DNA confirms tiny body from Atacama Desert belonged to a human.
Ata, a mummified body about 6 inches long, is the featured star in the film Sirius. Sirius, which premiered April 22, is a fundraiser for “free energy research” that promotes belief in UFOs and aliens. The project is the brainchild of former emergency room physician Steven Greer. Greer claims the U.S. government conceals information about extraterrestrial visits to earth in order to suppress the development of free and abundant energy and to keep such alien technology as the exclusive property of the military.
Ata “the Atacama Humanoid” has become, quite literally, the poster-child for Greer’s efforts to prove that aliens have visited earth. Pre-release advertising for the film claimed that DNA analysis to be therein unveiled would show Ata was of “unknown classification.”1
The tiny body was reportedly found in the abandoned town of La Noria in Chile’s Atacama Desert in 2003 “wrapped in a white cloth tied by a violet ribbon.”2 Nicknamed “Ata,” it traveled through various hands until it reached the Barcelona entrepreneur Ramon Navia-Osorio, head of the Institute for Exobiological Investigation and Study. He had it examined by a forensic specialist from Basque County University, who concluded, “It's a mummified body with all typical characteristics of a fetus. The body displays all the structures and anatomical links normal for the head, trunk and extremities. Taken together, the proportionality of the anatomical structures ... [allows us] to interpret beyond doubt, that this is a mummified human fetus completely normal.”1
As promotional materials for Greer’s upcoming film project took off, so did the viral distribution of the mysterious allegations that Ata the Atacama Humanoid was proof of earth’s alien visitation. The film promised scientific proof that the body did not belong to a miscarried fetus, which is what an external examination suggests, but to a male that “survived post-birth 6 to 8 years.”3
The film builds drama by showing Greer and his biotechnician flying to Barcelona and dissecting Ata to collect some material from inside the cranium and a bit of rib. It emphasizes the fact that only one person wearing gloves handled Ata, though exactly how that is relevant given that Ata has been handled by countless individuals on at least two continents for at least a decade is a mystery. The possibility of DNA contamination from those who actually handled the specimen, gloves or not, was not ever addressed: in fact, the only “control” specimen was a sample of microbiologist Garry Nolan's blood, and he was not the person who performed the dissection on camera. (The possibility of contamination is ordinarily addressed by scientists examining DNA for peer reviewed research projects. Nolan is a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine.4 He indicates in the film that he plans to publish his results someday.) The program features intermittent appearances by Nolan, explaining the results of Ata’s DNA analysis, X-rays, and CT scans. Nolan also reads and comments on a few sentences from an analysis by pediatric radiologist Ralph Lachman. Lachman, an expert in skeletal dypslasias and board member of the Little People of America,5 reportedly examined the body and films but declined the opportunity to be interviewed on film.
Greer, in the film, says that Ata is a “humanoid” that “does not look human.” He reports to his audience that a facial fracture was “how this extraterrestrial being was killed.”6 Nevertheless, Nolan reports “The [DNA] sequence that we got from the mitochondria tells us with extremely high confidence that the mother was an indigenous Indian from the Chilean area. The other thing that immediately fell out of the analysis is that it's male. It probably died in the last century, if I were to make a guess.” Nolan says there is a complete Y chromosome present. Thus, though he may have had many mutational defects, if the DNA examined was truly from Ata, then Ata had a human genome. (Nolan does not specify what sort of mutations might be present but simply indicates that a lot of places in Ata’s DNA don't match up with normal sequences.)
Reading from Dr. Lachman’s report, Nolan says:
This specimen does not fall under any known (to me) class of disorders or syndromes known. In many respects the proportions of the spine and extremities are normal. The major abnormalities appear to be
- the size of the specimen
- midface hypoplasia and underdevelopment of the jaw, and
- that the specimen only has 10 ribs (humans normally have 12, rarely 11).6 [Published reports state there were 9 pairs of ribs, but the film states there were 10.]
