanted surprises for them, as there are no traces of the required steps. Many samples assumed to represent transitional stages toward the jaw have been contested by other experts, who argue that they are specialised features for a specific lifestyle rather than "primitive traits".

“specialized rather than primitive upon phylogenetic investigation”

Brazeau, M. D. and M. Friedman. 2015. The origin and early phylogenetic history of jawed vertebrates. Nature. 520 (7548): 490-497.

(Figure 4)

Evolutionists assumed that Acanthodii (figure 4) were a "transitional link", but conflicting research emerged saying no evidence for that.

Barton, Michael. 2007. Bond’s Biology of Fishes. Third Edition, Thomson Brooks  p.130

The evolutionists then turned to Placoderms, which are armored fish with plates, well-preserved in fossils. As usual, the presence of an excellent fossil record hinders evolutionary imagination and interpretative scenarios to the extent that the chain built by evolutionists upon Placoderms was described as evolutionarily impossible, suggesting that the situation would have been better for the theory if they did not exist.

Romer, Alfred. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. University of Chicago press. p.24 p.33.

"When it comes to jawed fish, studies indicate that the jaw in fish relies on a mechanical mechanism used in engineering designs called the four-bar linkage mechanism. It consists of levers, joints, and segments to transfer motion from one part to another. This suggests that the issue has nothing to do with evolutionary imagination, which tells stories of a jaw that might not have functioned well initially and then 'evolved' over time.

In reality, the jaw requires multiple overlapping pieces in the correct shape to perform any function, and these pieces are not just bones with a simple four-bar linkage design but also involve muscles that will move all of this. What's fascinating is that research shows that the different jaw designs among fish adhere to specific measurements and controls.

"Skull mechanisms such as levers and linkages are subject to physical constraints (Westneat 2003), which may only be broken when a fundamentally new engineering system for feeding arises."

Mark W Westneat et al., "Local phylogenetic divergence and global evolutionary convergence of skull function in reef fishes of the family Labridae" Proceedings of Biological Science 2005 May 22; 272(1567): 993–1000.

So, even if we ignore the origin of the first jaw, there are no alleged gradual steps between it and others. Instead, it would require a radical change in the engineering design, and they claim that these changes have appeared multiple times without a common predecessor and without any intermediate stages.

"unparalleled higher-level pattern of convergence that is occasionally punctuated by major transitions in engineering design."

Yet, despite this, they are dogmatically attributed to the theory of evolution. They said that there are 14 distributors across classifications that lack a common ancestor.

“Mechanically fast jaw systems have evolved independently at least 14 times from ancestors with forceful jaws”

So basically what they are doing is when they encounter difficulty, they say “convergent evolution”.

Bony Fish:

Bony fish are divided into two distinct types: ray-finned fish and lobe-finned fish, each with different characteristics. There is no “reasonable evolutionary scenario” or “transitional forms” for them.

Shu, D-G, S. Conway Morris, L. Zhang, L. Chen, J. Han, M. Zhu and LZ. Chen. 1999 “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China” Nature 402:607.

(Figure 5)

One of the unpleasant surprises for evolutionists is the discovery of bony fish (figure 5) with a spinal column in Cambrian layers, which completely contradicts the proposed evolutionary scenarios starting from the appearance of primitive chordates first, and then their gradual evolution.

Simon Conway Morris and Jean-Bernard Caron "A primitive fish from the Cambrian of North America" Nature (2014)

"Metaspriggina: Vertebrate Fish Found in Cambrian Explosion"

"Skeletal structure and camera-like eyes in the Cambrian explosion before the organisms from which these features were allegedly claimed to evolve. No consolation for evolutionary scenarios and images filled with arrows."

Elpistostege:

Only one fossil has common features with two groups, making evolutionists consider it a missing link between bony and non-bony fish. However, it faces two problems. The first one [a problem shared by many alleged “transitional forms”] is that it possesses fully developed characteristics and is not in a transitional stage.

Barton, Michael. 2007. Bond’s Biology of Fishes. Third Edition, Thomson Brooks p.131

The second problem is that it appeared simultaneously with bony fish, which negates it being a stage towards them.

