Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Another Impossible Fossil Find

One thing that Darwinists frequently need to do is deny the evidence, especially when it falsifies their belief system. We see this time and again, so they circle the wagons to defend their fundamentally flawed faith. Living fossils, orphan genes, soft tissues and blood cells in dinosaur bones — none of those are supposed to happen, so excuses need to be made in a right big hurry.


Evolutionists keep getting surprised by data because they have a fundamentally flawed worldview. A Cambrian fossil contains original material after alleged 520 million years, and that's "impossible" to them.

A fossil that is reputed to be 520 million years old has a tremendous amount of detail, and it not only refutes long ages and evolution, it also supports creationist Genesis Flood models. Evolutionists keep on getting surprised by evidence because they aren't approaching the evidence correctly.
The only reason evolutionists think this soft tissue is 520 million years old is because they have to.

A fossil arthropod from the Cambrian explosion retains carbonized residues from its brain. How could that be? How could any original material remain after 520 million years? That’s the subject of a fascinating article by Karen Zusi in The Scientist, “To Retain a Brain: Exceptional neural fossil preservation helps answer questions about ancient arthropod evolution.”

The opening photo shows dark marks in the rock, with the caption, “This fossil of a Cambrian euarthropod [“true arthropod” or “good arthropod”], Fuxianhuia protensa, shows black traces of preserved neural tissue.” The story of its discovery 13 years ago woke up a sleeping paleontology community.
To read the rest, click on "Impossible Fossil Soft Tissue Stuns Evolutionists".



Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Putting the Bite on Scale Evolution

Using arguments from assumptions, evolutionists are claiming that they've figured out that first teeth evolved, and then scales. The idea is that way back near the evolutionary trailhead, our ancestors were fish. Don't carp about it, they really think that. But they've been a mite puzzled about which came first, teeth or scales? Studying living and fossil fish, plus ignoring pertinent data and using circular reasoning, gave them "answers".


Using arguments from assumptions, evolutionists are claiming that they've figured out that first teeth evolved, and then scales. The findings prove nothing about evolution, however.
Six-week old alligator gar
Image credit: USFWS
Scales on the gar have similar properties to tooth enamel. Problem is, all the researches managed to prove is that the Creator used common design features in many critters; they proved nothing at all about evolution. All the rest is storytelling. Conjecture has its place, but should not be passed off as scientific conclusions.
Tooth enamel is the hardest substance in your body. But enamel also protects the scales of some fish. In fact, regardless of shape, the scales of many fish both living and extinct have a tooth-like bony core and a covering of hard enamel or enamel-like material.

For Bible-believers who accept God’s Word that He created all kinds of living things in the space of a couple of days about 6,000 years ago, this is not exactly a bulletin. After all, why wouldn’t a wise Creator use a good design, like enamel, to provide a hard protective covering in more than one place? But among those who reject God’s Word and substitute a naturalistic scenario to explain the origin of all things, this chicken-and-egg question has long been debated. Did teeth evolve from scales? Or scales from teeth?

Since evolutionists think fish are the ancestors of all terrestrial vertebrates, the question for them is not whether our smile has a fishy origin but rather which fishy part first acquired armor. Because the idea that God created teeth, scales, and enamel at the same time is not an acceptable answer to them, they claim each enameled fish fossil clarifies the confusion.
To read the rest, click on "Which Came First—Teeth or Scales?"

                   

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Variations Are Limited

The 5th annual Question Evolution Day is February 12th! To see how youcan be a part of it (free, no sign-up or anything), click here.

A frustrating thing that biblical creationists have to deal with is when Darwinists insist that we're wrong, but don't have a handle on their own belief systems. It's not unusual to have some owlhoot say, "Well, since you believe in a little evolution, since a little leads to a lot, therefore you believe in particles-to-parking attendant evolution", followed by insults. (Here's a bit of helpful advice: don't tell us what we believe when you don't understand what's going on, pilgrim.) Papa Darwin taught that slow and gradual natural selection caused evolution. That has been largely abandoned in favor of neo-Darwinism, (although the term is often shortened to "Darwinism") because of a better understanding of genetics.


