Search This Blog


Sunday, June 26, 2016

Shrinking Evolutionary Logic on H. Floresiensis

Evolutionists have been attempting to explain the "hobbit" fossils of Flores, Indonesia with little success. Part of the problem is that there isn't much to work with, and another problem is their diminutive stature that gave rise to their nickname. Then, more bones were discovered.

He'll be really angry when he learns that diagrams show evolution progressing from dark-skinned to white.
Darwinistas are presenting a passel of stories that have no evidence, plus some implied racism. When new bones were discovered, the owlhoots re-dated their finds so they would fit more conveniently into their paradigm. Let me see if I understand this: Homo erectus folks had been busy evolving, moved a long way across the water to Flores, and then shrunk, even faster than evolutionary terms expect. Right. That'll be the day! Don't insult our intelligence, mmmkay?
Indonesian fossils extend evolutionary timeline but create new problems.

It’s been 12 years since researchers found a skull and some bones of diminutive people in Liang Bua Cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia (10/27/04). Evidence indicated the creatures used tools and walked upright, but their small stature, about 1 meter in height, startled everyone. The finds were assigned to a new genus of Homo, H. floresiensis, and declared to be descendants of Homo erectus that had migrated onto the island and shrunk in size due to “island dwarfism.” A big problem was that the fragments were initially dated at just 18,000 years old, far too young for human ancestors. Later efforts moved the date back to 60,000 years, but the discovery prompted a decade of efforts to fit these bones into an evolutionary scenario.

Now there are new bones. When Nature released a paper this week about new fragments of bone found in the area, and provided another Nature paper about the date and context of the bones (re-dated at 700,000 years), the media flew into action:
To finish sizing up this article, click on "More Hobbit Bones Found".

Storytelling (with a bit of racism) and convenient re-dating of fossils make the H. floresiensis discovery an embarrassment to evolutionists, and insult the intelligence of all but the most gullible.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Plato's Influence on Christianity

Many claims have been made that Christianity "borrowed" from other religions and philosophies, and many of these claims are easily refuted. A more persistent idea is that Plato influenced Christianity. This may seem reasonable at first glance, especially since platonic ideas were influential in areas where early Christianity was spreading.

Although Plato had some interesting ideas and similar ideas to what is taught in Christianity, but there are marked differences. The early church influenced platonic thinkers, and not the other way around.
Plato by Paolo Veronese, 1560
Plato influenced many people, including Christians, but the early church was setting platonic views to rights according to Scripture, and not the other way around. Also, there were some marked differences between Plato's ideas (some of which were not fully developed or reconciled) and what the Bible teaches, as well as some similarities. Plato had a view of creation, but did not hold to a personal Creator, for example. What should be most readily apparent is that Christianity has a direct Hebrew origin.
Plato is often termed the father of Western philosophy. His ideas have had a massive impact on the West, including on Christian thinkers, and continue to do so even today. But how indebted is Christianity to Plato? Did Christianity come from Plato’s philosophy? T.S. from Spain writes:
I´m a student and I´m trying to do a research of philosophy vs Christianity to do a project for my philosophy teacher. He said that Christianity came from Plato’s philosophy (theory of forms). I'm really not agree with that. I would like to know how to refute that. And what articles would be better to share with him from your website. Thank you and God bless.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To read the response, click on "Plato and Christianity".

Although Plato had some interesting ideas and similar ideas to what is taught in Christianity, but there are marked differences. The early church influenced platonic thinkers, and not the other way around.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Observing Flood Evidence in Montana

Riding up in the Northwest United States, you'll probably encounter Montana. You pretty much have to, since it's the fourth largest state, and it borders on three Canadian provinces. That squiggly border with Idaho that gives the top part of that state it's odd shape is partly based on land formations. Montana gets mighty cold (seems like the coldest area in the US many days in the winter is International Falls, but fortunately, it does get to have summer as well), but Montana's still a place to find cowboys doing ranch work. They can find some national parks, glaciers, and (of course) mountains.