Nolan points out that the most shocking discovery was that the epiphyseal growth plates seen near the ends of bones on X-ray suggest “an apparent age of 6-8 years.”6 However, the X-ray shown in the film does not support this claim. Fetuses and newborns have calcified long bone shafts, but their bone ends are cartilaginous. Over time these epiphyses normally calcify, and until growth is nearly completed a clear growth line can be seen between the calcified epiphysis and the bone shaft. In fact, in the film (as shown in the screen shot included here) the computer screen to the right of Ata's X-ray displays a photographic plate from a radiology reference showing what the X-ray of a child's knee looks like. The reference X-ray shows the clearly delineated epiphyseal growth plate, a calcified epiphysis, and a calcified kneecap (something else fetuses and newborns lack). None of these are visible on Ata's X-ray. Thus, the original assessment ascribed to the Basque County University forensic specialist—that Ata is a fetus—is the most reasonable conclusion. (Ata may have had some facial abnormalities as reportedly suggested by Dr. Lachman, or alternatively some distortion and disintegration. The Basque forensic specialist described the fetus as normal in appearance. And the lower pairs of ribs, being largely cartilaginous, may well have been lost to disintegration.)
So what is it that prompted filmmakers to claim Ata belonged to an “unknown classification”? Nolan points out that DNA analysis reveals many mutations but not a constellation of mutations associated with any known syndromes. For instance, though there are mutations associated with certain forms of dwarfism and with rapid-aging syndromes, this DNA sample did not have those particular mutations. That the many mutations present did not fall into a previously identified genetic abnormality, coupled with Dr. Lachman’s statement that the morphological abnormalities did not fit any known skeletal dysplasia, left the door open for speculation.
What sort of speculation? Speculation on the part of Nolan—who despite making it clear that the DNA is that of a human and puzzling about which genetic abnormalities explain the body’s anomalies—then added “I’d like to say other things here but . . .” while waving his hands and declaring that whenever he collates all the data, he’ll post it to the internet for the world to see. And then there is speculation through the subsequent narrator’s Twilight Zone—style voiceover saying:
This search may have uncovered a major finding about life in the universe and its origins. What is this being? Could it be a missing link in evolution? Could it be an entirely new species, or simply a disease we have never seen before? Or could this be an extraterrestrial being from another world?6
(Shortly thereafter viewers are provided with an opportunity to contribute to Dr. Greer’s “free energy research lab.”)
People who are determined to prove that aliens have visited earth have for decades been fixated on representations of those aliens as “humanoids” with bulbous misshapen heads. We discussed this a few months back when reporting on the ongoing “Starchild” claims. But the simple fact with this discovery, as with “Starchild,” is that—assuming the DNA results are authentic—DNA shows the body was human. Both the X-rays and simple visual examination are consistent with a miscarried human fetus—not an alien, not a missing link, not a new species, and not even a 6–8–year-old real life Tom Thumb. (Note that neither the DNA results nor the X-ray studies nor even Dr. Lachman’s report have been vetted through any sort of peer-review process. We make no claim to either support or dispute their authenticity, but merely point out that the only the material available to the scientific community at large is the material selected for presentation on the $19.99 video fundraiser.)
Having multiple mutations does not make someone non-human or alien. And having multiple mutations or a cluster of anomalies not associated with a previously recognized disease does not mean the victim was an alien. Even many recognized syndromes are, fortunately, rare, and therefore it is no surprise to find new ones—if Ata in fact does have anomalies and multiple mutations. Such a finding certainly does not justify speculation that Ata came from outer space, heralded a new species, or was an evolutionary missing link.
Many who believe in extraterrestrials do so because of evolutionary presuppositions that life evolved here and elsewhere too. And while the Bible does not say that God didn’t create extraterrestrial life, it does affirm that God created the entire universe (John 1:3), which now all groans under the corruption caused by man’s sin (Romans 8:21-22). God’s Son Jesus Christ came to Earth as a human being, the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47), to die for all human beings who, like our real common ancestor—the first Adam—are sinners. Thus the theological position of extraterrestrial intelligent life would cast aspersions on God’s character, as such beings would be reaping the guilty whirlwind of man’s sin without access to the grace of Christ.
Like those who suffer from any disease, genetic or otherwise, and all babies that miscarry, Ata was a human victim of sin’s curse on the perfect world God made.
Traditional “hit early and hit hard” approach to treating severe infections may increase antibiotic resistance.
