Search This Blog

Sunday, March 19, 2017

The Mind is Not the Brain

Today we're going to examine two articles on a similar theme, if'n y'all don't mind. Although secularists hold to methodological and philosophical naturalism (briefly stated, no God, even if the logical conclusion and the evidence leads to God), they still search for non-material concepts like free will and the soul. By doing this, they're inadvertently admitting that their worldview is inconsistent. Now secular scientists are obtaining evidence that we are not just "meat machines", and the mind/soul/consciousness is still operational.

Brain is not consciousness
Credit: Pixabay / PeteLinforth
The brain has two hemispheres that work together, and are connected by a kind of conduit. Doctors and scientists have been puzzled when people with damaged brains have rerouted, and then used other areas that are not damaged. What if that conduit is severed?
Experiments with split-brain patients in Amsterdam lend support to the idea that one immaterial being operates the physical brain, even when damaged.

The University of Amsterdam UVA News posted an intriguing headline: “Split brain does not lead to split consciousness.” Split brain refers to a condition when the corpus callosum, the “pipeline” between the brain’s two hemispheres, has been severed. Classic experiments seemed to show that the left side of the brain could only perceive objects on the left side, and vice versa, leading researchers to conclude that each hemisphere generated its own conscious identity. UvA psychologist Yair Pinto has run new experiments to show that is not entirely true. The experiments are difficult because of the rarity of people having the condition. Pinto had two subjects to work with, allowing a certain level of confirmation of his findings.
To finish this first article, click on "One Spirit Can Operate a Split Brain". Then, there's a related article waiting for your return.

See? Here's an introduction to the related article that I promised you. Cue the beginning of Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb": "Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?"

Although 1955 was before my time, a classic Alfred Hitchcock Presents television story called "Breakdown" involves a man who was in a crash and people thought he was dead. He was alive, however, and trying very hard to communicate, almost to no avail. Patients with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) have been locked in and unable to communicate, and their loved ones wonder what's happening on the inside. One woman with ALS was connected to a computer and was able to have some motion and communication.

Taking it further, more communications experiments have been conducted with ALS patients, and the results are encouraging — especially when the patients answer questions.
Four ALS patients unable to move at all learned to communicate with their thoughts. Despite their condition, they all said they were happy.

What’s a person thinking when they cannot move a muscle? It’s a tragic question asked by family members of patients with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a degenerative disease that gradually robs them of movement. The patient can become ‘completely locked in’ where cannot even move their eyes, and exist in this state for years. Is the ‘person’ still there? Is he or she in pain or miserable? We may now have the means to answer those questions, thanks to new techniques developed in Geneva, Switzerland. Researchers describe how they overcame a limitation with standard EEG techniques, which might respond to involuntary eye movements rather than thoughts. At The Conversation, Ana Matran-Fernandez describes the procedure:
To read the rest, click on "The Mind Is Free When the Body Is Locked-In". Both of these articles indicate that the spirit is not just the brain, but the brain is used by the spirit. We were created in God's image. You have a spirit, and it will live on after you die. Do you know where that will be? You can be sure.

The spirit or consciousness is not simply the electrical and chemical impulses in the brain. Recent studies are showing that the materialistic approach to science does not properly address this.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Human Evolutionary Dates in Conflict

When presenting evidence refuting evolution and affirming special creation, Darwin's Flying Monkeys© tend to swoop down and insist that evolution is a "fact", then gibber various "proofs" of evolution. Added to their alleged facts are items that are dated way back yonder.

Human evolution dating has serious problems

What many of them do not realize is that there is considerable disagreement on the dating of human evolution; it depends on who you ask. The main items on which evolutionists focus are two supposed splits in their mythological history: the one between humans and chimp lineages, and another between modern humans and Neanderthal-type humans. One of the greatest failings for human evolutionary timelines involves molecular clocks. This isn't just a tweak for Daylight Saving Time, either. Why are there so many date problems if evolution is almost-settled science? Because this kind of evolution never happened, old son. Creation happened, as the evidence indicates.
If you listen closely to newscasters, schoolteachers, and evolutionary experts when they talk about our evolutionary history, you will notice discrepancies in the numbers they quote. Do those discrepancies bother you? Or do you, like many people, simply hear another really big number and move on with your day? Well, those discrepancies are pretty big, and they bother scientists who are concerned about the accuracy of their claims.

