Search This Blog

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Learning about Flight — from FISH?

People have wondered, studied, tried to copy assorted critters like birds, bees, and whatever else that could fly. We get that because it makes sense. After flight had been accomplished, improvements have been made with the use of better science and technology. Biomimetics enters the picture again.


Biomimetics is the imitation of God's design in nature for our own purposes. Who would have thought there would be inspiration from fish?
Flying fish near Bermuda image credit:
NOAA  / Bermuda: Search for Deep Water Caves 2009 Exploration
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Biomimetics is the study of things in nature and imitating design for our use (usually without giving credit to the Creator). Sometimes the study is serendipitous. Haecheon Choi is a mechanical engineer who was reading a nature book to his children and then got himself an idea: study flying fish. Their flight is comparatively long and is extremely efficient, after all. Maybe Choi could snag one out of the air for a closer look.

Some bonuses for creationists include no sign of evolution in the fossil record, and they are clearly designed for what they do. At least we can credit the Master Engineer.
More than sixty species of fish can escape their watery world and glide through the air. This unusual skill enables them to escape underwater predators and cover vast distances quickly. Flight begins as these fish rapidly whip their tail back and forth and propel themselves directly out of the water. Once airborne, they can cover more than 1,300 feet (400 m), skipping across the surface at the incredible speed of 40 miles per hour (70 km/hr).
You can read this short article or download the audio by gliding over to "Flying Fish—Aquatic Flight Instructors".



Sunday, March 17, 2019

Fake Facts and Changing Views

We have all be told "facts" that "everybody knows" (or should know), and held to what we thought was true for a long time. We probably spread some of these truths around like butter. Remember butter? It is bad for you. No, that has been reversed, it is good for you. Not sure where the butter and margarine statuses are today. Seems there was something like that happening with eggs, too. There are other science "facts" that are simply legends.


Many things we considered scientific facts are actually legends. Some things were never true, others were refuted.
Credit: Pixabay/congerdesign
I disremember when I read it, but there was a list of refuted ideas circulating that included the old "People lose most of the heat from the tops of their heads" canard. Seems that the only reason it was true is because people were tested who did not wear hats in cold weather.



Back in the 1970s or so, it was an incontrovertible fact that an ice age was heading down the pass toward us, no stopping it. Then it became global warming. That became "climate change" so they could cover all their bases, and the anthropogenic global climate change cultists could select the "good" science that fits their views and ignore the facts that controvert their opinions.

How much that passes as science is accepted without question? Many things that were ironclad have been called into question, including health adviceFish-to-fool evolution packs a passel of problems because "facts" are constantly changing (such as the formerly stupid brute caveman ancestor known as Neanderthal Man). Some of the stuff that has been refuted or secular opinions changed is still in textbooks. May as well deceive through omission for the sake of denying the Creator, huh?

Here is a fun post that lists several of those truisms we should put on the shelf.
Have you ever unquestionably believed something that turned out to be a myth? Think about that time you swallowed some gum and worried all day because your mom said it would take seven years to digest. Why do so many common beliefs turn out to be false?
Sometimes correct information gets exaggerated or distorted in the retelling. Other times people innocently make wrong assumptions or don’t realize their information is incomplete. And let’s face it, sometimes malicious people intentionally spread misinformation.
To read the rest of this rather short article (or download the MP3), click on "The Truth, the Partial Truth, and Anything but the Truth".

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Activist Animals and Ecosystem Engineering


Charles Darwin used existing religious and tentative scientific views of evolution and hijacked the principle of natural selection for his own ends. He and most of his followers believe that outside forces ("external pressures") caused living things to adapt. However, organisms affect their environments — they were equipped for this by the Master Engineer.

While Darwinists believe that environment causes living things to change, some are realizing that creatures influence their environments. This is part of the Master Engineer's plan.
Cumberland Gap National Historic Park Davis Branch beaver dam
Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some evolutionists are realizing that critters and such influence their environments, but researchers seem to be limiting their discussions to Darwinian ideas. The impact that living things have on their ecosystems is more far-reaching than this, and evolutionists who discuss ecosystem engineering do not go far enough. If they dropped the materialistic presuppositions and conducted more thorough research, they might see that this influence is according to the Creator's design.
Because Darwinists assume that inanimate environments are actively shaping and sculpting organisms on Earth, they imagine organisms as primarily passive life forms. But organisms are quite active in pioneering and dealing with their habitats—sometimes aggressively so. . . .
Some examples are too conspicuous to ignore, such as dam-building beavers or reef-forming mollusks. But the habitat modifications produced by other creatures have often gone unnoticed because they occurred underground, or underwater, or were otherwise “hidden in plain sight.” Eventually, the activist traits of many animals were recognized by open-minded ecosystem investigators.
To read the entire article, click on "Ecosystem Engineering Explanations Miss the Mark".


