Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Phylogeny, Genetics, and Evolutionary Luck

Using sophisticated computer equipment and the intelligently designed brains that God gave them, evolutionists believe they have determined the cause of the "accident" that led to the origin of life. (Note to those who claim that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life: your assertion is easily refuted, so stop being dishonest.) The problem with this science is that is is mere storytelling.

Evolutionary scientists devised a computer model to ascertain the "accident" that led to the origin of life. This research is flawed in many ways.
Image credit: morgueFile / Tracy7
As any computer saddle tramp knows, software is only as good as its design — garbage in, garbage out. Add to that the biases of researchers who are trying to prove goo-to-gastroenterologist evolution, and whaddya know, it gave the results that they wanted. Of course, they indulged in the usual deck stacking techniques in order to avoid dealing with the reality that we were created and did not evolve from primordial scum.
Many people enjoy tracing their family tree. And while genealogy has been important to people throughout recorded history, the advent of modern genetics has added a new dimension to the pursuit of our roots. We know, for instance, that modern humans have a bit of Neanderthal floating about in their DNA! But do we have a single-celled creature at the deepest root of our family tree? Now a group of evolutionary scientists claims they have resurrected ancient proteins and revealed—through the marvels of molecular time travel—the happy accident that jump-started multicellular life 600 million years ago.

The Glue That Holds Us Together

Our bodies are made of trillions of cells. But what holds those cells together? What keeps them so nicely organized, preventing us from dissolving into a bucket of goo? An important part of that answer is a protein complex that, during cell division, acts like a scaffold to properly orient a cell’s internal components to its surroundings. During cell division, chromosomes are organized on a “mitotic spindle.” Part of the “spindle-scaffolding” complex, a protein called Dlg, like a tiny carabiner, links the mitotic spindle to a molecular marker near the cell’s surface. Thus this important protein enables new cells to be team players, cooperative parts of the tissues to which they belong.

University of Oregon biochemist Ken Prehoda and colleagues wanted to discover how these scaffolding proteins, which are found in many different animals, evolved. He believes his team has, using ancestral protein reconstruction, traced this key component in evolution’s multicellular mystery back to its molecular mother.
To read the rest, click on "Pinpointing the 'Accident' That Let Multicellular Life Evolve".

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Is Agnosticism Rational?

Professing atheists and agnostics, as well as theistic evolutionists and Deists (and I believe many TEs are actually Deists), tend to throw down against biblical creationists. That's expected from atheists, since they must believe in evolution. It should not be expected from theistic evolutionists, since they claim to be Christians, but elevate man-made science philosophies above God's Word.

Agnosticism has many characteristics in common with atheism, including the necessity of belief in evolution for many professing agnostics. But is agnosticism a rational worldview?
Modified from an image at Clker clip art.
Agnostics? Depends on what kind and what definitions are used. Some say simply that they do not think there is evidence to believe in God, much the way atheists make the same claim. (Well, I "lack belief" in a universe without God. Also, I lack belief that atheism, agnosticism, Deism, and theistic evolution are intellectually honest worldviews. How does that jangle your spurs, pilgrim?) Others say that there is no way for anyone to know that God exists, not realizing that they are making a positive stance for their belief. But many, if not most, believe in evolution!

I reckon that many who call themselves "agnostics" are actually atheists, rejecting evidence for God, creation, and spiritual matters out of hand. Agnosticism is very similar to atheism, and does not stand up under examination.

Religious ‘nones’, such as agnostics and atheists, are on the rise in many Western countries. The ‘New atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins have likely contributed to this trend—using so-called ‘science’ (especially evolution and deep time) to create uncertainty about God in a lot of people. Many people are aware of the rise in atheism, but less talked about is the rise of agnosticism. In fact, more people self-identify as agnostics than atheists. So what is agnosticism? And how can Christians respond to it?

What is agnosticism?

The term ‘agnostic’ was first coined by ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ Thomas Henry Huxley in the 19th century. Fundamentally, agnostics are unsure about God’s existence. However, this comes in a few different forms.

The first is a personal stance: “I don’t know if God exists or not.” This is often called weak agnosticism. It doesn’t make any claims beyond what the agnostics themselves are uncertain of. They may think we can know in principle whether God exists or not, it’s just that they don’t know.

The second is a universal claim: “We cannot know if God exists or not.” This is often called strong agnosticism. It’s actually a claim to knowledge. It makes the claim that there isn’t enough evidence for anyone to know whether God exists or not.
To finish reading, click on "Agnosticism". 


