Search This Blog

Sunday, May 20, 2018

David Attenborough and the Failed Tree of Life

Naturalist David Attenborough has been a presenter of naturalism and nature documentaries for a very long time, and is a source of pride for the not-so-Great Britain. He has a prairie schooner-full of honorary doctorates, possibly for being a fine fellow who is easy on the ears. (He does not have advanced earned degrees aside from a two-year intensive course at Cambridge, where he scored a 2.1. Do a search for his education, and you'll see that he has "a degree in natural sciences". Kind of vague, don't you think?) I suspicion that Attenborough is so adored is because he presents a great deal of evoporn for the undiscerning, who accept his faith-based assertions. He has also promoted discredited evolution, such as the aquatic ape concept. One episode in the 2009 series was "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life".

David Attenborough presented the evolutionary "Tree of Life" without actual science involved.
Ernst Haeckel's version of the "Tree of Life" via Wikimedia Commons
He began his BBC presentation by discussing the biblical account of creation, and then commenced to saying things that were not correct. From there, the iconic "Darwin's Finches" were discussed, but when someone lassos a bit of history, he or she will learn that Darwin had no idea of what they were; the legend was built up over the next few years.

Then we come to the main subject, the "Tree of Life". There are many versions of it because Darwin did not have a handle on this,  either, and evolutionists don't cotton to the traditional view so much any longer. Biblical creationists say that an orchard is a more accurate analogy. The following article discusses several other things Darwin and his disciples inaccurately believe, including alleged "transitional forms" such as Archaeopteryx, and several other important subjects that are unfriendly for diatoms-to-Darwin evolution. Attenborough and many others go to a great deal of effort to deny the Creator his rightful place, and they do it with fanciful tales and assertions that have no evidence.

To read this informative article, I hope you'll follow the non-missing link right here: "David Attenborough: Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life". Also, you may like to see this fact-free historical fiction video presented as science:



Sunday, May 13, 2018

Viking Bones Fight Carbon-14

Somewhere around 873 AD, the Great Army (also called the Great Heathen Army by the English), mainly from Norway, Denmark, and Sweden commenced to do some raiding. They sure did like the British Isles for pillaging purposes, but for some reason, this army was more ambitious. Skipping ahead, a burial ground was discovered in Repton.

Carbon-14 dating of Viking bones in England yielded erroneous results
Postage stamp from the Faroe Islands depicting a Viking Ship, via Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain
Carbon-14 dating results were at odds with historical eyewitness accounts, so rescuing devices (excuses) were utilized, but were not convincing in light of the evidence. This account helps illustrate how assumptions in radiometric dating can have erroneous results. It also shows how some scientists are not thorough in considering pertinent data. Further, it highlights the great but unfounded faith that some people have in such dating methods. Later, the dating was done again, taking into account certain factors that were neglected in the first place. Carbon-14 is a useful tool, but such dating methods are not exact. When done properly, carbon-14 can give approximations from which to work. Forensic evidence is not as reliable as, but can supplement, eyewitness accounts.
Radiocarbon dating is considered one of science’s tried-and-true methodologies. But could there be a forensic flaw in measuring carbon-14 dates using conventional methodology? Could dates assigned by that method be vulnerable to faulty assumptions that render them invalid?
Indeed they can. The age assignment for certain Viking bones caused a decades-long controversy until the carbon-14 methodology used to date them was recently exposed for its flawed assumptions. This case demonstrates that one-size-fits-all radiocarbon dating doesn’t work.
To read the rest, you can invade "Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions".

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Secular Science Industry Needs Damage Control

The public has an odd mixture of admiration and suspicion for secular science. You can often hear or read the expression, "Scientists say...", and people happily accept the statement as truth. On the other hand, there is more public awareness of bad science, character flaws in scientists (they are human and not monoliths of objectivity, after all), and even outright fraud.


