William Worraker
Recently there has been a concerted effort by scientists to find
extra-terrestrial life. Is evidence of water on Mars and in the Universe
evidence for life? Is there any other intelligence, or are we alone? Dr
William Worraker investigates.
Bill Worraker has a B.Sc. (Hons) degree in Physics and a Ph.D. in
Engineering Mathematics, both from the University of Bristol, U.K. He
has experience of academic and industrial research into a wide range of
fluid flow phenomena. Currently employed as a developer of industrial
software, he has been an active amateur astronomer for over 20 years and
has participated in collaborative professional-amateur observing
projects on variable stars.
Some of his articles are as follows:
Edinburgh Creation Group
| Did life in all its complex forms come about by random mutation and
natural selection or is there strong evidence for intelligent design?
Dr. Andy C. McIntosh is a Professor (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) in Combustion Theory at Leeds University.
He has written many books and lectured extensively in universities. He
has mostly focused on the complexity and design inferences illustrated
by flight capabilities of organisms. In addtion, he works on how many
kinds of insects such as bombardier beetles can support the creation
model.
Edinburgh Creation Group is an active forum where scientifically minded people meet to discuss evidence supporting the biblical account of creation.
Hosted and organized by Adventist Media on June 1, 2013 (Sydney, Australia)
Atheist Speakers: Morgan Storey, Alaric Goldkuhl, Nick Sewel
Christian Speakers: Dr Sven Ostring, Dr Mark Harwood, Dr John Ashton
http://www.ctvn.org/the-programs/origins/ | A variety of evidences for the receding of the Floodwater off the continents will be provided. Geological evidence is first presented for differential vertical tectonics to drain the Floodwater. As the Floodwater first drains as wide currents, great erosion occurs with the formation of planation surfaces and the long transport of resistant rocks. As more and more land is exposed above the Floodwater, the water becomes more channelized forming another set of unique landforms. Water and wind gaps, pediments, and submarine canyons will be described. All these features are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain by the uniformitarian paradigm, providing strong evidence for the reality of the Genesis Flood.
Michael Oard became interested in creationism after reading Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood in the early 1970s. Having a focus on research, his interest grew to the point that he asked himself what he could contribute. That is when the idea of an Ice Age model started. The first paper on the Ice Age was published in 1979 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Since then dozens of articles and about six books have been published on the Ice Age. Research on the Ice Age ignited an interest in glaciology, geology and geophysics, which he has been ardently studying for over 35 years.
Michael has a B.S. and M.S. degree in atmospheric science from the University of Washington. He was a research meteorologist for 6 years at the University of Washington. In 2001, he retired as a lead forecaster with the National Weather Service in Great Falls, Montana. Since then he has been doing full time research in creationist earth science. Over the years, he has learned to speak to lay adults and children on a variety of subjects in the earth sciences.
Image
Michael has published eight papers or technical monographs in the secular technical literature of the American Meteorological Association and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Since becoming a creationist, he has published about 200 articles in the creationist technical literature and has authored, coauthored, or been editor of fourteen published creationist books for different ages on the Flood, the Ice Age, weather, geology, and National park guides. He is on the board of the Creation Research Society.
Mark Woolmer
Traditionally ancient historians have used records of the reign's of Egyptian kings as the basis of their chronology. This has lead many to believe that the Old Testament gives an unreliable record of history. However recent evidence suggests that a number of Egyptian kings reigned simultaneously rather than consecutively. Mark Woolmer explains this is taken into account striking similarities are found between the Egyptian and Hebrew records and new light is shed on archaeological discoveries. This is a fascinating exploration of the current debate in ancient history.