Now keep in mind that evolutionary scientists are not in the habit of questioning whether or not apelike-creature-to-human evolution occurred. Nor are they in the habit of attributing the sorts of differences that distinguish us modern humans from Neanderthals to a cause any different from that which makes us different from our supposed ape cousins. But, with complete confidence that we are the products of millions of years of evolution, they would like to know when the key events in our evolutionary history happened.  
I hope you'll take the time to read the rest of the article. To accomplish this, it would be mighty helpful to click on "Resolving Human Evolutionary Dating Dilemmas". A similar article is also worth your time, "How Many More Anomalies Can Darwinism Take?"

The human evolution timeline is considered to be almost settled science by Darwinists, but there are some very serious problems in the dating.

Sunday, March 05, 2017

Dinosaur Egg-Citement

Way back in 1842, Richard Owen classified some unusual critters as Dinosauria, using parts of two Greek words that mean terrible lizards. (Not all were so terrible — some were the size of chickens — but Owen probably didn't know that.) For quite a spell, folks reckoned them to be reptiles until some uppity Darwinists decided to claim that they evolved into birds. There are many insurmountable problems with this idea, including bone structure, breathing mechanisms, the development of wings, and more. Now eggs are cracking wise against evolution.

Dinosaur eggs refute bird evolution
Made at Image Chef
If dinosaurs evolved into birds, there would have to be a whole heap of similarities between them. Although dinosaurs appear reptilian, the evolutionists who believe in dino-to-bird evolution insist that dinosaurs had to be warm blooded, not cold blooded like other reptiles. They know this because it fits with their narrative, not because of actual evidence. A startling analysis of dinosaur eggs reveals that the time in the egg of the young 'uns, as well as the quantity of egg laying, had far greater similarities to reptiles than to birds. This supports what creationists have been saying along, that dinosaurs and birds were created and did not evolve.
Prevailing secular theory considers birds to be living dinosaurs, but new science is hatching to support the stark differences between these creatures. The data demonstrate dinosaurs were more likely cold-blooded like all modern reptiles.

Dr. Gregory Erickson of Florida State University and his colleagues from the University of Calgary and the American Museum of Natural History recently published their findings on dinosaur incubation periods in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They found that dinosaur eggs took roughly twice as long to hatch as comparable bird eggs.
To read the rest, click on "Dinosaur Eggs Not Bird-Like After All".

Dinosaur eggs are not being friendly to proponents of dino-to-bird evolution. Analysis shows what we've known along: dinosaurs were reptiles.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Creation and the Rules of Science

Some folks get on the prod when it's pointed out that science is not some kind of monolithic entity, but rather, is a philosophical system of interpreting evidence in the natural world. There are people who feel the need to protect what they consider science (especially common-ancestor evolution) from outside influence and scrutiny. This task is expedited by self-serving definitions.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.
Generated at Add Letters
By presupposing both methodological and philosophical naturalism exclusively, evolution has actually hindered scientific progress — especially in medical science. Creationary viewpoints from credentialed scientists are rejected out of hand, and the saying, "Follow where the evidence leads" does not apply when the logical conclusion is God the Creator.

A common falsehood spread by Darwin's Cheerleaders™ is that creationists do not use actual science, relying only on the Bible or saying, "God did it" as a catch-all explanation. In reality, creationary scientists are fully credentialed and active in various scientific disciplines. One's view of origins does not preclude the performance of observational science. I'll allow that biblical creationists have the Bible as our starting point, but secularists often deny that they have materialism as their own starting point. At any rate, they try to make the rules and control the definitions, thereby keeping creationists out in many cases. This is definitely not the true spirit of scientific inquiry, it's just circling the wagons against those they consider enemies. It all comes down to worldviews.
‘Creationism isn’t science.’
‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’
Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls ‘stunned indignation’ to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let’s examine these.
This is a "classic" article from 1988, but the material is still relevant today — if not more so, since many recent illustrations could be added. To finish reading, click on "The rules of the game — As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true". Also, I suggest you check out the Related Articles at the end.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.

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.