Sunday, March 03, 2019

Sea Pens and other Living Fossils Embarrass Evolutionists

Organisms that appear in the fossil record and then reappear later are called living fossils. They have embarrassed evolutionists since Darwin — and no, this is not a term creationists made to be obstreperous. Evolutionary thinking maintains that there should be multitudes of changes over alleged millions of years, but living fossils give lie to that idea. Sea pens are a  prime example.


Living fossils have been an embarrassment to evolutionists since Darwin's time. Sea pens are a prime example.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Nick Hobgood (CC by-SA 3.0)
Strange name, I'll allow. Maybe Aquaman uses them to write his memoirs. They come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors, and are considered a type of "soft coral". Like other living fossils, they show no appreciable change. Darwin's disciples evosplain it with the unscientific term "stasis", which is absurd even on the surface. Clearly, there is no evidence for deep time, and life was created recently.
The story of evolution asserts that one ‘kind’ of creature can change into another ‘kind’—and that this happened countless times, over hundreds of millions of years. In this story, fossils, which are the remains of once-living organisms, are said to record these changes of one kind into another. However:
1. The transitional forms, or in-between kinds, are notable for their scarcity in the fossil record, whereas they should be abundant. Prominent evolutionary fossil specialists have admitted this.1 To resolve this inconsistency, some have imagined that creatures could change from one to another so rapidly as to leave no fossil evidence of such change. Is this the paleontologists’ version of ‘the dog ate my homework’?
2. The fossils persistently show lack of change. Many of today’s organisms can be found as almost identical fossil forms throughout the rock layers—‘living fossils’. In fact, virtually every kind of organism alive today is a ‘living fossil’.
To read the rest, click on "Sea Pens — ‘Extreme’ living fossils shout ‘after their kind’"



Sunday, February 24, 2019

Kangaroo Fossil Gets Evolutionists Hopping

While it is normal and even expected for scientists to work from their paradigms and see if evidence supports their conjectures, it is quite another thing when they spin yarns based entirely on assumptions. Such storytelling without evidence is nothing more than evoporn — it makes true believers in Darwinism feel good, has a passing resemblance to doing something real, but is a counterfeit of actual science. These fakers were recently exposed by kangaroo fossils.


Evolutionists had a story about how the kangaroo learned to hop that was ridiculous even on the surface. That has been wrecked by new fossil evidence.
Credit: CSIRO/John Coppi (CC by 3.0)
Evolutionists built their stories by layering conjectures and speculations, then when evidence is found that contradicts the stories, they have to rewrite segments of an evolutionary timeline. They will 'roo the day when they found a fossil that appears in the wrong place and wrecked the "How the Kangaroo Became a Hopper" story — which was contradictory, self-refuting, and downright ridiculous even at a surface level. They do not accept defeat with quiet dignity and grace.


via GIPHY

Clearly, evolutionists cannot bring themselves to admit that these critters were created recently and not the products of deep time, evolution, and fantasy fiction.
Evolutionary stories work best in a vacuum. Fossils have a way of forcing Darwinians to face unexpected realities.
Once upon a time, five million Darwin Years ago, Australia evolved from a forested land to a grassland. The ancestors of kangaroos, unable to see over the grass, evolved to stand upright. Finding it difficult to get around through the grass, they evolved to hop over it. And that, children, is how the kangaroo learned to hop.
That old story just got jumped on. A fossil “kangaroo cousin” four times older in Darwin Years than the hero of How the Kangaroo Learned to Hop, was already hopping long before the grass arrived, back when Australia was a forest. That’s just part of the problem Darwinians have to deal with now that fossils have been re-analyzed by Swedish scientists.
You can read the rest at "Kangaroo Fossil Leaps Over Darwinian Storytellers". You may also like "Kangaroos Give a Mob of Evidence for Creation".



Sunday, February 17, 2019

Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use

The subject of abortion generates a great deal of anger on both sides, and abortion is a de facto sacrament of those on the political left. In fact, it is used as a kind of litmus test by leftists, which can be seen in hearings for United States judges and justices. Pro-abortion people have arguments to justify their position, but those are actually very weak. 


One of the most intense areas of controversy today is abortion. Its advocates have many arguments, but they can be dismantled biblical through the Bible, medical science and biology, and philosophically.
Mother Rose Nursing Her Child/Mary Cassat, 1900
Indeed, some of their arguments are irritating and offensive to people who understand reason and value human life. "A woman's got a right to choose!" "A woman can decide what to do with her own body!" "You're a man and you can't tell us...!" Those are trite talking points based on emotion that have no basis in reason.

