Search This Blog

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Forensic Science, Creation, and the Age of the Earth

When investigating a crime scene or conducting any kind of historical research, eyewitnesses are of primary importance. Of course, they can have confusion, factual errors, or even personal agendas that may color their testimonies. Confirming stories with other witnesses is important (as long as they were not kept together, enabling them to "get the story straight"). Witnesses can be affirmed or discredited by several factors, including physical evidence.

The concept of forensic science has been around for quite a spell, but has not been all that consistent and scientific until recent years. Some elements of forensics as well as logic were used by characters in A. Conan Doyle, Edgar Allen Poe, Erle Stanley Gardner, and others. It is primarily used in the investigation of crime scenes and to bring criminals to justice, and has been very successful. Ideally, the investigator must be completely objective, which may be difficult to do because it goes against human nature. 

Forensic (historical) science is very useful, but can it answer questions about the origin of Earth and life on it?
Image credit: Pixabay / byrev
How far back can a detective take an investigation? There have been cold cases that have been solved after many years, but the older the incident, the more unreliable the information becomes, and witnesses may no longer be available. Historians can use written testimonies as well as physical evidence regarding, say, World War I, and have a reasonable reconstruction of the events. The events in Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars in 55 BC are sketchy at best.

Some folks try to use forensic science to reconstruct the origin of Earth, and life itself. Both biblical creationists and evolutionists use historical (forensic) science, but neither side is unbiased: both want to see if the facts support their worldviews. Creationists do have an eyewitness, God the Creator, who gave us his written Word. Reason and evidence support the testimony contained therein.
There are multiple scientific disciplines, but there has not been one in recent years that has captured the attention of the general public like the investigative research of forensic science. Forensic science gained popularity in the early 2000s due to several crime-related TV shows, which have dramatized the realistic framework upon which forensic investigation operates. This phenomenon called the “CSI effect” continues to foster the whimsical interpretation of this scientific discipline; however, forensic science provides police agencies and the community a realistic medium upon which to investigate past crimes and review current evidence. Forensic science requires trained personnel to evaluate evidence for intrinsic value and to make educated hypotheses as they attempt to reconstruct past crimes. Eyewitness testimony works in conjunction with the physical evidence and can be used to corroborate or invalidate the reasonable conclusions about the evidence’s relationship to the crime.

When considering the origin of the earth and mankind, one must consider two major and conflicting viewpoints: creation by a perfect God or naturalistic evolution. The creation account in Genesis is not only supported by the evidence found in creation itself (Romans 1:20), but is internally consistent throughout Scripture as an infallible eyewitness testimony of a perfect God (Proverbs 30:5). Secular evolutionists assume that the origin of life occurred by chance and that, through random occurrences, life continues to evolve with no purpose. Most importantly, evolutionary explanations for life have never been observed and there is no eyewitness account to support the claims. As a forensic investigator searches for clues to past crimes, evolutionists, particularly since Darwin, continue the exhaustive search for evidence to support their ideas.
To finish reading, click on "Can Forensic Science Trace the World’s Origins?"

Forensic (historical) science is very useful, but can it answer questions about the origin of Earth and life on it?

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Comedies of Darwinian Errors for Question Evolution Day

That's right, gang, Question Evolution Day has arrived again! This event has several layers, and one of the primary reasons to have QED is for prompting people to actually think, and not just believe the agitprop from the science industry. "Scientists say..." Big deal. Let's not appeal to authority, shall we? If people thought logically and examined the tendentious evidence for scum-to-scholar evolution, hilarity would ensue.



Here are two reports to give you an idea why I've got the bit between my teeth. First, common-ancestor evolution is supposed to show increasing complexity, not loss of traits or keeping things the way they are. (Natural selection maintains the status quo, and is a concept that creationists fully accept. It was also originally postulated by a creationist before Darwin hijacked and dismembered the concept.) The loss of teeth in various organisms is called "convergent evolution" without evidence, but is an example of nothing happening. Diversity among turtles and tortoises is touted as evidence of evolution, including evoking climate as a driving force. Something that looks like a shark in the fossil record is essentially indistinguishable from modern sharks, so no change is considered evidence for evolution. Sure. Read about these and more at "The Darwin Fail Comedy Show".

The second part is where scientists think they have positive natural selection. Repeats in proteins as horizontal evolution, and presumably new functions. See what I mean about critical thinking? That's neither scientific nor logical. This article has more examples of circular reasoning, assumption, and presenting evidence with presumptions. However, the actual facts, without the interpretive dance, fit in quite nicely with biblical creationists' expectations! For that article, click on "Darwinians find Positive Selection".

