Search This Blog

Monday, January 21, 2019

Races and Families

Centuries ago, I made a comment at the workplace that was something like, "Adoptive parents are important and should not be disparaged because they are not the natural parents. They care for the kids they adopt". Something like that. The manager was right there and stared at me for a moment. Then he said, "I'm glad to hear you say that because I'm adopted". Wow, I unintentionally said something encouraging! What about people who adopt children of other races?


Many people have the belief that if other look different, they belong to another race. Imagine adopting children of another ethnic background. Biblically, we are all of one race, which is opposite to the "scientific racism" of evolutionism.
Credit: OpenClipArt
In reality, there are no races. At least, not according to our Creator. The word race is often used as a convenience by people who mean ethnicities or people groups. I'll allow that the word racist is more convenient than calling someone an "ethnicitist" or something equally awkward and puzzling. Unfortunately, accusations of racism are being redefined by leftists as an emotive deflection, such as accusing someone who disagrees with a politician's remarks or policies as "racist" when ethnicity has nothing to do with said politician's dreadful beliefs. Such frequent claims of "racist" and "racism" cheapen genuine instances of those things.

When a husband and wife adopt one or more children from a different ethnic background, other people may wonder if they can deal with someone from "another race". After all, those kids look mighty different. But those genetic differences are fewer in number than you might imagine. We are all of the same race, all in the same human family. Notice that there are variations within ethnic groups. Hey, white guy! Hold up your hand against a sheet of printer paper or something. Not so white now, is it. And your black friend...not really black after all. There are variations within the same family bloodlines as well. Evolution has been used to justify "scientific racism", which fails in the light of biblical creation.
When I write or talk on the issue of race, it’s always a deeply personal experience for me. My husband, Chris, and I decided to adopt a child from China 13 years ago. We knew this was God’s will for us, but I was haunted by this question: Could I raise a child of another race? I never would have called myself a racist in those days, but in reality I was. My opinions and beliefs about those who looked different from me did not reflect the biblical truth that we are all one race.
To read the rest or download the audio version, click on "All in the Family".

QED

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Definitions and Speciation

Getting the proper definition is important in many discussions, which seems to be even more important regarding origins. People can be using the same word but have entirely different meanings in mind, which can lead to a passel of confusion. Sometimes we need to reign in and clarify terms.

Confusion is caused by not only unclear definitions on words like species and speciation, but also by critters ignoring human rules.
Credit: Pixabay / succo
Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution tend to get a mite sneaky with evolution with variation, saying that some small change is evolution and equivocating with evolution in the Darwinian sense. Another area that causes confusion is the use of species and speciation. Sometimes scientists disagree on how to define species, and creationists agree that speciation happens. It doesn't help matters when critters don't pay attention to the rules and breed across the boundaries while still refusing to change overmuch. They were created by the Master Engineer to fill niches, you know.
When investigating true-vs.-false controversies, words are very important. Yet Christians sometimes unintentionally perpetuate false teachings by using misleading terms that accommodate evolutionary assumptions. This is what law courts call confusion of issues, a truth-interference problem so serious that trial judges, invoking Evidence Rule 403, ban such confusing terminology when admitting trial evidence.
For example, the origin of species is a confusing topic. What exactly is a species? How can we properly analyze and discuss our origins if the words we use mean different things to different people? Consider this approach by Wikipedia, the multi-anonymous online encyclopedia that institutionally assumes evolution is scientific:
To read the rest, click on "Norway's Redchat Defies Evolutionary Speciation".
QED

Sunday, January 06, 2019

Explosion in the Cambrian

Universal common ancestor evolutionary conjectures require purposeless, gradual progressions from simple to complex life forms. Since this supposedly takes millions or billions of Darwin years, there should be a wagon-trainload of transitional fossils so y'all can trace the development of organisms. Not happening, old son.


The Cambrian Explosion is troubling to secular scientists because organisms are fully formed, not simple or transitional.
Branching archaeocyath fossil image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Killamator (CC by-SA 4.0)
One of the most troubling areas for secular geologists is a little thing called the Cambrian Explosion. Most of the major phyla appeared in this low layer, and they were fully formed. (One owlhoot tried to wave off the Cambrian Explosion as a bunch of simple aquatic lifeforms. The overwhelming majority of fossils are sea organisms, and they are not simple at all.) More than diversity of life forms, we see disparity. This is not predicted by evolution, but refutes it and supports special creation. Worse for uniformitarian deep time beliefs, the Cambrian Explosion supports the global Genesis Flood. (If some tinhorn tells you that the Flood is fiction, he's lying, and that's a natural fact.) Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Many have been told that the fossil record provided Darwin with overwhelming evidence for his theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth! In his book, On the Origin of Species, he admitted that the absence of fossil transitional forms was a major problem, and one that was “undoubtedly of the gravest nature”.
Such was the overwhelming and conspicuous absence of transitional fossils, many leading 19th century naturalists had concluded that species were fixed in their form and couldn’t change. Darwin himself wrote that “all the most eminent palaeontologists [people who study fossils], namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c. … have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability [i.e. unchangeable nature or ‘fixity’] of species.”
To read the rest, click on "The Cambrian explosion — The fossils point to creation, not evolution".



QED

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Rhino-Elephant Fossil Upsets Evolutionary Timeline

When tales are told around campfires, people tend to expect flaws. Sometimes they point them out.

"I seen him pull his 44-40 revolver and sneak after Clem —"

"You said this was a pitch dark night so ya didn't see nothin', ya galoot."

"Fergot to mention I was using my night vision..."

The timeline for the evolution of dinosaurs is driven by the narrative, even though there is no evolutionary past for dinosaurs and new discoveries require evolutionists to repeatedly rewrite that troubled timeline. We have another instance of a major timeline problem.