Mark Woolmer is Lecturer in Ancient History and Assistant Senior Tutor at Collingwood College. His main research interest is the social and political history of the Levant in the first millennium BC. He is the author of Ancient Phoenicia: An Introduction (Bristol Classical Press 2011) and was written articles on various aspects of the religion and history of Ancient Canaan and Phoenicia. He is currently in the early stages of a research project that seeks to explore information as a commodity in the ancient Near East. Taking as its focus the relationships between the cities of Canaan and the ‘Great Powers’ of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, the project examines the creation of hierarchical arrangements as a method for facilitating the exchange of information, comparing the value of this technique with other means of intelligence gathering. He is also working on two co-edited volumes: Beyond Self-Sufficiency: Households, City-States, and Markets in the Ancient Greek World and Ancient Carthage: Models of Cultural Contract. He has widely travelled through the Middle East.
Research Interests
Ancient Phoenicia
Maritime history and archaeology
The ancient economy
The social and political history of the Ancient Near East
This documentary shows the works of GOD Almighty through science and nature. No longer can non believers declare the non existence of God in Science. The scientists in this documentary are some of the highest reguarded in the scientific community. This wonderful documentary is great for families and friends. Enjoy.
Want to learn how to refute Darwinism and evolution in 7 seconds? Russ Miller from creationministries.org gives you the tools using the truth, to do just that! Tune in and learn.
Marc Surtees
Presented at Edinburgh Creation Group in Scotland.
Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? Dr Marc Surtees looks at the evidence from the fossil record. Subjects covered include: feathers, bone structure and breathing systems.
Art that proves dinosaurs evolved into birds! http://www.surfbirds.com/mb/Features/dinosaurs/dino-birds-0902.html
Why is there so much death in the world? Is God responsible for it? How should Christians answer questions about why evil exists? This week on Creation Magazine LIVE! we consider the difficulty answering these questions if Genesis is not historical.
The Creation Magazine LIVE! TV program is a ministry of Creation Ministries International. With offices in seven countries and more PhD scientists than any Christian organization this program features cutting edge science that supports the Bible delivered in a non-technical, visually-rich, discussion-based format.
Marc Surtees Whale anatomy is said to present one of the clearest examples of evolution through transitional stages. In this talk Dr Marc Surtees examines the fossil evidence for these transitions. He challenges the view that there is a neat set of transitions from land animals to whales.
Dr Marc Surtees has a PhD in zoology from the University of Reading. He is the director of an independent consultancy to the pharmaceutical industry and also manages a science and nature shop called Paradigm Shift in Edinburgh.
Also, check out this clip from Evolution: The Grand Experiment!
Marc Surtees Presented at Edinburgh Creation Group - Since Dawkins' book came out quite a storm has been stirred up. Is it really true that science has shown there is no God?
Dr. Marc Surtees has a PhD in zoology from the University of Reading. He is the director of an independent consultancy to the pharmaceutical industry and also manages a science and nature shop called Paradigm Shift in Edinburgh.
This is a quick, solid, overall summary of the current situation in the creation-evolution controversy, including discussion of soft tissues of dinosaurs and other supposedly millions years old creatures. This is the one video to watch over and over. You'll learn something new every time you do.
Dr. Charles Jackson
Dr. Charles Jackson has four degrees in science and education (EdD Sci Ed, Univ of VA, 1994; MS Enviro Bio, George Mason Univ; MEd Sci Ed, GMU; BS Bio, GMU). From 1980 to 2002, he taught secondary school sciences 11 years, then college biology and chemistry 6 years, and then teacher education classes 6 yrs in VA, MD, VT and TN. In 2003, Dr. Jackson founded Points of Origins Ministries and began teaching, speaking, and debating in creation science education. His emphasis has been in making the case for the literal interpretation of the Scriptural accounts as being both scientifically and historically true, and indeed eminently superior in their accuracy, compared to secular sources referencing the same topics. As a former youth pastor and schoolteacher, the work of “Dr. J” has been primarily focused toward Christian youth. Keenly interested in the liberation of Bible-believing college students, from the delusion that their faith has been refuted by modern scientific understandings, Dr. J has crusaded against evolutionary dogma on college campuses across the mainland United States, and also in Venezuela and Peru. He has presented creation science instruction to kindergarteners, to church congregations and youth groups, to both secular and Christian high school and college faculties, to student assemblies from elementary through high school, and to Christian groups on many college campuses. He has also defeated many professors and grad students in debates on topics of the evolutionary dogma, all to the glory of God, and to the truth of His Word. The secret to the success of Dr. J’s ministry has not merely been the god-given gifts of academic and communication skills, but an ultimate dependence upon the Spirit of God, while debating the issues in the public forum. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” James 1:5 “He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good.” Proverbs 16:20 “For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” Luke 12:12
David Harrison
To what extent does DNA determine who we are? Prof David Harrison the Director of Cancer Research, University of Edinburgh investigates.
