Questions for Evolutionist #7, How did sex originate?

 Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). 

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-11-argument-evolution-of-sex

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4

The superior thought of the day

The superior excellence of the priesthood of Christ, above that of Aaron, is shown from that covenant of grace, of which Christ was Mediator. The law not only made all subject to it, liable to be condemned for the guilt of sin, but also was unable to remove that guilt, and clear the conscience from the sense and terror of it. Whereas, by the blood of Christ, a full remission of sins was provided, so that God would remember them no more. God once wrote his laws to his people, now he will write his laws in them; he will give them understanding to know and to believe his laws; he will give them memories to retain them; he will give them hearts to love them, courage to profess them, and power to put them in practice. This is the foundation of the covenant; and when this is laid, duty will be done wisely, sincerely, readily, easily, resolutely, constantly, and with comfort. A plentiful outpouring of the Spirit of God will make the ministration of the gospel so effectual, that there shall be a mighty increase and spreading of Christian knowledge in persons of all sorts. Oh that this promise might be fulfilled in our days, that the hand of God may be with his ministers so that great numbers may believe, and be turned to the Lord! The pardon of sin will always be found to accompany the true knowledge of God. Notice the freeness of this pardon; its fulness; its fixedness. This pardoning mercy is connected with all other spiritual mercies: unpardoned sin hinders mercy, and pulls down judgments; but the pardon of sin prevents judgment, and opens a wide door to all spiritual blessings. Let us search whether we are taught by the Holy Spirit to know Christ, so as uprightly to love, fear, trust, and obey him. All worldly vanities, outward privileges, or mere notions of religion, will soon vanish away, and leave those who trust in them miserable for ever.

Hebrews 8:7-13

⁷ For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ⁸ But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
⁹ It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
    and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
¹⁰ This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
    after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
    and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
¹¹ No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
¹² For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

¹³ By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

More on the principle of identity

Some people suggest this is a quirk of language. They insists that such statement as "I can't speak a word in English" are only self-defeating because one is speaking English. One could use French and avoid the difficulty. They add that one can make a metastatement in even the same language that avoids this difficulty. That is they posit a class statements about statements (called metastatements about the real world. These metastatements are supposedly exempt from being self-defeating. Thus,one who says, "No statements about God are descriptive," is supposedly not making a descriptive statement about but rather the statements that can be made of God.

It is true that a statement in French saying that one cannot speak English is not self-defeating. However, a statement in French affirming that one cannot speak a word in French is self-defeating.

The statement maneuver does not avoid the trap of self-destruction. For statements about statements that affirm something about reality are indirectly statements about reality.

For example, if one says, "I am not making a statement about reality when I say that statements cannot be made about reality" he is making a statement about reality. It is the most radical kind of statement that can be made about reality, since, it prohibits all other statements about reality. Thus the statement "Something exists" cannot be denied without affirming that something does exist (e.g., the maker of that statement).       

The modern system of classification called Linnaean system

The modern system of classification is known as the Linnaean system and based on the work of creation scientist Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus was actually trying to identify the original kinds from the book of Genesis in his research. Linnaeus related the Genesis kind to his category of species and therefore believed in the "fixity of species." Linnaeus recognized that variation happens within the created kinds, not between kinds. Evolutionists often make the false claim that creationists believed and still believe, that species don't change.

Questions for Evolutionists #7, How did multi-cellular life originate?

How did cells adapted to individual survival 'learn' to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
 http://creation.com/multicellularity
http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2

The High Priest of a New Covenant

The substance, or summary, of what had been declared was, that Christians had such a High Priest as they needed. He took upon himself human nature, appeared on earth, and there gave himself as a sacrifice to God for the sins of his people. We must not dare to approach God, or to present any thing to him, but in and through Christ, depending upon his merits and mediation; for we are accepted only in the Beloved. In all obedience and worship, we should keep close to God's word, which is the only and perfect standard. Christ is the substance and end of the law of righteousness. But the covenant here referred to, was that made with Israel as a nation, securing temporal benefits to them. The promises of all spiritual blessings, and of eternal life, revealed in the gospel, and made sure through Christ, are of infinitely greater value. Let us bless God that we have a High Priest that suits our helpless condition.

Hebrews 8:1-6

  Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, ² and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

³ Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. ⁴ If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. ⁵ They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” ⁶ But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

The principle of Identity

I will keep on talking about the First Principles. I will talk about the principle of  identity. A thing must be identical to itself. If it were not, then it would not be itself.
While these and other principles, it is important to note the difference between unsayable and undeniable. I can say or write the words, "I do not exist." However, when I said it I implicitly affirmed that I do exist. The affirmation that I do not exist is actually unaffirmable. I must actually exist in order to grammatically say I do not exist.

Why do many artists draw feathers on dinosaurs when there is no evidence of actual feathers with the fossils?

There is another belief is that birds are actually living dinosaurs. Some prominent scientists refuse to accept the idea, but many still find the mystique of watching a dinosaur eating from a feeder in the backyard intriguing. This idea is prominent in the textbooks and media, even though no theory seems to fit the scenario accurately. Whether or not a mechanism for evolving birds from some small theropod dinosaur can be devised, many scientists are sure that it must have happened. It seems that almost all of the new dinosaur fossils are shown by artists to have feathers. Even though there were no clear evidence to support the feathered interpretation, the feathers are added to convince the public that science has found these things to be true. The next time you hear of one of these feathered fossils, ask to see the feather imprints- like the ones preserved so well in the fossilized bird Archaeopteryx.
Ultimately, all classification schemes and theoretical relationships are based on man's interpretation of the evidence. Starting with the truth found in God's Word will lead us closer to the true interpretation of the evidence than starting with the fallible ideas of men.
  

Question for Evolutionists #6, Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

 http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate
 http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8