A large critter called a synapsid is causing disagreement and confusion among paleontologists.
Lisowicia bojani image credit: Tomasz Sulej (CC By-SA 4.0)
The tale is told that there were little mammals running around while dinosaurs were becoming the dominant force. These little mammals did their best to keep out of sight. Critters like synapsids existed, but when something that could be compared to a military tank was discovered, paleontologists got a mite worked up. They can't agree if it's mammal or reptile, and the description is caused (for some) to be dictated by where the fossil was located. Actually, there isn't a whole heap to build on in the first place. The fossil record is not about an orderly account of gradual evolution due to "forces", but it shows evidence for the global Genesis Flood and recent creation.
Evolutionists call them “mammal-like reptiles,” but a very large fossil synapsid upsets evolutionary ideas.
It was as big as a hippo, and apparently very successful as an animal. New Scientist writes, “Ancient hippo-like reptile was a giant to rival the dinosaurs.” Science Magazine writes, “Giant mammal cousin rivaled early dinosaurs.” What was this creature, exactly? And why are evolutionists so startled by it?
To find out more, click on "Synapsids Went Extinct, but Did They Evolve?" A shorter, related article is "Super-Sized Synapsid in the Wrong Rocks".
QED

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Altruism in Different Kinds of Animals?

Altruism is baffling to Darwinists, and they not only botch studies of it, but come up with bizarre ideas such as altruism being controlled by microbes. And that is just for humans. You have probably heard or read stories about a cat unable to nurse kittens, but the new momcat next door filled the gap. That's rather heartwarming and not entirely surprising. What about animals adopting other kinds of animals?


Altruism is baffling enough for evolutionists, but cooperation between species is very troublesome.
Credit: Freeimages / Lily Rosen
The expression, "Fighting like cats and dogs" may get a point across when describing folks wanting to slap leather with each other, but the animals themselves don't always fight. Sure, they probably get along when they're brought together when they're young, but even adults have been known to become pals. Darwinism requires "survival of the fittest" and a kind of "every critter for itself" approach.


Animals occasionally reject orthodox evolutionism. Interspecific (different species) cooperation and even adoption is baffling to evolutionists, especially when the animals involved are predator and prey. It is interesting that such happenings can remind Bible believers of the original creation when animals did not eat each other; that happened after the Genesis Flood.
Altruistic behavior is expected in humans to one extent or another. However, when animals behave altruistically, evolutionists are left without good answers. When, for example, an animal adopts an infant of another animal, it exhibits an evolution-defying altruistic behavior. Evolution predicts that animals will behave selfishly, seeking only to further their own reproductive success. Yet there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of animals adopting babies of their own species, or even more incredibly, members of other species, sometimes across the kind or predatory boundaries. These altruistic adoptions are powerful evidence for the original “very good” design God put into his creation.
To read the rest (and some interesting examples as well), click on "Interspecific Adoption: Can Evolution Explain Altruism in Animals?"



QED

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Human Evolution Fails Scientific Analysis

Those of us who reject fish-to-farmer evolution tend to receive surprised remarks as if we were a tad bit unreasonable. After all "everyone knows" and "scientists say" that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, so who are we do disagree? Some even want to bully us, because loudness makes for rightness or some-such. 

For one thing, we do not need the vacuity of R. Clinton Dawkins, Bill Nye, or other owlhoots dictating our thinking. In addition, evolution does not stand up to serious examination.


Closer examination reveals that evidence for evolution is pitifully lacking.

I'll allow that such evolution is mighty popular among scientists and us commoners, but consensus does not make for truth. Seems that we have to suspend reason and science to accept such notions in the first place. Getting down into the DNA, evolution is not even possible. Add to that the fact that the alleged evidence for evolution among bones and such is pitifully lacking. The evidence actually shows that the we were created, created recently, created separately. 
The public is frequently led to think that the evidence of humans evolving from an apelike common ancestor with chimps is simply overwhelming. The claim is often made in bombastic, even intimidating terms, such as in this example of ‘elephant hurling’ tactics by a prominent evolutionist:
“There are now tens of thousands of hominid fossils in museums around the world supporting our current knowledge of human evolution. The pattern that emerges from this vast body of hard evidence is consistent across thousands of investigations. All models, all myths involving singular, instantaneous creation of modern humans fail in the face of this evidence.”
For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. However, when one starts to critically analyze these claims, things rapidly fall apart. For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. For example:
To learn more about what is going on, read the rest by clicking on "The myth of ape-to-human evolution".


QED

Sunday, December 09, 2018

Newly-Discovered Human Brain Neuron

Darwin's devotees like to remind the world that humans are classified as animals. Of course, with the limitations built into the five kingdoms, I reckon we have to be someplace, and we do have many similarities to creatures in the animal kingdom. However, we are not "just animals". Not only because we are created in God's image, but there are marked biological differences between us and critters. A newly-discovered neuron in the coconut between our shoulders is another of those features unique to humans.


Scientists discovered a special neuron that is unique to humans. This is another difference between humans and animals.
Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens
We have a heap of processing to do. Biologists may object to my comparison, but it seems that the extra-long dendrites in some of our brain cells might have a loose similarity to RAM in a computer, which gives it more room to work, and helps the computer work faster. Our dendrites also act like tiny transmitters. Still another reason to admit the obvious: we were created, and our "parts" working in unison show this.
With a new addition to the category of “uniquely human features,” MIT neuroscientists discovered a feature of human—not animal—brain cells. Certain human brain cells have much longer extensions called dendrites, and this research team found a uniquely human reason for it.
To read the rest, click on "Unique Human Neuron Discovered".
QED