Water gaps are puzzling and annoying to secular geologists, since they defy long-age explanations and affirm the Genesis Flood. Here are some examples.
Madison River flows through Bear Trap Canyon. Image credit: US Department of the Interior.
In those mountains are some of the many worldwide things called water gaps. According to uniformitarian geology, the land rose up at the same rate the water flowed, making it convenient for the water to carve through gneiss, and this happened in many places around the world. No, I don't believe it either. The best explanation is that water gaps and other unusual formations are the result of the Genesis Flood, and that the world is not as old as secularists want you to believe.
ICR’s Dr. Jake Hebert and I recently enjoyed a field trip around the town of Ennis, Montana, hosted by post-Flood Ice Age expert Michael Oard. During the outing we observed two landscape features best explained by Noah’s Flood.
. . . 
The Madison River’s waters originate in Yellowstone, flow northward through the picturesque Madison River Valley where Ennis lies, then produce rapids on their journey through Bear Trap Canyon. The river eventually merges with other waters near Three Forks, Montana, to form the Missouri River. Oddly, Bear Trap Canyon cuts right through a mountain range made of hard crystalline rock called gneiss. Why didn’t the Madison River flow around the mountain instead of cutting right through it? And did this little river carve the canyon over millions of years?

Geologists use the term water gaps for narrow canyons holding rivers that cut through mountain ranges. We don’t see them form today, so we rely on our forensic wits to solve these geologic mysteries. Every continent has water gaps, and thousands exist around the world. So, if we solve the mystery of one water gap, we might help solve a world of such mysteries.
To read the entire article, click on "Flood Evidence in Montana's Mountains". For additional information on water gaps and the Flood, click on "How Are Water Gaps Formed?"

Water gaps are puzzling and annoying to secular geologists, since they defy long-age explanations and affirm the Genesis Flood. Here are some examples.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Giraffidae Genome and Evolution

Some Darwinists have managed to get themselves all agitated again, this time over the giraffidae genome. They figure that comparing okapi, cattle, and giraffe genomes, they can come up with how things evolved. There are a few similarities, so there must be an evolutionary process involved, right?

Image credit: Pixabay /mrslorettarsmith0
Not hardly! Many living things have genetic similarities, but even the most desperate evolutionist won't consider us closely related. (Cats, dogs, and other critters have a high genetic similarity with humans, but never mind about that now.) Giraffes are more than spotted cow-like things with long necks and horns on top (they use the necks and horns in fighting for dominance, as this video shows, and you don't want to get a front or a back kick). They needed to have a special system in place so that when they bring their heads down for food, water, or in combat, they don't have problems from the sudden change in blood pressure, for instance. No, evolutionists are just speculating from their paradigms again, and committing logical fallacies like affirming the consequent, circular reasoning, and ignoring pertinent data. The specified complexity demonstrates the genius of the Creator, and does not support goo-to-giraffe evolution.
Parading across many an African skyline is the iconic giraffe with its long neck, a sturdy extension that lets it munch on treetop foliage. Despite the extraordinary length of its neck, the giraffe has only seven vertebrae in its neck, the same number as other mammals. The giraffe’s cervical vertebrae articulate with ball-and-socket joints, making the giraffe’s neck extraordinarily flexible. In the giraffe each cervical vertebra is supersized—10–11 inches long in an adult. The whole bony chain of huge cervical vertebrae is anchored by extra-thick ligaments to bony extensions on the thoracic vertebrae near the shoulders. That ligamentous support and the fact that the front legs are taller than the rear enable a giraffe to effortlessly balance an 8-foot tall, 500-pound neck and hold its head high.

The giraffe’s comparably supersized heart generates a blood pressure 2.5 times that of humans to push blood all the way up to the animal’s brain. Yet when the giraffe dips its neck to drink or graze on groundcover, the sudden onrush of high-pressure blood is diverted into a marvelous network of vessels to keep it from flooding the giraffe’s head. Meanwhile, tight skin around the legs and thickened vasculature throughout the giraffe’s body prevents its high blood pressure from damaging structures below the neck. Everything about the giraffe is designed to work together to support its high-flying head.
To read the rest, click on "Genes Hold the Giraffe’s Head Up High". Also, I recommend that you read "Giraffe Genome Too Distinct for Evolution".

