Archive for the ‘Creation Science’ Category

Origins in Oxford, UK

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

origin_bookYesterday, Dad, Joel, Kirsty, and I joined a team of around 20 others to take the 150th Anniversary Special Editions “Origin of Species” book into Oxford to give out to University Students.

I know you might be confused – “What? Deborah is giving out Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’! Are you kidding me?”

Well, I think it is only fair to give both sides of an argument. Ray Comfort, of Living Waters, has taken Charles Darwin’s original book and added a 50 page special introduction. This includes the History of evolution, Timelines of Darwin’s life, Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, as well as a clear gospel message. You can hear more about the Special Edition here.

If you want to buy some to donate to your library or local school then you can buy them here.

You can see how God blessed us in Oxford below.

Have a great day,

Deborah Drapper

Questions for Theistic Evolutionists

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

Many Christians have said to me that they like to believe in evolution and the Bible. They say that God used evolution to “create” the world.

I would like to ask these Christians a few questions.

  1. The Biblical account of Creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. Also the Biblical account of creation has the order all wrong according to the evolutionary view. Do you think that God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if He did use evolution to create everything? Why do you think God had an account recorded that was not accurate to the evolution view?
  2. Does Adam have a Dad?The Bible says that Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and when he died he would ” return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” If you believe that the dust Adam was created from represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died? (more…)

Lucy or Lies

Friday, May 8th, 2009

I love science. Science is such an awesome and interesting subject.

What is Science?

Science means ‘to know’. The dictionary definitions tend to focus on systematic classification and careful collection of data: Things that can be observed, tested, and demonstrated.

Why are there lies in our text books?

So why is there so much that isn’t science being taught in our school’s science lesson? Why are there so many lies in our text books? And why are there still displays in our national museums that teach these lies as facts?

Deborah and "Lucy"

‘Lucy’

Last June I took a trip to the National History Museum in London.

As you can see the original bones of ‘Lucy’ are on display for all to see. What they forget to tell you though, in the little explanation underneath, is that there is much controversy over whether ‘Lucy’ is the ‘missing link’ between humans and apes or whether she is just simply another chimpanzee.

Donald Johanson used some very bold and imaginative language concerning his find and was very confident in his claims that ‘Lucy’ walked upright.

(more…)

Was Noah’s Ark Big Enough?

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

Noahs-ark-cartoonThis question came to my dad as a comment on my blog. He decided to write an article so that others may also benefit from the answer. I hope you enjoy this guest post from Andrew Drapper, my dad.

The commenter said:
“There is one Bible story in particular that I find difficult to accept as an actual event which in turn sheds doubt in general with regard to accepting the Bible as a literal record. Noah’s ark. Even with today’s technology I’m relatively sure it would be difficult, if not impossible, to build a vessel capable of housing two of each living thing on earth. Additionally there is the matter of food and water and keeping prey animals separate from their prey. The sheer size and logistics are a bit mind boggling.”

So, how was it done and is it possible?
Let us first have a look and see what the Bible says.

(more…)

Fossil Record

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Fossil RecordToday in my school work I was studying the contrast between the evolution and the creation models and what predictions could be made concerning the fossil record.

Within the fossil record the creation model would predict to find:

  • Sudden appearance in great variety of highly complex forms
  • Sudden appearance of each created type with characteristics complete
  • Sharp boundaries separating major taxonomic groups
  • No transitional forms between higher categories

Within the fossil record the evolution model would predict to find:

  • Gradual change of simple forms into more and more complex forms
  • Transitional series linking all categories
  • No systematic gaps

Scientifically speaking, the model which can best explain and correlate the data is the better model. As I look at the fossils I find along the ‘Jurassic Coast’, and as I look through museums and text books, what I see supports the creation model better than the evolution model. If evolution were the better model then surely the museums should be full of the transitional fossils. After 150 years of intense searching a large number of obvious transitional forms would have been found if the predictions of the evolution model were valid.

(more…)

Evolution: A Fairy Tale For Grownups

Friday, March 20th, 2009

It has been very interesting reading all your emails and comments about evolution and creation.

frog-princeBefore we start to discuss evolution and creation, it would be helpful if we first define what we are talking about.

Evolution can be broken down into six kinds of evolution.

  1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
  2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
  3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
  4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
  5. Macro-evolution- Origin of major kinds.
  6. Micro-evolution – Variations within kinds.

None of the first five have been observed. Only the sixth one (Micro-evolution), has been observed. The first five have to be believed. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five.

(more…)

Scientific Method

Saturday, March 14th, 2009

Thank you to many, many, many of you who have written to me about evolution/creation, the Big Bang and other science questions. I thought it would be a lot easier if I wrote several posts to try and clear up some queries.

First, I LOVE science. I do study evolution as well as creation and I have read many text books, both written from the evolutionist’s and creationist’s position. I have studied Biology, Geology, Palaeontology, Astronomy, Evolution and Creation, and recently started Physics and Chemistry. I have attended many lectures and regularly watch debates on the internet.

So I am not just ‘brainwashed’, as many of you think, but look at the data myself, listen to scientists and form my own conclusions. I have been to the Deborah and "Lucy"London Museums and seen ‘Lucy’ and many other displays for myself and look forward to reading “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Scientific Method

Many of you have said that I don’t understand the Scientific Method. I think that I do. Please tell me if I am wrong. My understanding of the Scientific Method is:
  1. State the problem.
  2. Research the problem (research, observation, experimentation).
  3. Formulate a hypothesis.
  4. Test the hypothesis (experimentation).
  5. Formulate a theory (general principle).
  6. Communicate the results.
After the accumulation of sufficient information or data a scientist may make a generalization which is called a Hypothesis. If more observations confirm his hypothesis then this becomes a Theory. If this theory is unchallenged and consistently supports the facts it will then, after much time has passed, become a scientific Law.
If, however, any observation (even though seemingly trivial) conflicts with his hypothesis, the scientist is left with two major alternative: 1. He has to discard his hypothesis and search for another, or 2. He has to attempt to find a plausible explanation for what he observed in accord to his hypothesis.
More coming soon……..