David Harrison has been made an Honorary Professor in the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine.
Professor Harrison joined the University of St Andrews as Professor of Pathology in May.
He leaves his role as Professor of Pathology in the University of Edinburgh which he has held since 1998.
He is Director of Laboratory Medicine for Lothian NHS, overseeing more than 600 staff working in pathology, genetics, biochemistry and haematology.
He is also Designated Individual for Tissue Governance in Lothian.
Professor Harrison’s clinical expertise is in medical liver, kidney and transplant pathology.
He continues to contribute to the diagnostic service of the Scottish National Liver Transplant Programme, including on-call commitments.
His research interests are varied but based upon understanding how cells and tissue respond to injury. He works with chemists in Edinburgh on hypoxia and mass spectrometry imaging, work that will continue through St Andrews.
He is Director of the Edinburgh Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, and formerly Director of the Edinburgh Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre.
Professor Harrison has an honorary Professorship in Medicinal Chemistry in the University of Florida where he is part of an award winning distance learning team.
He is chair of Medical Research Scotland, Deputy Chair of the Food Standards Agency Committee on Toxicity, and a member of the European Food Standards Agency Expert Working Group on Aspartame.
Did the eye evolve from a simple layer of photo-sensitive cells into the eyes that we have today? Darwin remarked that ...
"several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light"
... but how do photo-sensitive cells work? Is the invertebrate eye really wired the wrong way round? Dr George Marshall an expert in anatomy, who specialised in the human eye for several years answers these questions and many more.
Edinburgh Creation Group is an active forum where scientifically minded people meet to discuss evidence supporting the biblical account of creation. http://edinburghcreationgroup.org
An Eye for Creation
An Interview with Eye-Disease Researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland
Dr George Marshall obtained his B.Sc. (Hons.) in Biology at the University of Strathclyde in 1984. He conducted research into bone marrow cancer at the University of Sheffield for three years until invalided out with a serious, normally incurable illness. He was dramatically healed of this in November 1987 and soon obtained an M.Med.Sci. from Sheffield. He then worked at the University of Manchester before taking up a post at the University of Glasgow in 1988. He obtained his Ph.D. in Ophthalmic Science at Glasgow in 1991 and was elected to chartered biologist (C.Biol.) status and to membership of the Institute of Biology (M.I.Biol.) in 1993. He is now Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science. Creation magazine [CM]: Dr Marshall, you wrote to us to comment on the article “Seeing back to front” which appeared in the March–May 1996 issue of Creation magazine. What was your comment?
Dr George Marshall [GM]: I pointed out that the principal reason as to why the eye cannot be regarded as being wired backward (as some evolutionists claim) was hidden in a footnote in your article.
CM: Would you care to elaborate?
Dr George Marshall,eye-disease researcher
University of Glasgow, Scotland
GM: The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply—the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light.
Then what do you think of the idea that the eye is wired backward?
The notion that the eye was wired backward occurred to me as a 13-year-old when studying eye anatomy in a school science class. It took me two years of lecturing on human eye anatomy to realize why the eye is wired the way it is. The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.
How do you react to the notion that the human eye is the product of evolution?
The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory.
Can you give our readers some idea of just how complex the eye is?
