Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, September 18, 2016

What About Dinosaurs in the Bible?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Scoffers have complained that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they haven't done their homework or bothered to give the matter some thought: the Bible was completed about 2,000 years ago, and the word Dinosaur wasn't coined by Richard Owen until about 1842. Well, that settles that.

But wait! Does the Bible describe dinosaurs? According to modern commentators, the critters described in the latter chapters of Job were nothing special, just a hippopotamus, elephant, or crocodile. I reckon the writers had been jaded by evolutionary and old Earth views and the assumption that dinosaurs had been extinct for millions of years. By digging deeper into the text, there ain't no way that common living creatures were being described in the Bible! More than that, since everything was created in six days, such creatures were made on Day Six along with man

An atheo-fascist could insist, "It's impossible that humanity and dinosaurs co-existed, despite the lack of evidence for such a claim", but they haven't done their homework (thought they could start with this post and the links contained therein; I shouldn't help lazy people like that, silly of me). Some of their arguments are, essentially, "It's impossible for dinosaurs and humans to have been made on Day Six along with man because they existed millions of years apart". It's called circular reasoning, old son.


The subject of dinosaurs in the Bible has caused a great deal of discussion among Christians and biblical creationists. While we weren't there to see them, we do have some interesting clues from the text.
A pair of modified stamps from my collection
What were behemoth and leviathan? We weren't there to see, and all we have is the biblical record, and also historical records of what used to be called dragons through much of our history. When we intelligently read the description of behemoth, we can see that it's describing a sauropod of some kind. 

Leviathan is a different matter. We can see that he's a cranky beast that seems to be always on the prod, and not to be added to your petting zoo. Creationary scientists, theologians, and other speculators are not in lockstep on the identity of leviathan, since whatever it is seems to have been long extinct, and there are several candidates from the fossil record. Among the possiblities are such diverse elements as:

The hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass (along with their compromising churchian allies) don't want you to believe that dinosaurs lived alongside of humans. What follows is an excerpt of a detailed article about the dinosaurs described in the Bible, followed by a link to the rest of the article. From there, several other links as resources. There's a passel of evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, some hints that some dinosaurs may still be alive, and that they were indeed described in the Bible. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
Behemoth and leviathan, the two enigmatic animals mentioned in the book of Job, are commonly equated with a hippopotamus and a crocodile, respectively. Exegesis of Job 40 and 41 indicates that a hippopotamus and a crocodile are not likely candidates for these enormous creatures described by Job. Neither should behemoth and leviathan be taken as mythological animals. After establishing their identities, I also consider to what degree they symbolize the power of evil, and whether they are connected with Satan (who is mentioned in the first two chapters of the book).
To finish reading that article, click on "Behemoth and leviathan in the book of Job". There are some links for further perusal below to supplement the links above:



Monday, September 12, 2016

Proteins in Rock Trouble Old Earth Beliefs

Way up yonder in outcrops of Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach in Ontario is some Gunflint chert, and secular geologists find it troubling. Not exactly the rock itself, but the microfossils found therein. More than that, they contain proteins that "shouldn't" be there. Maybe they'd relieve some stress by looking at the scenery, eh?


Microfossils and proteins in rock that is very old in Darwin years shouldn't be there. Now secular geologists have to come up with excuses as to how it was preserved for so long. In reality, the world was created recently: problem solved.
Kalabeka Falls image credit: Pixabay / Archbob
Five outcrops, same layer, a couple of billion Darwin years, plenty of chemistry should be going on — and no appreciable changes between organisms then and now. They should really consider throwing out the old Earth ideas, since scientific evidence keeps piling up to refute that idea. In reality, the world was created recently: problem solved.
Rock researchers highly regard Ontario's Gunflint chert for its fresh-looking microfossils. Long ago, the chert's microcrystalline quartz grains embedded microscopic single-celled creatures, including algae. A research team used new techniques to analyze the chemicals inside these fossil cells. They found protein remnants where they should no longer exist—given these rocks' vast age assignment.

The team of French scientists partnered with UCLA ion-microprobe specialist Kevin McKeegan to publish in the online journal Nature Communications. Their investigation of tiny algae cells revealed remnants of original biochemistry despite their evolutionary age assignment of 1.88 billion years.
The article isn't all that long, so if it's not too much trouble, you can finish reading it by clicking on "Proteins in '2-Billion-Year-Old' Rock". If you want additional information, click on "Precambrian Protein Identified".

Microfossils and proteins in rock that is very old in Darwin years shouldn't be there. Now secular geologists have to come up with excuses as to how it was preserved for so long. In reality, the world was created recently: problem solved.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

Underappreciated Giant Silk Moths

People tend to like watching flutterbyes — I mean, butterflies — as they flutter by. Or maybe you like to look at one after it's come to rest and admire the colors. But there's a cousin to it that doesn't get as much attention, and that's the moth. Sure, we know about the drab night things going after outdoor illumination and such in the summer, but there are some startlingly colorful (and often quite big) critters known as giant silk moths.