Some evolutionists insist that small variations add up to full-scale Darwinian evolution. They didn't learn their science, there are molecular limitations involved.
Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
Even so, the field of genetics has given false hope to evolutionists, as genetics has been shown to be an enemy of their paradigm. Yes, creationists do believe in variations and speciation, but within sharply defined limits. God designed organisms with the ability to adapt, but he did not command, "Go ye and change into something else". There are molecular signature, gene switches (that can only turn on something that already exists), and more.
Darwin’s theory that species originate via the natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle but wrong in numerous aspects of application. Speciation is not the result of an unlimited naturalistic process but of an intelligently designed system of built-in variation that is limited in scope to switching ON and OFF permutations and combinations of the built-in components. Kirschner and Gerhart’s facilitated variation theory provides enormous potential for rearrangement of the built-in regulatory components but it cannot switch ON components that do not exist. When applied to the grass family, facilitated variation theory can account for the diversification of the whole family from a common ancestor—as baraminologists had previously proposed—but this cannot be extended to include all the flowering plants. Vast amounts of rapid differentiation and dispersal must have occurred in the post-Flood era, and facilitated variation theory can explain this. In contrast, because of genome depletion by selection and degradation by mutation, the potential for diversification that we see in species around us today is trivial.
To read the rest, click on "Molecular limits to natural variation".

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Climate Change and the Bible

People have been getting mighty agitated about the global climate change movement, willingly drawn into the excitement. Perhaps it gives them a sense of purpose, thinking they're doing something good for the environment. Others are justifiably suspicious of the whole thing.


 Some people are drawn into the global climate change excitement, but there are good reasons to remain skeptical and cautious.
The 2010 Cancun climate change talks began with an invocation of the Mayan jaguar goddess Ixchel
This real jaguar image courtesy of Freeimages / Scott Liddell
Hysteria often makes people cautious, and the global cooling/warming/climate change thing has had a heap of hysteria. Another reason for suspicion is the way it keeps changing, because a few years ago, there was an ice age scare, followed by global warming, then they hedged their bets by using the imprecise term "climate change". Reports are strongly criticized, and some predictions (such as Al Gore's spurious prediction that the North Pole would be free of ice, and there is more now than when he made that assertion), and some of us wonder how they can predict the future 100 years from now when they can't get the weekend weather forecast right. Another reason to be cautious is the way radical environmentalists have declared war on humans.

Some people wonder why creationists discuss this. Well, why not? Creationist scientists are interested in all kinds of aspects involving God's creation. Also, they rightly point out the leftist pagan notions of secularists, and that climate change scientists are conveniently neglecting to give the whole truth.
Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, many are concerned that higher amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in catastrophic global warming—including an increasing number of evangelical Christians.

Higher amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in a warmer planet, but other factors can enhance or diminish such warming. Computer models attempt to take these other factors into account and estimate the amount of warming that would occur. Much of the belief in impending climate catastrophe is based on these computer-model predictions.

Little, if any, actual warming has occurred since 1998 despite the fact that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued to increase. Hence, climate models are likely over-predicting the amount of warming. While it is true that a recent paper used adjusted temperature measurements to claim that the 18-year warming “pause” was not real, this paper has come under heavy criticism from other climate scientists for possible retroactive manipulation of the temperature data.
To chill out and finish reading, click on "Genesis and Climate Change".


Wednesday, January 06, 2016

New Bones Change the Darwinist Dance

We're not talking about dominoes here (a colloquialism for dominoes is bones because in early times, they were made out of bones or ivory). No, this is about human bones. The problem with learning to dance at the Darwin Disco is that the moves keep on changing. That is, evolutionists insist on arguing from their fundamentally flawed presuppositions based on long ages and baryon-to-biologist evolution, and then new data comes along and they have to rearrange everything. Of course, they cling to their framework instead of discarding the thing.


A thigh bone that "shouldn't be there" fouls up evolutionary beliefs about ancient man.
Ah ah ah ah stayin' aliiiive...
Image from Clker clipart
While the Darwinists have a grand old time making up new dance steps, there is enormous pressure to keep their song marketable for their fans while dealing with cognitive dissonance. A thigh bone was discovered that "shouldn't be there", and adds to the other problems associated with ancient humans. Then there's the problem of ancient people mating with modern humans, when the ancients should have been long gone. Those ancient humans were not "primitive" at all, but were created recently. The Bible gives the true account of human history, old son, not evolution. I wonder if they'll find out that ancient humans played dominoes.
The number of potential overhauls in thinking from this thigh bone in China is staggering.