Benton, Michael. 2005. Vertebrate Palaeontology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. P.62

Add to all this the discovery of fish, similar to modern fish, very early in the fossil record.

Botella, Hector, Henning Bloom, Markus Dorda, Per Erik Ahlberg and Philippe Janvier. 2007. “Jaws and Teeth of the Earliest Bony Fishes” Nature 448(2):583.

Because the richness of the fossil record of fish poses a problem for evolutionary hypotheses, evolutionists differ on whether fish “evolved” from a single ancestor or multiple ancestors. However, the fact remains that all major groups, from jawless fish to placoderms, cartilaginous fish, bony fish, and lobe-finned fish, appeared in close succession.

Janvier, Philippe. 2006. “Modern look for ancient Lamprey” Nature, 443(26): 921-924 October

Jablonski, David, Kaustuv Roy, James W. Valentine, Rebecca M. Price, and Philip S. Anderson. 2003. “The Impact of the pull of the recent on the history of marine diversity” Science, 300:1133-1135

As usual, evolutionists resort to their last line of defense: "The fossilization is rare it didn't preserve them" However, given its richness and the presence of all major known fish today, with detailed specimens showing bones, fins, and skulls, this argument is ridiculous.

Maisey, John G. 1996. Discovering Fossil Fishes. New York: Henry Holt. p.10

Benton, Michael. 2005. Vertebrate Palaeontology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. p.62

The excuse that the aquatic environment hasn't changed since the appearance of fish, so fish didn't evolve, does not explain the sudden appearance of all these diversities, as each group appears abruptly and without ancestors.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History – The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus books. p.408.

We will not delve into another evolutionary problem when discussing fossils, which is complex behaviors like migration that require a navigation system, data recording, and the ability to compete with modern analytical labs in analyzing water to determine the required migration path. The theory of evolution does not explain all of this, lacking reasonable functional "transitions" except for some hypotheses and stories that they imagine.

As a simple example, the transition of salmon from freshwater to saltwater during migration requires changes in kidney function rates and adjustments in the molecular pumps on the gill cell walls to expel sodium rather than absorb it (these changes are reversed upon re-entry into freshwater). The fish itself adjusts its behavior, starting to drink large amounts of water in preparation for the next stage, as it has been programmed. The cell walls of these cells contain Na+/K+ ATPase pumps responsible for regulating sodium and potassium. In freshwater (low in sodium), these pumps work to draw sodium inside, whereas in saltwater (high in sodium), the pump's operation reverses to expel it.

“Unless dealt with effectively, this NaCl influx could kill the salmon in a short time. In sum, a salmon in the ocean is faced with the simultaneous problems of dehydration (much like a terrestrial animal, such as yourself) and salt loading. However, if fresh water, the problem is basically reversed. Here, the salmon is bathed in a medium that is nearly devoid of ions, especially NaCl, and much more dilute than its body fluids. Therefore, the problems a salmon must deal with in fresh water environments are salt loss and water loading.... In the ocean, these Na+-Cl– ATPase molecules ‘pump’ Na+ and Cl– out of the salmon’s blood into the salt water flowing over the gills, thereby causing NaCl to be lost to the water and offsetting the continuous influx of NaCl. In fresh water, these same Na+-Cl–ATPase molecules ‘pump’ Na+ and Cl– out of the water flowing over the gills and into the salmon’s blood, thereby offsetting the continuous diffusion-driven loss of NaCl that the salmon is subject to in fresh water habitats with their vanishingly low NaCl concentrations.”

http://www.unm.edu/~toolson/salmon_osmoregulation.html

how molecular pumps and filtration systems in the kidneys and gills of marine organisms allegedly "originated through gradual changes " to expel salts and retain water in saltwater, while expelling water and attracting salts in freshwater to maintain the fish's internal environment ? Such examples in the intricate branches of living organisms (which are numerous, and we have just taken this as an illustrative model) indicate that the issue is not just the emergence of a specific body plan but sometimes the variations on this plan itself.

In this model alone, we have complex behaviors like migration that require geographical guidance and mechanisms to adjust the body's functions at times of entering and exiting saltwater, regulating the fish's behavior itself to stay for a period in the intertidal zone until adjustments are completed, and even drinking plenty of freshwater.

