I will never stop arguing against evolutionary theory, because it is a lie. We should reject lies and embrace Truth. Here are 3 facts of biology that evolution cannot explain, that are only explained by intelligent design. 1. DNA is specified information. DNA is an instructional sequence of chemicals. The order of the letters determines a specific function. Crystals & snowflakes repeat a pattern determined by physics and have no function. No laws of physics or chemistry determine the sequences in DNA. Evolution says mutation + selection can write new specified information, but that's never been observed. Selection only keeps what already works. It does not invent the code that makes a sequence function. Their favorite example, citrate-eating E. coli, only rearranged existing parts & information. It did not create anything new. There is only one known source of specified information: an intelligent mind. 2. Cellular machines require all their parts to function properly. Also known as the argument of irreducible complexity - many of the machines & processes that power living cells do not work without all their precise parts perfectly fit together. Remove one core part from the flagellum, or the clotting cascade, or the DNA-RNA-protein loop, and it loses function. These systems cannot be built step-by-step, because selection cannot select for a function that does not exist yet. Evolution says the parts were taken from older systems with other jobs. They find similar parts in different systems, and create a story about how those parts used to do something else and then “evolved” to fit together into a completely different system. That's just a story. No evidence actually shows how pieces from one system get moved to a completely different system, and how all those parts miraculously come together into a brand new functional system without any guidance whatsoever. Their argument against irreducible complexity literally relies on imagining an evolutionary pathway. But “A pathway is imaginable” is not “a pathway can be shown.” There is only one known cause capable of engineering complex irreducibly complex systems like those we see in Life: an intelligent mind. 3. Orphan genes that have no evolutionary history. Every genome has a large set of genes that is found nowhere else. Evolution predicts that every modern gene today is a descendant of genes that were copied and mutated over time. But orphan genes are absolutely unique - they have no traceable evolutionary history. They're an unexpected anomaly. Evolutionists say these genes were duplicated and evolved too fast to see or miraculously arose out of “junk DNA.” But no observation shows how completely novel, unique genes appear in the genome. In fact, nearly all our observations show mutating genes inevitably leads to decay, not functional innovation. But here's where their view becomes unfalsifiable: If we find a similar gene later, then it was never an orphan. If we find no similarities, then divergence erased the evidence. But no matter what, evolution must have done it, because evolution has already been declared the answer. A model that can absorb every outcome is not scientific. Mutation + selection are real facts of biology. But they only tweak and optimize existing systems. They don't build new systems. That part has never been observed. Specified information, irreducibly complex systems, and functional novelty are effects we have only ever seen minds produce, and which unguided mechanisms have never been shown to produce. This makes the Intelligent Design of Life the best, and really the only logical, explanation.

Do humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA? A 2025 study published in Nature show that the similarity between humans and chimpanzees dropped to roughly 85%. This is problematic for the evolutionary common ancestry model. creation.com/en/answers/huma…

In 1895 scientists believed that there were 86 vestigial organs in humans. Today, we know that there are no vestigial human organs, but evolutionists continue to spread this vestigial idea. How does the loss of functionality help evolutionists explain the idea that nature was able to create NEW biological traits? crev.info/2026/06/jb-debunke…

And I ask non believers again "why are you even looking for proof that God exists"

Creationists actually DO believe small changes add up over time. Evolutionists don't understand the arguments we're making. They cliam that if we accept MICROevolutionary change, we must also accept MACROevolutionary change. They like to use the analogy, "It's like saying you can walk a mile, but you can't walk across the country." This is a stupid analogy. Their contention is, if we accept small changes happen, what is there stopping these small changes accruing into larger changes over time? But this is not the argument Creationists are making. We're not saying there is a specific mechanism that stops changes accruing over time. Creationists actually DO believe small changes add up over time. Here is the contention: Mutations don't add up to create new things. Mutations destroy, they don't construct. Mutations add up over time and cause decay in the genome, leading to sickness and overall lower fitness. The issue is evolution needs to be able to construct entirely new genes, proteins, cell types, organs, limbs, and entire biological systems. But random mutations can't engineer these systems. No observed evidence exists anywhere showing how evolution builds new biological systems. Biological systems have attributes, such as functional information and specified complexity, which has only ever been observed to originate from intelligence. So the question is not, "What stops mutations from accruing?" The question is, "What do mutations actually do?" And the answer is, they destroy. They don't create. Only intelligence creates. Life was Divinely Designed.