When attempting to appear rational, some abortionists appeal to bad "medical" science and to evolution. Saying that the unborn child is nothing but a "clump of cells" or is not human yet is dishonest. An objection could be raised that "ontology recapitulates ontology", where the fetus goes through our evolutionary past, so go ahead and kill it while it's in the fish stage. They have Haeckel's drawings to back up their claim — but Haecke's drawings are fake and they know it. Someone even used the viperine response, "Yes, they're fake, but the principle is true". Using a lie to defend another lie.

Abortion is used as birth control, and there are women who know full well that they are murdering a child but simply do not care. I knew of someone who had an abortion because she would not fit into a bridesmaid dress for an upcoming wedding! There are also serious matters to consider regarding the subject, other than the convenience of roundheels. The depraved New York abortion law that was recently enacted adds to my shame to live in this state, and Virginia is no better. "Progressive" means, in this case, progressing into outright infanticide.

Bible-believing Christians know that man is made in God's image, and absurd arguments cannot change that fact. (By the way, have you noticed that people who support abortion are also in favor of other practices that God hates?) A few atheists oppose abortion and have conservative leanings, but there are not many of them. Some tinhorns are so full of hate for God's Word and those of us who believe the Bible that they cannot admit agreement with us on anything, including the value of unborn children! Unfortunately, there are professing Christians who accept social agendas and also promote abortion.

What follows is a detailed research paper that responds to abortion arguments using the Bible, medical and biological sciences, and also some of the philosophical arguments used to justify abortion. Some of the "what if" and "yeah, but" arguments can be given responses by showing the inconsistencies and even "what if" in kind. This very difficult subject has It is a very serious research paper, and it is also lengthy. You can expect almost 2-1/2 hours on it, but the article has a PDF download button that should be helpful. Also, there is a site that I use to send items to my ebook reader. Although "Kindle" is in the title, there are options for directly downloading MOBI and EPUB formats. I hope these help. 
According to the newest report issued by the Guttmacher Institute, 926,200 abortions were performed in the US in 2014. A holistic approach which accounts for biblical, biological, and philosophical truths must conclude that these unborn represent human beings with full personhood. Biblically, God the Almighty Creator establishes the worth and value of humanity by making all people in His own image (Genesis 1:26–27). From Scripture, a progression can be given which traces this image from adults, to the unborn, to conception. Biologically, it is an undisputed fact that a new, complete, genetically-distinct, individual human being is present at conception. Although attempts to redefine conception have been made, embryologists have consistently defined conception as the moment of fertilization for over 100 years. Abortion also cannot be justified philosophically. Some of the most common philosophical arguments for abortion are evaluated and discussed: (1) embryos lack consciousness, (2) abortion prevents children from being born into poverty, (3) monozygotic twinning proves personhood cannot begin at conception, (4) rape justifies abortion, (5) incest warrants abortion, and (6) abortion is often necessary to save the life of the mother.
To finish reading and possibly begin downloading it as an ebook, click on "Abortion: A Biblical, Biological, and Philosophical Refutation".

Sunday, February 10, 2019

More on Archaeopteryx and Evolution

With Question Evolution Day almost here again, it is useful to focus on another example of the way proponents of bits-to-bird evolution think. Arguments and alleged transitional forms that have been relegated to the scrapyard of science history are picked up, dusted off, and presented again. One of these is Archaeopteryx.


Although Archaeopteryx has been designated as a true bird, new technology was used to try to prove evolution by assuming evolution. That is neither logical not scientific.

Archie had been touted as a link between dinosaurs and birds, and also as an example of bird evolution. Even evolutionists admit what creationists already said: Archaeopteryx is a true bird. It also has some startling similarities to a living bird, the hoatzin. New research with more advanced technology was used to study one of the few good fossils Archie was good enough to leave us, and evolutionists have decided by fallaciously assuming evolution to prove evolution that there is evidence of bird evolution, which would mean there is no need for the Creator. Oh, please!

Evolutionary scientists have long described Archaeopteryx as a bird. The research team wrote, “The [Daiting] character suite has clear parallels in modern flying birds.” In the big picture, this just means it was a bird. We already knew that. Why would the news again call an extinct bird a “missing link?”
Paleontologist and study coauthor Dr. John Nudds said in a University of Manchester news release, “In a nutshell we have discovered what Archaeopteryx lithographica evolved into – i.e. a more advanced bird, better adapted to flying.”
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Does Archaeopteryx Show Bird Evolution?"

Question Evolution Day is annually on February 12. You can be a part of it.
Question Evolution Day is annually on February 12. You can be a part of it.