Of course, to support the processes of jumping and exiting the water, which reduces oxygen levels, the fish's heart is equipped with high levels of enzymes that help push hemoglobin to release more oxygen.

Sarah L. Alderman et al., "Evidence for a plasma-accessible carbonic anhydrase in the lumen of salmon heart that may enhance oxygen delivery to the myocardium" Journal of Experimental Biology RESEARCH ARTICLE| 01 MARCH 2016.

Secrets of the cell ep. 9 feat. biologist Michael Behe

Every time I see the interdependent complexity of biology I'm astounded..

There was criticism of horse fossils because they were a trend among the Darwinists at that time (2000), but it collapsed, and the Darwinists fled to the whales. Therefore, Jonathan exposed the falsification of the new icon instead of horses. However, this does not prevent reminding of the problems of the old icon with the evolutionists' own admission.

For decades, a "series" of horse fossils was presented as a solid model for "horse evolution" and was popular in textbooks and museums (just like the "whale series" today). However, evolutionists themselves were eventually forced, with increasing criticism, to admit that this series does not represent an evolutionary model because many of the "links" are not evidence that they are arranged in this chronological order. It turned out that they were contemporary that lived alongside each other and are not creatures descended from one another. One of the "links" turned out to be close to a living contemporary creature resembling a rabbit with no relation to the supposed horse evolution line.

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff"

Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), p. 78

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown"

Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15

"The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time"

Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230

"Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis: have been discovered in the same layer as Eohippus"

Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19

David Raul, “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 30(1) (1979): 25

And perhaps one of the ironies in the "horse evolution series" is that some species that are supposed to be ancestors of others actually appear in fossils in the same period, such as Pliohippus, which is assumed to have descended from Merychippus, despite their appearance according to the fossil record in the same period together around the supposed period of 15.97 million years ago.

It's like your father and your grandfather being born in the same year. Of course, this is in addition to the fact that many fossils in this "series" are taken from different continents, which strongly challenges the possibility of them being the same species that changes. Some large ancient fossils are deliberately ignored because they would conflict with the presentation of the creature, which changes by displaying the series as if the species in it grows and then shrinks... that if it was one species to begin with.

There's also some analysis that challenges the possibility of the claimed first ancestor (the small animal Hyracotherium) being a suitable ancestor for the horse.

"CI 0.32...The results also suggest that "Hyracotherium" is not representative of the basal morphology of the perissodactyls, and no currently identified fossil provides a good candidate for that morphology."

David J. Froehlich "Phylogenetic Systematics of Basal Perissodactyls" Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar. 15, 1999), pp. 140-159.

This was the journal with the cover story:

https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/9/9

It did NOT promote creationism directly, but it showed that Dr. Burgess is a researcher and professor of Robotics and Bio-Mechanics knows what he is talking about and is respected in the field. This lends credibility when he speaks authoritatively against evolutionists who say biology is poorly designed.

Dr. Burgess has, without explicitly mentioning it in the recent flood of articles he's published, destroyed the "Bad Design" arguments of evolutionary evangelists like Nathan Lents, Jerry Coyne, Francisco Ayala, John Avise, and so many others.

Dr. Burgess put Nathan Lents in his place. See: https://youtu.be/KsTVUt8ayWI?si=L3zw0clJTRBM8zwr

There are other examples of evolutionists like Coyne and Ken Miller also saying things that are now falsified, but still repeated by committed Darwinists.

Burgess had been a professor at Cambridge, and is a visiting professor at Liberty (in the USA), where I'm a delayed-enrollment PhD student in Bio-Molecular engineering. So, technically, I'm a student at his school!

I spoke to Dr. Burgess today in a private conference, and I hope I can collaborate with him on some projects.

[many thanks to Schneule's research, I was able to put together a response to an objection Dr. Dan had to my "bonkers equation" in my peer-reviewed reference chapter]

The following video is HIGHLY technical, but it shows the level of discourse that is sometimes necessary to move the Creation/Evolution debate forward:

https://www.youtube.com/live/zEo_DFJND-M?si=dOhLBRA6MhI1Zqeq

Again, many thanks to Schneule for all his help.