Conventional medical wisdom has long held that the safest approach to treating severe infections involves combining antibiotics that work in different ways in order to “hit early and hit hard.”7 The idea is that attacking with antibiotics that employ different mechanisms of action, bacteria resistant to one drug would likely succumb to the other. Thus multiple antibiotics are thought to work “synergistically” to overcome the problem of bacterial resistance. A new study suggests otherwise.
To test the effectiveness of combination antibiotics, Robert Beardmore’s team at the UK’s University of Exeter subjected various strains of Escherichia coli to varying amounts of two antibiotics, doxycycline and erythromycin. While the combination resulted in a dramatic 90-95% drop in bacterial growth the first day, bacterial growth rebounded and skyrocketed as much as 500% by the next day.
Presumably, by killing off competing bacteria very efficiently, bacteria possessing the genetic ability to resist grew in abundance. To determine how this happened, the team sequenced the genomes of the highly resistant, luxuriantly growing bacteria. They found that the original resistant bacteria had amplified the genetic region that provided the information coding for several resistance mechanisms. (In this case, one of those mechanisms included an “efflux pump” that pumps the antibiotic back out of the bacteria.) This occurred through duplication of existing genes.
The researchers are calling this phenomenon the “smile-frown transition.”7 “Rapid increases in resistance to antibiotics can occur when regions of the genome containing resistance genes are duplicated,”7 they write, and this is exactly what happened. And the higher the doses of the antibiotics, they found, the more dramatic the smile-frown transition.
Of course these controlled experiments took place in test tubes, not in living animals or people, in which other variables such as natural immunity would complicate matters. Also, only E. coli bacteria were tested, and other pathogens may behave differently. Therefore, the researchers advise caution is extrapolating their findings to clinical situations until much more research is done. Nevertheless, the principles demonstrated here could have profound implications for the way we treat infection and merit controlled studies in vivo to determine whether seven decades of conventional wisdom needs to be re-thought.
Beardman indicates that the combination antibiotics sped up bacterial evolution. “You want to slow down evolution,” he explains. “[Bacterial evolution] can happen fast and it can kill you.” But is that really true? Did any molecules-to-man evolution actually happen here? Antibiotic resistance is the oft-cited example of evolution in action, but in reality no evolution took place. None. Not only did the E. coli bacteria remain E. coli bacteria, but the original resistant E. coli already possessed the genetic information to resist the antibiotics. Random duplication of bits of genetic information is quite common in microbes. And those bacteria expressing more of the resistance genes in this case were best able to survive and reproduce, producing a “super-resistant” bacterial population. But no new genetic information was required, just more of the information already present.
Finally, once competing bacteria got killed off, the hardy resistors multiplied robustly. This is natural selection in action. And, in truth, competition between microbes is a vital principle among microbes and a mechanism by which we stay healthy—in that “good” non-pathogenic bacteria in our intestines ordinarily keep the “bad” pathogenic bacterial populations there in check through competition for resources. But natural selection is not the same thing as evolution. In none of this scenario did any new genetic information get produced.
For more information about the evolution of novel genes:
For more information about antibiotic resistance:
This information is intended for general education purposes only and is not intended as professional medical advice. The information should not be relied upon as a substitute for medical advice from your doctor or other healthcare professional. If you have specific questions about any medical condition, diagnosis, or treatment, you should consult your doctor or other healthcare provider.
Star light, star so bright—is this hot spot in the sky churning out stars at record-breaking speed?
A galaxy far, far away—prosaically named SDSSJ1506+54—has been identified by scientists as a particularly “hot” spot in space. They interpret their measurements of the galaxy’s energy output as evidence that it is a highly efficient stellar nursery. Six billion light years away, the bright “green” galaxy—so-described for what researchers interpret as total conversion of its fuel to stars—emits an attention-getting amount of infrared radiation.
Data collected by NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, and the IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferometer located in the French Alps was compared in order to characterize SDSSJ1506+54. “Because WISE scanned the entire sky, it detected rare galaxies like this one that stand out from the rest,” explains WISE principal investigator Ned Wright. McGill University’s Jim Geach, lead author of the study in Astrophysical Journal Letters reporting the analysis, says, “This galaxy is remarkably efficient. It’s converting its gas supply into new stars at the maximum rate thought possible. We are seeing a rare phase of evolution that is the most extreme—and most efficient—yet observed.”