There is a great deal of misinformation and even deception presented as evidence of Darwinism, but it is loaded with bad logic, assumptions, and poor research. Keep an eye out for the tentative wording in so many articles that the evolutionary science industry churns out. In the meantime, we hope you do question evolution, and come to realize that yes, we are the product of the brilliant design work of our Creator. Evolution and atheism are incoherent and irrational, and biblical creation science makes the most reasonable use of the facts. God has made himself known, and is waiting for you to come to him.


Believers in evolution are presented with many claims, but those come up empty. Meanwhile, biblical creation is the most rational explanation of the facts, and tells you about our Creator.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Rapid Changes, Evolution, and Creation

Darwin said that changes were gradual and random. Additional research not only refutes this, but supports predictions from biblical creation science.

That rapscallion Charles Darwin said that changes are gradual and random, and would lead to the emergence of new organisms. This has been a staple of evolutionary speculations for a mighty long time. Darwin was wrong, and his disciples not only keep deleting the memos, but perpetuate the mythology. The have to cowboy up and face facts, however. Adaptation has limits, and modifications appear to be a design feature from our Creator.

There have been many examples of rapid speciation that evolutionists have been surprised to see. This supports the Genesis Flood, since if changes happened slowly, we would not have the diversity in living things that we see today, and critters would be much the same as when they de-Arked. Secular scientists are claiming "fast evolution" (careful, that word does not mean what they think it does, it's variation, not goo-to-giraffe evolution). This is further confirmation of creationists' predictions. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Oh, and watch how they try to spin disastrous news as evidence for evolution.
A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments. "Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere" is one headline from the theme of the Royal Society's life science journal in January, 2017. But its content further bolsters creationist theory.

The pace of change within organisms is a keen topic of interest. One reason many people doubt evolution is that no one has ever seen one kind of creature change into another. Plant and animal breeders have never done it in thousands of years of concerted effort. Even experiments intended to force evolution along by inducing radical genetic mutations in breeding pairs result in crippled, but not basically transformed, progeny. Remarkably, both creationists and evolutionists are content with this fact.
To read the rest, click on "Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory".



Darwin said that changes were gradual and random. Additional research not only refutes this, but supports predictions from biblical creation science.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Mutations Not So Random After All

Papa Darwin's ideas require huge amounts of time, hence the bellicose propaganda of his disciples for an old Earth. However, another evolutionary concept involves chance and random mutations, but the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful to an organism. Darwin was ignorant of the work of Mendel (peas be upon him) and did not know about mutations, his followers incorporated that idea later.) I'll allow that some mutations seem beneficial at first glance, but are usually disadvantageous in other ways.


In addition to long ages, evolution requires mutations. Random ones. Studies are showing that mutations can actually be targeted, which supports biblical creation science.
Image credit: Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Do mutations add genetic information, such as evolutionists insist? There are problems with that term, some of which are semantics, and a good part is how "information" is defined, so the answer may be a qualified "yes". What can prove to be frustrating to evolutionists is the way mutations may be a part of the Creator's design (which is borne out by rapid speciation), and scientific discoveries are inadvertently supporting predictions from biblical creation.
Evolutionists look at examples of animals adapting to their environments, and they assume that in this way, given enough time and enough tiny changes, primitive frogs have turned into turtles, and fish into philosophers.

Creationists have long agreed that inheritable adaptation happens via natural selection. This helps explain how the kinds represented on the Ark were able to rapidly diversify afterwards into many different varieties, even new species.

On its own, natural selection can only sort (or get rid of) existing information. It cannot generate any new information or variability itself; it can only choose from what is already there. Genes come in pairs, are reshuffled at reproduction, and many exist in at least two forms, so living things have a lot of built-in variability already. Thus the ‘dog kind’ pair on the Ark could have diversified rapidly into coyotes, dingoes, wolves, etc. without any genetic novelty necessarily introduced into their DNA.
To read the rest, click on "Designed to adapt?"



In addition to long ages, evolution requires mutations. Random ones. Studies are showing that mutations can actually be targeted, which supports biblical creation science.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Knowing the Dog Nose

Basement Cat has been camping out in the kitchen lately, even pressing her nose up to the base of the stove. Yep, something's hiding in there, probably a mouse (which is probably getting her scent as well). Not only do cats have great eyesight and hearing, they have about 80 million smell receptors, and we only have somewhere around 5 million. Dogs have us both beat. Depending on the size of the animal, they can have 300 million smell receptors, and their ability is very intricate.