So, i came across this paper: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002701&type=printable

In the abstract it says:

Our results indicate that about 25% of all currently observed domain combinations have evolved multiple times. Interestingly, this percentage is even higher for sets of domain combinations in individual species, with, for instance, 70% of the domain combinations found in the human genome having evolved independently at least once in other species.

Read that again, 25% of all protein domain combinations have evolved multiple times according to evolutionary theorists. I wonder if a similar result holds for the arrival of the domains themselves.

Why that's relevant: A highly unlikely event (i beg evolutionary biologists to give us numbers on this!) occurring twice makes it obviously even less probable. Furthermore, this suggests that the pattern of life does not strictly follow an evolutionary tree (Table S12 shows that on average about 61% of the domain combinations in the genome of an organism independently evolved in a different genome at least once!). While evolutionists might still be able to live with this point, it also takes away the original simplicity and beauty of the theory, or in other words, it's a failed prediction of (neo)Darwinism.

Convergent evolution is apparently everywhere and also present at the molecular level as we see here.

The actual debate was somewhat a dumpster fire, BUT it gave me practice in putting forward elements of a college-level anti-Evolution, pro-Intelligent design course.

It sadly highlights some degenerate aspects of the current culture where a drugged up musician with practically no science background is celebrated by his fan club as if he made compelling scientific arguments.

This is a comment by a viewer that describes our opponent named Max:

You can tell Max isn’t very good at this. He was out of his league. Carissa, Sal, and Jen are far more sophisticated and professional in their debate tactics. Max should stick to creating his drug fueled music for clubs. Way out of his wheel house here. Several times Jen looked uncomfortable to be on the same team as him.

Many many thanks to Carissa for being my tag-team partner. That said here is a link to the 3-hour debate: DEBATE: Evolution on Trial | Sal Cordova & Carissa Vs Jen & Max

https://www.youtube.com/live/ur-Qw67-GGU?si=1pHOqUoRF-frptqm

The 1.70 hour aftershow starring Sal and Dr. Dan was VERY nerdy but here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/live/R50z3iLA7F0?si=kxPhgzyvvJZmMGJd

So there you have it, about 5 hours worth of debate on evolution!

Could someone ELIF the problems with isochron dating? I understand the basic idea of isochron dating; I'm just trying to understand how it goes wrong.

I made an estimate on the probability that a new protein structure will be discovered by evolution since the origin of life. While it might actually be possible for small folds to evolve eventually, average domain-sized folds are unlikely to come about, ever (1.29 * 10^-37 folds of length above 100 aa in expectation).

I'm not sure whether this falls under self promotion as this is a link to my recently created website but i wrote this article really as a reference for myself and was too lazy to paste it again in here with all the formatting. If that goes against the rules, then the mods shall remove this post. Here is the article in question:

https://truewatchmaker.wordpress.com/2024/09/11/on-the-probability-to-evolve-a-functional-protein/

Objections are welcome as always.

i say there is no speed of light and so its instant and so deeptime by starlight measurement is false. After watching lots of youtube shows on light and how mixrf up they are. I say its probably simple. On Day one god created light, then forced to seaparate from the darness to turn the light off to allow light as a tool only. so simply darness interferes with the light. Explosions knowc a hole through it, called the sun/stars/matches, and the light escapes. yet the light is still, i suggest, be resisted in the medium called darness. just as light is slower moving through the mediums of water, glass, air. Space is not a vacume but , even on probability curve, likely a medium that also interferes with light giving a false conclusion light moves and has a speed. So God creaying light on day one is the only light ever created. Deeptime is error of scholarship and imahination and evidence. Unl;ess someone can shed better light on this!

The discovery of a “spatial grammar” in the genome could “rewrite genetics textbooks,” announced an article on SciTech Daily on August 23.https://crev.info/2024/08/dna-grammar/

For 25 years, John D. Wise considered Darwinian evolution the most plausible explanation for life’s origin and development. But as he studied the latest evidence in molecular biology, genetics, astronomy, and other fields, he began to realize that modern science was confirming many of the predictions and arguments of intelligent design. On a new episode of ID the Future, I talked with professor and author John D. Wise about his surprising journey from atheism to Christianity. https://evolutionnews.org/2024/08/when-an-atheist-professors-worldview-imploded/