The more I listen to people argue for evolution the more I realize it’s ad hoc reasoning and question begging. They start with the conclusion and then work backwards assuming their theory can account for life’s complexity, when in fact anyone looking at this objectively can see how absurd it is.

Job describes Behemoth as swaying its tail like a cedar, which perfectly matches sauropod anatomy where heavy tail musculature anchored to leg bones counterbalanced the animal as it walked upright.

It’s insane how many atheists still don’t understand this

What's truly amazing is that all humans alive today trace their ancestry back to one single male & female ancestor. DNA data traces our female ancestor to Mitochondrial Eve - a single female ancestor who is the mother of all people alive today. And our male ancestor is known as Y-chromosome Adam, which would technically only be traced back to Noah after the Great Flood. This is unexpected from evolutionary timelines - but completely expected if the Bible is true.

DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS The Bible has been copied by hand for thousands of years. So how do we know the version we have today hasn’t been corrupted? The answer lies in thousands of ancient manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the evidence of history. Debunkers like Bart Ehrman say we can’t trust the Bible. I say it's time to debunk the debunkers. Also, my guest, Australian journalist Erin Molan, joins me for a candid conversation about Tucker Carlson, October 7, and the immigration crisis in the West. (2:15) Is the Bible Reliable? (5:51) 5,000 New Testament Manuscripts (8:44) Dead Sea Scrolls Proof (10:30) The Septuagint Test (17:00) Guest Intro: Erin Molan (21:03) Is Australia Following America? (25:40) The Immigration Debate (32:04) Who Teaches Anti-Western Hatred? (37:38) October 7th Wake-Up Call (42:45) Islam or Islamic Extremism? (48:01) Muslim Leaders Fighting Extremism (50:29) What Happened to Tucker? (55:48) Erin Molan on Trump

Good morning y’all. Happy Tuesday. Today and every day, we should live for Christ. Make Him your example as you go about your day. I hope you all have a wonderful day. I love you all. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. - Philippians 1:21

Nobody's ever seen evolution build new things. Ask an evolutionist to explain how any new body part was built, you'll get the same thing. Me: How did evolution build an eye from not-an-eye? E: "Well first there was this light-sensitive cell, then it gradually evolved into more complex eyes." ...but how did evolution build the first light-sensitive cell from not-that? "It evolved from a proto-light-sensitive-cell!" How? "Mutations and selection!" How? Can this process be observed? "It takes too long!" Then how do you know it happened? "Cuz there are similar things and they can adapt!" How does that explain how not-eye turned into eye? "You just don't understand evolution!!" Me:

Even if humans & chimps do share 99% similar DNA (which they don't), that doesn't mean they share a common ancestor. It just means they have similar features with similar functions. If Life was designed, we would expect similar creatures to have more similar DNA.

We all interpret the words in Genesis, so whose interpretation is correct? We all interpret what we read because we have presuppositions concerning the type of literature, the meaning of words in context, and so on. My father taught me to always take Scripture the way it was meant to be taken. There are different sorts of literature in the Bible including historical narrative, poetic literature (the Psalms), apocalyptic literature, etc. I was taught to use the grammatical-historical interpretive method, which means to interpret the words according to the type of literature, language, words in context, and so on, searching for what the original author intended. We are to carefully observe the text, understand that context is key, look for clarity of Scripture, compare Scripture with Scripture, deal with classification of the text (type of literature), and search out the church’s historical view. Now Genesis is written as historical narrative. Genesis seems to be structured on the recurrence of the Hebrew phrase eleh toledoth (“This is the book of the genealogy of . . .” or “This is the history of . . .”). This occurs 11 times throughout the book: six times in Genesis 1–11 and five times in chapters 12–50. Clearly, the author intended that both sections should be interpreted in the same way—as historical narrative. The New Testament treats Genesis 1–11 as historical narrative. At least 25 New Testament passages refer directly to the early chapters of Genesis. So we need to interpret Genesis literally. But what do I mean by “literally”? I mean naturally. If it’s history, read it as history. If it’s poetry, read it as poetry knowing it can use simile, metaphor, and figurative language. But Genesis 1-11 must be read and interpreted as real history. And when we do that, it is easy to understand and is in total conflict with man’s evolutionary beliefs.

This statement might have seemed intelligent if it were made 200 years ago, before the advent of biblical archaeology. But today it is an expression of pure ignorance, as there are hundreds of artifacts that confirm the historicity of the Bible.