Dogs and other animals have been given an amazingly intricate and effective sense of smell. This is clearly another gift from our Creator to some critters in his creation.
Image credit: Pixabay / Suzzamar
There are other animals that can smell and locate specific things from quite a long way off, but it's kind of tricky to ascertain the skills of wild critters. Observation seems to be the best tool. The doggerel written for evolutionism cannot adequately explain the origin of the sense of smell, how it's processed, and the variations among different creatures. It is logical to conclude that this is another of the abilities our Creator has given to his handiwork.
If you have been to an airport recently, you may have noticed an increased number of canine staff on the TSA payroll, weaving through the security lines and along the busy corridors. In the nine airports that I have been in the last six months, I have seen German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, and Labrador Retrievers working these patrols. Beagles are another popular breed for this line of work. They are all sniffing out the scene for signs of something amiss. Depending on their training, they can be sniffing for anything from illegally imported meats to drugs to firearms. What about dogs makes them the best candidate for the job, and why these breeds of dogs?
No need to get your nose out of joint, you can finish reading the article (which has some really interesting science) by clicking on "What a Dog’s Nose Knows!" You may also like "Souped-Up Sniffers".



Dogs and other animals have been given an amazingly intricate and effective sense of smell. This is clearly another gift from our Creator to some critters in his creation. 

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Velocious Changes Perplex Secular Scientists

The basis view of secular geologists is uniformitarianism, where slow and gradual processes have been the cause of most physical features of Earth. They've had to reckon with observed scientific facts that refute their paradigm, and some will grudgingly allow that there are occasional catastrophic events. Other times, they really don't know what went on.


Several examples of quick changes on Earth's surface in recent times raise questions about secular geology, and the accuracy of their methods.
Image credit: CIA World Factbook (usage does not imply endorsement)
Evidence shows that the Sahara Desert was once tropical. What caused the arid conditions? Scientists have some speculations, but can't figure why the changes were permanent. On a similar note, the Atacama Desert in Chile was habitable, even having wetlands, thousands of years ago. Greenland lost plenty of ice several times, and did it quickly (Vikings farmed the green land, after all). Quick changes, no long-age explanations. No, anthropogenic global warming cannot be invoked.

To hotten things up some more, studies of crystals are being conducted about the Gede volcano in Indonesia. The long processes used to explain volcanoes, their build up and eruptions, yield to inconvenient truths that the things can build up and go boom in a mighty quick span of time. Even dormant volcanoes may become active again.

Moving down yonder to Indonesia, scientists are also puzzled by the presence of volcanoes and earthquakes there. It's not exactly a hotbed of tectonic activity, so what's the deal? Attempts to palliate ideas that uniformitarian, old-Earth geology may not be as conclusive as once believed fall flat. Kind of makes you think that Earth may be young after all.

To read about these items, click on "Rapid Earth Changes in Historic Times".



Several examples of quick changes on Earth's surface in recent times raise questions about secular geology, and the accuracy of their methods.

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Genes Block Evolution

Before we get to the roadblock to evolution material, a request for Christian readers to pray for our proprietor, who is going under the knife a few hours after this is posted. -CBB 

Way back when, genes were those things that passed along inherited traits. Then our understanding of the genome increased, and it was learned that genes do not just pass along a trait, they are pleiotropic, passing along several. Votaries of microbes-to-magician evolution figure that there's a whole heap of beneficial mutations being passed along through genes to future generations. Not hardly!


Once again, more knowledge about the genome reveals more reasons to reject evolution.
Image credit: Freeimages / coupon-guy
A mutation in one gene is going to affect other genes, making mutations even more likely to be harmful on a larger scale. Researchers tried to drive around this problem by focusing on transcription factors, those special proteins that act like genome switches. Things got worse for evolutionists, but guess who is not surprised? Biblical creationists.
In the early days of genetics, genes were thought to be solitary entities. Now it's well understood that genes operate in complex networks and that gene mutations can have multiple detrimental effects. A new study reconfirms mutations are a major roadblock for evolution.

Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic — a term first used in 1910. During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms. Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.
To finish reading, click on "Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution".




Once again, more knowledge about the genome reveals more reasons to reject evolution.