Many people like butterflies, but the giant silk moth appears at night, so many people miss the amazing colors and designs that do not have any function according to evolutionary views. Materialism does not allow us to consider that the Creator designed them for our benefit.
Luna moth image credit: US National Park Service (use does not imply endorsement of this site)
Let's get one thing out of the way. The word silk doesn't exactly refer to their delicate wings, but rather, to the fact that their cocoons are used in making silk clothing. You guessed it, the silkworm grows up to be the domesticated silk moth, Bombyx mori.

Advocates of molecules-to-moth evolution tend to be looking for function in everything, so they puzzle and puzzle 'till their puzzlers are sore as to why and to what purpose giant silk worms are sporting such brilliant colors. It's not so they can fly into town on a weekend and do some courting, because they're nocturnal, and the colors don't figure into mating. Here's a thought: they were designed by their Creator, and did not evolve. Add to that, the Creator likes beauty, and has spread it all around for our benefit.

I’m a butterfly farmer. That statement, by itself, arouses people’s curiosity. They assume I must really love butterflies, and they’re right. I’m often asked which types of butterflies are my personal favorites, but that’s a hard question. People are usually surprised when I answer, “It’s actually not a butterfly, but the giant silk moth.”

I have always had a natural love for all butterflies and moths, but there is something special about this family of gentle and unassuming moths. Most people have never heard of them, let alone seen one up close. Flying mostly at night, they are hard to find, and this may be one reason they are so underappreciated. Yet these moths are some of the most unique and beautiful insects known to man.


The family of giant silk moths, or Saturniidae as they are known in the scientific community, includes the largest—and arguably most beautiful—moths in the world. Like all other moths and butterflies, they share unique designs that enable these delicate insects to fly with amazing ease.
To read the rest, click on "Giant Silk Moths—Butterflies’ Unsung Rivals". And you might want to check out the short video of the Atlas moth, below. Note what looks like a cobra's head design on the wings.



Sunday, August 28, 2016

Darwinian Daydreaming

Scientists interpret data and make arguments according to their worldview, we all get that. But if you saddle up and ride over to the Darwin Ranch by Deception Pass, you'll notice the aroma of mental synapses short-circuiting. Why? Because the scientific evidence is downright hostile to evolution, but they have to keep their phony-baloney jobs. 


Evolutionary scientists are getting worse at offering "maybe" and circular reasoning as evidence of evolution. Perhaps they are getting desperate because the science is increasingly hostile to evolution?
Image generated at Atom-Smasher
This interpretation of the evidence goes well into begging the question and other logical fallacies. F'rinstance, evolutionary scientists assume evolution in the first place, asking how something evolved rather than if something evolved. Then they wonder why they don't have plausible models. Creationary scientists do not have to resort to extreme speculations that they have to present as "science".

In the reports at the link, look for the rock-solid scientific terms like maybe, could have, convergent evolution, accelerated evolution, possibly, and so on. Fact is, making assertions that sound scientific do not make something scientific. Unfortunately, the gullible faithful take these speculations and run with them. To read the reports, click on "Darwinism as All-Purpose Fiction Plot".

Evolutionary scientists are getting worse at offering "maybe" and circular reasoning as evidence of evolution. Perhaps they are getting desperate because the science is increasingly hostile to evolution?

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Deplorable Denisovans Further Fluster Evolutionists

While advocates of scum-to-stalker evolution are still mourning over the loss of the Neanderthal as a transitional form (that bad boy was fully human), there are more packages aboard the Evolutionary Bad News Express. This time, it's the Denisovans. The Denisova Cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains yielded a few fragments, including a tooth. Scientists like teeth, because dentin (the stuff under tooth enamel) is very durable. Bones are nice, too.


Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.
Denisovan phalanx image credit: Thilo Parg / Wikimedia Commons License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Even thought the fragments are 41,000 years old in Darwinspeak, scientists were able to sequence the genome. I reckon they were pretty close to tears after what they found. Methylation —

"What's methylation?"

It comes from mint oil, and is used in ointments, cough remedies, to add flavor —

"That's menthol, you facetious —"

All right, all right, just quirting you a bit. 

Methylation has to do with epigentics and gene expression, as well as DNA repair and moving methyl group atoms around. Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are quite similar in the genome, yet evolutionists try to make the small variation in methylation into evidence that we all took different forks in the evolutionary trail. Like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans spread their DNA around. Traces of it are found in Tibetans, Pacific Islanders, and others. We have some of their DNA as well. Problems were found, which possibly contribute to our illnesses, and may have hastened the Denisovan demise.