The secular science industry has many problems that need to be corrected
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
The secular science industry is losing credibility, especially in areas regarding molecules-to-machinist evolution, and they need to do something about it. One major difficulty is that many scientists have a materialistic mindset based on an evolutionary worldview. That means morality is subjective, and if doing dirty deeds helps them prosper, so be it. Meanwhile, biblical creationists are held to a higher standard, and these problems are not rampant in the creationary community.


via GIPHY

There are other difficulties in secular science. Many have been in the corral a mighty long time, and folks are getting upset. Paleontologists are naming too many species (such as male, female, and juvenile dinosaurs unnecessarily classified as separate species). How about claiming a hypothesis was demonstrated by post-dating the proposal until after the fact? Since scientific racism gets people on the prod nowadays, National Geographic had some apologizing to do.

Peer review is treated as if it was a guarantee of scientific accuracy and integrity (which is absurd). People get haywire when something is presented that doesn't meet their standards, not peer reviewed by scientists that they approve of (especially if it came from a creationary perspective). I reckon many of those wouldn't understand a hard science peer-reviewed paper after a week of study, so complaining about peer review is a cop out. But I digress. Some things are getting peer reviewed after publication. For that matter, fraud and downright bad science is getting a pass in the peer review process on multiple occasions.

You can read about these and more by clicking on "Big Science Trying to Wipe Egg Off Its Face"

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Eugenics Stealth Resurgence and Abortion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, used evolutionary concepts in a pseudoscience called eugenics. Essentially, only those deemed suitable should be allowed to reproduce. In the United States, the idea became popular in the early 20th century. It lead to the forced sterilizations of about 60,000 citizens, euthanasia, and gave a foundation for abortion.


Eugenics is based on evolution, and abortion is a big part of eugenics
Credit: Pixabay / congerdesign
Margaret Sanger, founder of the highly profitable abortion mill called Planned Parenthood was a racist and eugenecist, and wanted to control the "Negro population". She used viperine techniques to further her eugenics goals, and abortion was a major aspect of them. Eugenics lost favor after the Nazis took it to its logical conclusion.

However, eugenics never really disappeared, it simply faded for a while. Since there is still some justified suspicion, eugenicists lack candor about their goals and identity. Recently, some sidewinders had a "London Conference on Intelligence", but it was about eugenics. In Iceland, they are cheering that they are eliminating Down Syndrome. This is a blatant lie, as they are murdering the unborn who have it, which is obviously eugenics in action. Who is next in your cold hearts, Icelanders? Obviously, you do not believe that children are a gift from God, or that people are created in his image!

Abortion is a kind of sacred sacrament among leftists, and that is blatantly obvious in the United States. They fight to give the "right" of abortion pretty much at any time. This sends a message that sex outside of God's plan is fine, and killing resulting unborn babies is acceptable. Despite the lies of leftist "news" organizations, Planned Parenthood harvests and sells fetal tissue from aborted babies. Perhaps they think they're helping the environment?

Not all people are so casual about disposing of human life and furthering eugenics. In Pennsylvania, House Bill 2050 was set up to stop abortion just because a child had Down Syndrome. Despite losers like State Representative Ed Gainey (who promotes Democrat interests despite their enthusiasm for abortion, which accounts for millions of black babies murdered), the bill was passed.

As individuals and as nations, God will hold us accountable for the blood on our hands. Most people do not realize that is is based on evolutionary ideas, which repeatedly yield bitter fruit. Interesting that the bill was passed and Americans are slightly more resistant to atheistic naturalism than other places. Maybe it is a coincidence.

Political commentator Chris Plante inspired this article. When he mentioned eugenics, I perked up and thought, "Gimme the microphone, I can help on this!" He didn't need my help, really, except for the additional information that I provided above. To listen to his comments, click on this link. It section lasts about 6 minutes 22 seconds. If the link does not take you to his report, head over to the 1 hour 40 minute mark.



via GIPHY

Sunday, April 22, 2018

One Gene to Rule them All


Back over forty years ago, the hands at the Darwin Ranch obtained copies of The Selfish Gene by C. Richard Dawkins, which became one of their sacred texts — I mean, textbooks. Dawkins made a number of assumptions upon which he built his arguments. One of these was the analogy used in the title, that somehow, genes get dominant status as "replicators", the whole purpose is to keep making copies of themselves.