Although astronomers have never actually observed the birth of a single star, many believe that collapsing clouds of gas form stars. The thought is that most potential star-forming gas ordinarily remains dormant while a fraction of interstellar gas collapses and produces enough gravitational compression of atoms to start the process of nuclear fusion, producing a protostar. Astronomers who believe this is the way stars form think that the maximum possible rate of star formation is limited by interference from the outward wind-like movement of radiation and gas from other stars.
The unusual thing about galaxy SDSSJ1506+54 is that such a large amount of gas appears to be moving away from it. Astrophysicist and coauthor Ryan Hickox says, “We see some gas outflowing from this galaxy at millions of miles per hour, and this gas may have been blown away by the powerful radiation from the newly formed stars.” Spectrographic analysis of the light emitted from this galaxy suggests the presence of hydrogen gas, which scientists believe to be the fuel from which stars are formed. Geach says, “While this galaxy is forming stars at a rate hundreds of times faster than our Milky Way galaxy, the sharp vision of Hubble revealed that the majority of the galaxy’s starlight is being emitted by a region with a diameter just a few percent that of the Milky Way”—only 30,000 light-years across.8
The researchers believe the galaxy is operating its stellar nursery at the maximum possible efficiency. They base this on calculations comparing the estimated total mass of hydrogen present in it with the rate of presumed star formation inferred from the WISE infrared energy measurements. They conclude that all the available gaseous fuel is being consumed.8
Answers in Genesis astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner, commenting on the claims and comparing them to previous assertions about stellar nurseries, explains:
What they have this time that is new is some recent interesting photographs, spectra, and brightness measurements of a galaxy six billion light years away. This is much too far away to see individual stars. They have interpreted their measurements in terms of prodigious star formation.
It’s most unfortunate that the average reader will come away thinking (once again) that astronomers have actually witnessed the births of stars. These sorts of reports are so common now that the vast majority of the public (and many astronomers) just think that we have seen stars born all over the place.
The truth is, we’ve not witnessed the birth of a single star. The main reason preventing this is the fact that the process is supposed to take a very long time, and we haven’t been watching nearly long enough for a star to appear where there was none before.
So is the galaxy SDSSJ1506+54 far, far away giving birth to new stars? Could stars be forming today? After all, we see supernovae occur in space, so why not star formation too? Although the Bible does not say God is not making more stars, it does say He finished the work of Creation on the sixth day. Genesis 2:1 says, “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.”9 When a star goes supernova, an existing star explodes. But star formation and star explosion are not the same.
Although astronomers who accept the billions-of-years view of the universe’s age believe stars are still forming, they do not actually know how. They believe swirling hydrogen gas cools and condenses until it is dense enough to possess enough gravity to prevent re-expansion. However, gases tend to expand, not contract. Furthermore, if a swirling mass of gas contracted, it would spin faster in order to conserve angular momentum, and that increased angular velocity would oppose continued contraction. Finally, the massive collapse of gas would produce a great increase in the magnetic field, also opposing the shrinkage required to form a star. Thus the ongoing formation of stars seems contrary to the laws of physics, given the conditions that exist in space.
Thus, the astronomers’ worldview colors their interpretations of what they see. Astronomical observations, such as the existence of blue stars, for instance, argue for a young universe, though long-age believers looks for other explanations. Likewise, long-age astronomers assume that a stellar nursery must be the explanation for the data they have collected on SDSSJ1506+54. God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of Creation week about 6,000 years ago. What we observe in space does declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1), and we look forward to more discoveries to help us understand the universe God created. Yet we know that the true interpretation of the things we see will never violate the truths of Scripture.
Family tree of much of modern European population has Stone Age roots.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA from 39 ancient skeletons from central Germany has shown that several distinct waves of people swept across ancient Europe. Anthropologists noted that today’s western European population is genetically dominated by a mid-Stone Age (Neolithic) population conventionally dated 4,000 to 4,500 years ago, though contributions from Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic, and later Bronze Age groups.10
Researchers report the correlation of genomic markers with dated skeletons has allowed them to “reconstruct the recent evolutionary history” of European people.10
Anthropologists had thought that Europe, after the demise of Neanderthals and infiltration by the first early modern humans (conventionally dated about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago), was populated by only few or even just one migratory event. But findings suggest successive waves swept western Europe, though the reasons remain completely unknown. Each group left its genetic footprint in the modern population. Furthermore, those genetically distinct groups correspond to archaeological changes, showing that cultural changes in Europe were not a matter of changes among people themselves but rather the influx or upsurgence of different people groups.