There are several other important factors in the Denisovan genome that are what biblical creationists would expect to find, and cause evolutionists to go into rescuing device (excuses) mode.
A new chapter in the human origins debate opened in the year 2000 with the discovery of a new kind of archaic human called Denisova. Now not just the fossils are available to researchers but also DNA. Paleogenetics can now allegedly settle long-lasting questions due to the incompleteness of the fossil record, although DNA sequence veracity is a matter of concern among creationists.

Denisovans were discovered in the Upper Paleolithic layer 11.1 of Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, their remains consisting of, surprisingly, a distal manual phalanx and a molar tooth found at the same archaeological site from two individuals supposedly from the same population.

The Denisovan genome has been analyzed over the past few years, with sweeping claims of their cognitive capabilities, external appearance, and even detailed population dynamics. Based on such a small number of fossil remains, it is premature to draw too many robust scientific conclusions from the analysis of Denisova. Creation theory would predict that an archaic human would fit very well into the created human kind, as we shall see in the following.
To see what follows, click on "Denisovans menace evolution—a new chapter in the human origins debate".

Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Immune System Surveillance and Communication

With increasing knowledge and improving technology, scientists are continually gaining big information about little things way down at the cellular level and beyond. Isn't it human nature to want to know how things work? In this case, how certain white blood cells are working in the immune system.

A recent discovery regarding special cells in the immune system, how they communicate in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, help illustrate the specified complexity of our Creator's work.
Image credit: Clker clipart
An unintentional discovery led to a hypothesis that was confirmed regarding how this cell works in both the brain and gastrointestinal tract. It's doing surveillance duty, and the two regions are communicating so they can send our internal cavalry charging to the rescue. This is yet another example of the specified complexity that our Creator used to benefit his creation.
After investing so much time and effort to understand how body parts interact, scientists keep turning up new and unforeseen connections—often when they ask the right questions. New and strange developments inspired a team to ask wacky questions about a unique white blood cell called Ly6Chi. And they found some profound answers.

Publishing in Cell Reports, German and U.S. scientists asked why the same cells showed up both in mouse brain and gut. They also asked why mouse brains stopped certain activities after antibiotics erased the helpful bacteria from mouse gut contents. The team knew Ly6Chi cells were present in a region of the brain’s hippocampus called the dentate gyrus (DG) that builds new cells as mice learn new things. This also happens in other mammals including man. What’s going on with these cells?
To read the rest, click on "Special Cells Help Brain and Gut Communicate".

A recent discovery regarding special cells in the immune system, how they communicate in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, help illustrate the specified complexity of our Creator's work.

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Fundamentally Flawed Scientific Research

Despite the protestations of Darwin's Cheerleaders, scientists are not free of bias. Everyone has a worldview, and we interpret information according to this and the underlying presuppositions. Have you ever seen a scientist going around accumulating data about various things, then going back and coming up with laws, theories, and so forth? It doesn't work that way. Scientists are human, with desires, agendas, greed, pride, altruism, faith, and everything else that "regular" people have. They are also prone to cheating and even fraud.


Scientists work from their worldviews, and many have an atheistic materialism worldview. This naturally leads to serious flaws in research, affecting healthcare, psychology, and origins research.
Generated at GlassGiant.com
Reports have been galloping in about bad peer review, tests that cannot be replicated, plagiarism, and more. This is prominent in common-ancestor origins research (after all, they're living according to their "survival of the fittest" worldview). When scientists operate from a realm of naturalism and deny the Creator, a whole heap of bad stuff comes out of them. This is alarming when they cheat on research in healthcare, psychology, and other areas.
We tend to think of science as a dispassionate (impartial, neutral) search for truth and certainty. But is it possible that we are facing a situation in which there is a massive production of wrong information or distortion of information? Is it possible that certain scientific disciplines are facing a crisis of credibility? Mounting evidence suggests this is indeed the case, which raises two questions: How serious is the problem? And what could explain this?

How Serious Is the Problem?
Recent articles in First Things, The Week, and New Scientist present evidence that warrants the conclusion that flawed scientific research results are widespread.

The title of an editorial in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, dated April 6, 2002, asks the question, “Just How Tainted Has Medicine Become?” The article states, “Heavily, and damagingly so, is the answer.” Among other things, in 2001, researchers completed experiments with biotechnology products in which they had a direct financial interest and doctors did not tell their patients that others had died using these products when safer alternatives were available. In the same journal, dated April 11, 2015, Dr. Richard Horton stated the gravity of the problem as follows: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue . . . science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
To read more about the darkness in science, click on "Is Scientific Research Flawed?"

Scientists work from their worldviews, and many have an atheistic materialism worldview. This naturally leads to serious flaws in research, affecting healthcare, psychology, and origins research.