Friday, February 12, 2016

Question Evolution Day vs Darwinist Propaganda

Question Evolution Day is an important way for creationists to present information that Darwinists neglect, obscure, and misrepresent. Some evolutionists do not realize that there's another side to the story, having been saturated in propaganda.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Question Evolution Day is an important way for creationists to present information that Darwinists neglect, obscure, and misrepresent. Some evolutionists do not realize that there's another side to the story, having been saturated in propaganda. Proponents of particles-to-propagandist evolution work very hard to find something shiny to present to their peers for accolades and more grant money. Unfortunately, much of this involves circular reasoning, arguing from presuppositions, dreadful research, ignoring alternative explanations, and dishonesty.

Just over two years ago, Bill Nye the Incompetent Guy debated Ken Ham. He used numerous logical fallacies and sneaky debate tactics (such as "elephant hurling", firing off additional questions when Ham only had two minutes to respond, and each question would require substantially more than two minutes), outdated science that creationists had already addressed, and more.

One of his ill-researched remarks was about the feasibility of Noah's Ark. Since some people were unable to build large ships, it's obviously impossible. (Hasty generalization and fallacy of exclusion, anyone?) Ancient Chinese ships are one example that give lie to his claim. Billy also said that we have the Grand Canyon, and there should be many of them all over the world. They exist. Lots of them. Answers in Genesis assembled a passel of debate answers that the average person has not bothered to read. Why? Because creationists are dismissed and denigrated — but the evidence is available.

Atheists and other anti-creationists like that Nye tinhorn are unwilling to examine the evidence, and cherry-pick information to bolster their microbes-to-monkeys evolutionary presuppositions. They also misrepresent what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, then congratulate each other on their "brilliant logic". Not hardly!

A video from Ian Juby's Genesis Week has some excellent material. It deals with the canyons that Nye conveniently neglected (as well as some new ones that have been discovered), and then he takes some anti-creationists to task. I strongly recommend that you spend half an hour and watch "Canyons Everywhere".

Question Evolution Day is more than a novelty or a chance for creationists to be heard. We can present evidence for creation and refuting bad science presented to proclaim the puny god of evolutionism. Hopefully, we can encourage some evolutionists who have not seriously considered the scientific and biblical evidence for creation to question evolution. After all, they are not given enough evidence! Worse, the Evo Sith patrol the Web and other places to fire off bad science as if it was proof.

There is a Creator, and he makes the rules. We can find out what he has to say in the written Word of God.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Were Dinosaurs Warm- or Cold-Blooded?

Way back around 1841 or 1842, Richard Owen coined the term dinosaur, which meant terrible lizard. Well, yes. Those critters often looked like overgrown lizards in some cases. But dogma drives evolutionary science, the prevailing viewpoint is that dinosaurs evolved into birds, birds are warm-blooded, so dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded too. Savvy? Hold your horses, Horatio. Nobody really knows their blood temperature.

Many evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds. They have to use bad data to change cold-blooded dinosaurs into warm-blooded, because birds are warm-blooded. This is science?
Crocodile image credit: US National Park Service
Using some cherry-picked data and ignoring inconvenient evidence, some scientists have dubious evidence that dinosaurs were warm-blooded, just like they wanted. Except that things like nasal passages of dinosaurs match up rather well with living cold-blooded reptiles. An analysis of dinosaur bones shows that they were highly vascularized, but the owlhoots ignored the fact that this is not evidence of being warm-blooded. They were created to be cold-blooded, and the evidence supports this when you strip away evolutionary assumptions.
Evolutionary scientists are trying to find evidence that dinosaurs were warm-blooded creatures in order to place them closer to birds on their evolutionary diagrams. According to Dr. Tom Holtz, “Birds are dinosaurs! And because birds live today, dinosaurs never did become extinct.” Does science back this story? Most of the evidence for dinosaurs possessing a bird-like metabolism is misrepresented.

If dinosaurs were birds, they should’ve been endothermic (warm-blooded) like birds today. Endothermic simply means that an animal generates its own internal body heat using its metabolism, independent of its surroundings. Ectothermic (cold-blooded) means that an animal needs an external source of heat, like sunlight, to warm its body, like snakes and lizards do.

Unfortunately, determining whether or not an extinct animal is endothermic or ectothermic is difficult and requires a study of soft-tissue anatomy. Because only small amounts of soft tissue are preserved in dinosaur fossils, we still don’t know for sure if dinosaurs were warm or cold-blooded.
To read the rest, click on "Dinosaurs Designed Cold-Blooded".

 Many evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds. They have to use bad data to change cold-blooded dinosaurs into warm-blooded, because birds are warm-blooded. This is science?

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".