Researchers were gratified to note that the changes in DNA haplogroups do correlate with archaeological differences such as different sorts of pottery and artifacts suggesting different lifestyles, explains Spencer Wells, the National Geographic representative involved with the study. “In this study we show that changes in the European archaeological record are accompanied by genetic changes, suggesting that cultural shifts were accompanied by the migration of people and their DNA.” Archaeologists have long debated whether cultural changes—such as being hunter-gatherers versus being farmers—represent an influx of new people or a change in the characteristics of existing populations. Many anthropologists view farmers as more evolutionarily advanced.
“This is the first high-resolution genetic record of these lineages through time, and it is fascinating that we can directly observe both human DNA evolving in ‘real-time,’ and the dramatic population changes that have taken place in Europe,” says joint lead author Wolfgang Haak. “We can follow over 4,000 years of prehistory, from the earliest farmers through the early Bronze Age to modern times.”11
“The record of this maternally inherited [mitochondrial] genetic group, called Haplogroup H,” explains another of the joint lead authors, Paul Brotherton, “shows that the first farmers in Central Europe resulted from a wholesale cultural and genetic input via migration, beginning in Turkey and the Near East where farming originated and arriving in Germany around 7,500 years ago.”11
“This population moves in around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, but where it came from remains a mystery, as we can't see anything like it in the areas surrounding Europe,” says Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD), which did the work. “The genetics show that something around that point caused the genetic signatures of previous populations to disappear. However, we don't know what happened or why, and [the mid-Neolithic] has not been previously identified as [a time] of major change.” Researchers also do not know where this Neolithic population that leaves its genetic marker in over 40% of western Europeans10came from. “About [4,500] years ago, you start seeing a diversity and composition of genetic signatures that are beginning to look like modern [Central] Europe,” Cooper says. “This composition is then modified by subsequent cultures moving in, but it's the first point at which you see something like the modern European genetic makeup in place.”
The Neolithic “linear B” pottery culture (LBK) is believed to be predominantly farmers, named for their characteristic pottery decorations. The previous inhabitants seemed to be a hunter-gatherer population, and their genetic signatures differ.
Yet the genetic turnover in western Europe’s population wasn’t finished yet. Mitochondrial DNA also suggests that this “linear B” pottery (LBK) population eventually diminished to be replaced by yet another wave of immigrants sweeping across the continent. “The extent or nature of this genetic turnover are not clear, and we don't know how widespread it is,” Cooper says. “If this turnover were widespread, it could have been prompted by climate change or disease. All we know is that the descendants of the LBK farmers disappeared from Central Europe about 4,500 years ago, clearing the way for the rise of populations from elsewhere, with their own unique H signatures.”
The study, published in Nature Communications, also suggested the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate was 45% higher than previously thought.10
The dates ascribed to these ancient archaeological periods are based on a variety of information including many unverifiable assumptions. The same can be said for the dates assigned to the skeletons examined in the study. Thus the mitochondrial mutation rate—which would have to be known in order to make “molecular clock” predictions—is itself based on the assumptions used to date the geological layers in which skeletons are found.
Many readers have written to Answers in Genesis this week asking whether the “4,500 year” date for the dramatic turnover in the genetic make-up of western Europe’s population is related to the global Flood. Most regular readers are aware that the biblical Flood of Noah’s time occurred approximately 4,300 years ago; therefore they wonder if the decimation of the previous populations was due to the Flood.
There are several reasons why this is not true. First of all, the dates assigned to the genetic turnover are based on unverifiable assumptions, whereas the biblical Flood dates are based on biblical history (such as the interlinked dates from genealogies and corresponding events) correlated with documented dates from secular history (such as the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem). Secondly, the previous populations (Neanderthal and earliest modern humans) are also dated in accord with unverifiable assumptions and evolutionary presuppositions about an African cradle of humanity. Thirdly, the Flood was global and wouldn’t have merely reduced the genetic significance of pre-Flood populations. The Flood would have left absolutely no remnants of pre-Flood archaeological artifacts in addition to totally destroying all people not on the Ark. Therefore, no “Early Neo-lithic” artifacts are from pre-Flood populations. Rather, like all archaeological artifacts, they represent the footprints of population groups that descended from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel.