Evolutionists are presenting speculation, guesswork, and bad reasoning as science again. This time, some unsupportable ideas involving the giraffe genome.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

More Dishonesty in Origin of Life Studies

Darwin Ranch is appropriately placed down yonder at Deception Pass, since they don't cotton to telling the truth in what passes for science research in their minds. Back with the failed Miller-Urey experiment for the origin of life, the researchers showed that by assuming what the conditions were way back when, and by trapping to remove the product (cheating), they could intelligently design something to produce a few amino acids.

An evolutionist is up to doing lousy science, bad logic, and even dishonesty in a vain effort to speculate what happened to cause the origin of life.
Made at
Now there's a tinhorn who decided to add barbiturates that he got at a supply house plus some melamine to a primordial soup thing and get himself some molecules. I reckon they're supposed to be pre-pre-RNA, and he basically says, "It could happen". That'll be the day! There are too many assumptions made, bad logic, and too much that has been left out of the reports. It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid admitting that God is the Creator, and we're accountable to him.
Are barbituates the missing links to the origin of life?

Nick Hud (Georgia Institute of Technology) is a respected scientist in origin of life research, receiving funds from NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for his work. His latest paper, published in Nature Communications, claims you can get nucleotides that pair up, like nucleic acids, spontaneously – if you mix the right ingredients. What works, his team found, is a mixture of barbituric acid and melamine (more on those molecules below). These are the “missing links,” the Georgia Tech press release suggests, that could have been “brewed in primordial puddles”. Ben Brumfield’s prose tempts the reader’s imagination with imagery out of medieval alchemy:
To read the read the rest about this downer "research", click on "Barbiturates in Darwin’s Warm Little Pond". Also, you may want to read "OOL Without Bluffing Is Nothing".

An evolutionist is up to doing lousy science, bad logic, and even dishonesty in a vain effort to speculate what happened to cause the origin of life.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Scientific Discourse — Punish Climate Change Dissenters!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It's an established fact that anti-creationists want to hobble biblical creationists, but those owlhoots haven't been quite as aggressive in their efforts to silence scientific dissent as anthropogenic climate change activists in America. Back in 2007, meteorologist Heidi Cullen of "The Weather Channel" wanted meteorologists who deny global warming to get their certifications removed. Since the global warming pseudoscience got bucked off the bronco, it's now called climate change.

Hype over global climate change has political expediency and evolutionary implications. Climate change skeptics may be going to jail, and Christians need to stand up against this.
Image credit: Morguefile / larryfarr
Although Secular Humanism is the unofficial state religion in the United States, and secularism is the predominant force in many countries, there's political expediency as well as a financial interest in the scary monster of climate change. Especially among liberal Democrats, some of which want to criminally pursue companies that challenge the unofficial official view of catastrophic climate change. Indeed, some of these sidewinders want Obama to put dissenters from the "settled science" in jail! So much for free speech and scientific discourse, huh?

Christians should oppose the concept of punishing climate skeptics. One simple reason is something that non-Christians should be able to agree with us about: freedom of speech. Also, science is supposed to thrive on challenge. Evolution and climate change do not need to be protected from examination, except when secularists have a vested interest and the Ministry of Truth does not want those pseudosciences scrutinized.

Yes, I did bring evolution into the picture. Evolutionary thinking is a big part of the global climate change scenario (even though they ignore scientific data of global warming and cooling over periods of recorded history). Some radical environmentalists want a large percentage of humans exterminated. After all, Mother Earth is more important than people, and they believe there is no God who created us in his image, and who put Earth where it is for a reason. All those dead people...can you imagine the stink? And with the gasses emitted, won't that be worse than the carbon dioxide that we emit right now? Yes, carbon dioxide, the stuff that all those plants use for survival, and they say "much obliged" and give us oxygen that we need.