A painted thigh bone found in a China cave shouldn’t be there. It looks like something ancient, but it’s dated to just 14,000 years ago. If the articles on PhysOrg and New Scientist are correct, here are some of the pillars of human evolution ready to topple:

The “out of Africa” theory.
• The “out of Africa” theory.
• The antiquity of Homo erectus.

• The overthrow of the Denisovans and Neanderthals by modern humans.
• The evolutionary status of “The Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis).
Quotes in the New Scientist article reflect astonishment among the scientists pondering the meaning of these bones.
To read the rest, click on "Antique Homo Claims Threatened by New Bones". Watch the evolutionary dominoes topple.


A thigh bone that "shouldn't be there" fouls up evolutionary beliefs about ancient man. 

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Dark Matter, Star Formation, and Fantasy Fiction

Biblical creation scientists have frequently shown that the universe is not cooperating with the claims of long-age scientists, and the secularists have to keep resorting to using fantasy fiction to keep the Big Bang, formation of the solar system, and other hypotheses going. Since what is observed does not fit their ideas, various "dark" things are made up. There's not a whole heap of value to working on something that cannot be observed or detected, and only looks good on paper.


Dark matter was conjured up to bolster long-ages and the Big Bang. This evidence-free substance only looks good on paper, and does not fit what is observed.
Universe from Hubble Deep Field
Image credit: Robert Williams and the Hubble Deep Field Team (STScI) and NASA
Dark matter was conjured up to support the Big Bang and galaxy formation. Going smaller, stars that make up galaxies need this stuff to form "naturally" (that is, to presume there is no Creator, even though he is the best explanation for the observed evidence). Let's let Dr. Hartnett explain in detail.
‘Dark matter’ is an essential ingredient to form stars naturally given only standard known physics. ‘Dark matter’ is a hypothetical exotic form of matter, unknown to laboratory physics, which does not interact with or emit light in any way, hence it is invisible to all forms of detection within the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio-waves to gamma radiation. ‘Dark matter’ itself, therefore, is outside of standard known physics. It is made-up stuff that has been given one special property, which is that it gravitates, that is, unlike normal matter, it is a source of gravity only.
To read the rest, click on "Stars just don’t form naturally—‘dark matter’ the ‘god of the gaps’ is needed".


Friday, December 25, 2015

Virgin Birth or Parthenogenesis?

Most evolutionists insist on riding the Philosophical and Methodological Naturalism Trail, we get that. It leads to a steep cliff and bad science, but it's their choice. But some owlhoots insist that their naturalistic views and empiricism are the be-all and end-all of knowledge, so they arrogantly use their Darwinian presuppositions to "explain" theology.


Sometimes a commitment to naturalism leads to really wild speculations. Not only bad science, but bad theology that is actually blasphemous.
Image credit: "More Than Christmas" by Dan Lietha / Answers in Genesis
The virgin birth of Jesus cannot be explained by parthenogenesis. This idea is not only terrible science, but they disunderstand theology with a vengeance. There are many prophesies about Jesus' birth, and it is very important to the gospel message. Christmas is about the Creator taking on human form (Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:16, John 1:3), as prophesied, for our redemption. All have sinned against God and deserve death, but God has given us salvation as a gift (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). We need to humble ourselves and repent — seek the savior, not intellectualized excuses.

Evolution is a philosophy of rebellion against God. If people want to reject him, that's on them. But to show such disrespect and blasphemy to support naturalistic views is beyond the pale. Then they proclaim that they know "reality", based on their question-begging presuppositions. Not hardly!
Secular scientists are free to disbelieve in the Virgin Birth, but should at least try to understand what they are denying.

Current Biology published a blooper. In a Dispatch on the subject of Parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction by unfertilized eggs), Casper J. van der Kooi and Tanja Schwander from the University of Lausanne did fine discussing fish, moths and reptiles. But they really should have stayed out of theology and Biblical interpretation. Here’s the opening:

To read the rest of the article, click on "Jesus Was Not a Product of Parthenogenesis".