All people alive today not only descended from Adam and Eve but also from Noah’s family. After God confused languages at the Tower of Babel, groups of people, initially subsisting on the skills available in their groups, spread out to re-populate the world. Read more about these various people, including both groups that became extinct and those that survived, in the articles listed below. Furthermore, all the people whose genomes are being analyzed here, whenever they lived, are human beings. They were not evolving. They were migrating.
This evidence that repeated waves of culturally distinct and genetically distinct people swept over western Europe in the post-Flood years is quite consistent with biblical history. Yet it is important when examining scientific reports to avoid assuming dates based on unverifiable assumptions are reliable because they happen to coincide with biblical dates. In this case, an understanding of the catastrophic nature of the global Flood—wiping out all traces of humanity’s marks on the earth—is the key to discernment.
Researchers calculate that life had to have begun so long ago earth did not yet exist.
Geneticists applying principles governing mathematical complexity have calculated that molecules-to-man evolution involves such enormous increase in complexity, it couldn’t have happened in the 4.5 billion years conventionally assigned to the earth’s existence. The study by Richard Gordon and Alexei Sharov applies Moore’s law, an algorithm describing the growth of computer complexity, to evolution.
Moore’s law suggests that computer complexity, increasing at “a rate of double the transistors per circuit every two years,” grows at a mathematically exponential rate. Moore’s law seems to accurately describe the timeline of advances in computer technology.
Gordon and Sharov propose that genetic complexity follows the same algorithm and requires 376 million years to double. They propose genetic complexity increased exponentially through “gene cooperation, duplication of genes with their subsequent specialization, and emergence of novel functional niches associated with existing genes.” At this rate, they calculate 5 billion years were required to attain bacterial complexity. Extrapolating backwards all the way to the abiogenesis of the first nucleotide, they calculate life took 9.7 billion years to reach its present state of complexity.
While noting the many problems this scenario creates for conventional evolutionary thought, the geneticists do admit that it might be possible that Moore’s law doesn’t even apply to biological complexity. And since computers are clearly the product of intelligent design and molecules-to-man evolution—according to pure evolutionary dogma—is completely random, it would appear the “real” case for evolution should be even worse than they calculate.
In fact, none of the mechanisms mentioned through which genetic complexity could potentially increase are actually known to produce an increase in biological complexity. These are all proposed mechanisms, but in reality no random mechanism has ever been shown to actually increase the complexity of any kind of living organism so as to produce a new, more complex kind of organism. Thus, not only do calculations based on an intelligently designed system not apply to a random process, even the random mechanisms the writers propose are purely hypothetical.
More conventional ways of calculating how long ago life supposedly evolved resolve discrepancies between the fossil record and molecular clocks through circular reasoning. When the origin of life is extrapolated from these approaches, it is possible to arrive at agreeable figures so long as both methods depend on the same unverifiable assumptions and are calibrated accordingly. Be sure to read more about the way such assumptions provide the illusion of truth in “Ancient microfossils,” “Stone soup,” “Circular clocks,” and “Molecular time travel.”
It is doubtful that the inconsistencies addressed by this study will seriously affect any evolutionist’s thinking, given that the study itself is based on the inconsistent comparison of directed versus random processes. In reality, however, molecules-to-man evolution is based on circular reasoning, wishful thinking, and presumptive unobservable scientific claims. Biological observations tell us life only comes from life, and we never see even the “simplest” life forms come into existence through random processes. Yet the unfathomable complexity of living things is not a problem for the Creator of life, God, who created the world and all kinds of living things just 6,000 years ago.
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch last week’s News to Note, why not take a look at it now? See you next week!
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” This DVD features Bill Nye and Ken Ham debating one of the biggest questions concerning the scientific community today.
Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis. In it you will find fascinating content and stunning photographs that present creation and worldview articles along with relevant cultural topics. Each quarterly issue includes a detachable chart, a pullout children’s magazine, a unique animal highlight, excellent layman and semi-technical articles, plus bonus content. Why wait? Subscribe today and get a FREE DVD download!