Global climate change alarmists deny the sovereignty of God and his creative power. Their faith is in evolution and naturalism, not the Creator — and certainly not Jesus Christ, our Redeemer.

What got me all het up on this topic is a podcast from Janet Mefferd. To hear it, click here and head for the 25 minute 10 second mark for a fascinating interview with Cal Beisner. You can listen free online, and you can download it after you sign up for the free service (I've done this, and they have not bothered me at all.) Remember who made you, and where you need to keep your faith.

Hype over global climate change has political expediency and evolutionary implications. Climate change skeptics may be going to jail, and Christians need to stand up against this.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Redshift, Metals, and Population 3 Stars

Hands at the Darwin Ranch over by Deception Pass ride the Owlhoot Trail, hijacking science and getting our tax dollars to spin yarns to gullible Darwinoids. They like to tell tall tales by the campfire, and several of those involve the Big Bang. Instead of God creating the heavens and the Earth, it was done by the Big Bang, cosmic inflation, and whatnot. Since evidence is against this concept, the stories, they just keep on a-comin', even though some folks say that the Big Bang didn't happen at all.

After the Big Bang, laws of physics hadn't sorted themselves out yet, since they were violated by the original singularity. All that hot gas eventually evolved stars and galaxies (for the gas clouds to form stars goes against the laws of physics, but that doesn't matter at storytime), and eventually you and me. Secular cosmologists believe that different stars formed at different times (although blue stars foul up the works and affirm recent creation, but again, that doesn't matter because it's storytime). In this story, there are three kinds of stars, and secularists think they've found Population III.

Secular astronomers think they've found Population III stars, which would support the Big Bang conjectures. What has really been found, and is there any evidence that doesn't commit logical fallacies?
Artist's conception of  CR7, which is inferred to have Population III stars.
Image credit: M. Kornmesser / ESO
A galaxy way, way out yonder named CR7 (for some reason, named after Portuguese footballer Cristiano Ronaldo) has signs of Population III stars in this story. By what basis? There's the redshift for time and distance (funny how we don't hear about the blueshift, such as the Andromeda galaxy exhibits), it contains "metals" (not gold or platinum, astronomers have their own definition for "metal", which is anything heavier than hydrogen or helium). Also, there's bright stuff. Seen any individual stars that qualify? Not hardly! Are there other factors to consider in the redshift that are being conveniently ignored? You betcha! Do they use affirming the consequent and other logical fallacies? Naturally!
Astronomers classify stars into three types: Population I, II and III. Population II are those generation of stars, which allegedly formed from the Population III stars and have only a low metal content. Population I stars were allegedly the last to form, hence are the youngest and hottest stars and those with high metal content. Population I and II stars were historically first identified in our galaxy. Population I stars are found predominantly in the spiral disk of the galaxy and Population II stars are found above and below the disk. They have other distinguishing features also but their metal content is the major distinguishing feature.

Those early-generation stars also first formed into small galaxies that later by merging with other galaxies grew larger, or so the story goes. Growth in galaxy size and in ‘metal’ content is called ‘galaxy evolution’.

“The first generation of small galaxies was likely well in place 400 million years after the Big Bang. Following this initial phase of galaxy formation, galaxies then went through an extended phase of merging and coalescence with other galaxies, whereby they built up from masses of several thousand solar masses to billions of solar masses. This buildup process extended until the universe was roughly two billion years old. Then, due to some feedback process—now predominantly speculated to be AGN feedback—it is thought that this buildup process halted and gas accretion and star formation in the most massive galaxies halted and galaxies underwent a much different form of evolution. This later evolution continues to the present day.”
This is the big bang evolution story, but it vitally needs those Population III stars or there is no story. Now it is claimed that Population III have been found in a very distant galaxy.
To read the rest, click on "Have Population III stars finally been discovered?"

Secular astronomers think they've found Population III stars, which would support the Big Bang conjectures. What has really been found, and is there any evidence that doesn't commit logical fallacies?