"The Selfish Gene" became a kind of textbook for evolutionary thinking. It is finally being questioned, and evolutionists are having disagreements

Unfortunately, it wasn't until recently that some scientists actively questioned and doubted what Dawkins was presenting. Now there are squabbles in the bunkhouse, some saying that the individual is what matters, others say the group drives evolution and natural selection, and so on. None of them are willing to admit that cells, organisms, and the like have the appearance of design because (wait for it) they are designed by the Master Engineer. Dawkin's book caused problems for Darwinists, and some rethinking (with the requisite presupposition of naturalism) is in progress.
A recent opinion piece posted on the Chemistry World website notes that Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene deeply motivated a generation of biologists to adopt a gene-centered framework to explain why biological phenomena seem to operate for specific purposes. The book’s persuasion notwithstanding, the article notes ongoing challenges to the validity of Dawkins’ “selfish gene metaphor.” It also highlights other inconsistencies in evolutionary theory.
Atheist-inclined biologists thought The Selfish Gene provides satisfactory naturalistic explanations for biology’s apparent purposeful features. Most could see that creatures have microscopic molecular machines, tissues, and organs which give every indication that they function for a purpose. Creatures also seem to endlessly engage in goal-directed behaviors. As Philip Ball at Chemistry World opines, Dawkins asserts that the reason organisms have parts appearing like they were designed for a purpose, and why they are driven to do what they do, is because they are “survival machines” whose purpose is to act solely as a vehicle to perpetuate their “selfish,” self-replicating genes. Per Dawkins, selfish genes control what traits creatures possess in their ceaseless struggle to survive.
To read the rest, click on "'Selfish Gene' Metaphor Misleads Evolutionists".

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Huge Landslides and the Genesis Flood

If you get a notion to saddle up and ride in the Wyoming Territory, north of Cody is Heart Mountain. It is 8,123 feet (2,476 meters), and a popular place for geologists because of the huge landslide that took place long ago. Uniformitarian geologists are mighty puzzled by the slide.

massive landslides of the past are best explained by the catastrophic activities of the Genesis Flood
NASA image by Robert Simmon, based on data Landsat 7 data provided
by the Global Land Cover Facility (modified)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
As expected, geologists use what they know about present processes and try to extrapolate backward into the distant past. Yes, they have knowledge of the mechanisms of landslides in the present. That enables officials to give warnings on occasion. Don't be a hotshot and ignore them, you savvy?


Working and speculating backward does not work very well on a large scale, and the landslide at Heart Mountain is a case in point. The best explanation is the catastrophic changes that occurred during the Genesis Flood.
According to God’s Word, the great Flood of Noah’s day was the most devastating catastrophe in history. If true, we would expect to find evidence of upheaval on a scale unlike anything we see today. And that’s what we find.
Geologists have discovered huge chunks of land that broke free during past super earthquakes and slid dozens of miles in just minutes. The next time someone questions Noah’s Flood, share the following example!
To read the rest of this short article or download the MP3 version, click on "Supersized Landslides".

Sunday, April 08, 2018

The Darwin Termite Does Not Support Evolution

This child does not know anyone who likes termites, except for mayhaps entomologists who study it doing insect stuff. There is one obnoxious pest in Northern Australia known as Mastotermes darwiniensis, the Darwin or giant northern termite. It commences to eating almost anything organic, ruining agriculture, and so forth. Interesting that Darwin's advocates think that it has "evolutionary significance".

The giant norther termite of Australia is not an example of evolution
Credit: CSIRO (CC BY 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Apparently, only in 'Straya can these things be found that are supposed to be evidence of evolution from cockroaches. It's the wings that got Darwin bots all het up, plus a few other similar features between cockroaches and termites, thousands of species of each notwithstanding. Evolutionists have confirmation bias and use the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and ignore the simple fact that having some features in common can also be evidence of the Designer of both. With a bit more examination, the evolutionary story falls apart.
Termites, of which about 2,000 species have been described, belong to the order Isoptera, which means ‘equal-winged’. In contrast to nearly all other insects, the front and back wings look totally alike — with the exception of the species Mastotermes darwiniensis, the ‘Darwin termite’ (named after the city of Darwin in Australia's Northern Territory) . . .

When this termite was described about 100 years ago, evolutionists were enthusiastic. At last the origin of these highly organized insects was thought to have been discovered! The anal lobe was the proof: ‘Termites have evolved from cockroaches!’
 To read the rest of this short article, click on "Darwin's termites".