The retina is probably the most complicated tissue in the whole body. Millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways to form a miniature ‘brain’. Much of what the photoreceptors ‘see’ is interpreted and processed by the retina long before it enters the brain.
A computer program has allegedly ‘imitated’ the evolution of an eye. Do you accept this?
Those who produced this model would acknowledge that the model is such a gross oversimplification that it cannot be cited as a proof. May I quote a colleague’s reaction [Dr John Hay, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D., M.Sc., C.Biol., F.I.Biol.]:
‘Computer simulation of evolutionary processes such as that described have three important flaws. First, the findings imply that the development which is being measured over so many generations is independent of development of other structures which are necessary for function. Second, the changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original data input which clearly is consequent to human design of the sequences/regions to be worked on and also the program(s) which are used for the simulation. These are not, therefore, random. The third aspect of all this is that there is translation error in such simulations involving computer hardware/software. This can take the form of electronic error in single bits which are coding for a particular digit. Over many loops in this performance, intrinsic error can be magnified considerably. Was the simulation repeated using different PCs etc.? One feels that these three arguments are essential to any computer simulation package of evolutionary processes.
‘My first point indicated that even if there is an eye, it will be useless unless the organism has the neural and/or the mental processes to utilize information perceived by the eye. How can a chance mutation provide this complexity in several different structures? The argument has usually been that there is a plausible intermediate series of eye-designs in living animals, e.g. Euglena has an eyespot; other organisms have a “cup” which acts as a direction finder.
‘However, the organism which defies this evolution is Nautilus. It has a primitive eye with no lens, which is somewhat surprising considering that its close relative, the squid, has one. This organism has (apparently!) been around for millions of years but has never “evolved” a lens despite the fact that it has a retina which would benefit from this simple change.’
What exactly does your work involve?
Lecturing to doctors in medicine who have specialized in ophthalmology and are attempting to gain fellowship with the Royal College of Ophthalmology (FRCOphth). However, my main remit is research into eye diseases using a combination of transmission electron microscopy and immunocytochemistry—a technique that uses antibodies to locate specific proteins such as enzymes.
Do you believe that accepting creation as portrayed in Genesis is essential to your Christian faith?
Yes! On not literally accepting the Genesis account of creation one is left with a major problem—what Scriptures do you accept as true and what Scriptures do you reject as false? Only by accepting the whole of Scripture as the inspired Word of God does one avoid this dilemma. There are Scriptures that are a source of stumbling to the intellect. My practice is to ‘pigeon-hole’ them temporarily and never allow them to be a stumbling block to my faith. It’s amazing how many of these knotty problems have subsequently resolved themselves. Thus Genesis creation may initially appear to be hard to accept, but it strikes me that evolution is equally if not more problematic to believe.
How useful do you find Creation magazine?
Its principal value is that it challenges what is uncritically accepted. Watch any TV program involving nature and you would think that evolution is an established fact. People get bombarded with this so often that they accept it without thinking. Creation magazine makes people realize that it is only a proposal and not fact. There are numerous places in my hospital where I can leave copies on coffee tables to get people to think for themselves.
What advice would you have for Christian students, or for Christians in a science course or teaching situation?
First, recognize that science can become a ‘religion’ in its own right. Scientists say something, so the general public (the ‘worshippers’) accept it without question. Scientists are much more cautious about one another’s findings. Second, science is not static. The science of today is quite different in many ways from the science of yesterday, and will probably bear little resemblance to the science of tomorrow. People once believed in ‘spontaneous generation’ which could be ‘proved’ by putting an old sack and a few bits of cheese in a dark corner. Mice spontaneously generated out of the sack. We laugh at such notions, but I suspect that in a hundred years’ time people will laugh at some of our scientific notions. Third, one can still become an eminent scientist without accepting evolutionary dogma; the ability to produce sound science in the laboratory is not diminished by one’s stance on creation.
