Search This Blog

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Natural Revelation and Scripture

We can learn a great deal about God from his creation, but how far does this go? God's written Word tells us, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV). 

We can learn a great deal about God from his creation, but how far does this go? There are limits to natural revelation.
"Lost Lake" image credit: morgueFile / mmainco
There are some who elevate man-made science philosophies to a magisterial position above God's Word, interpreting it according to those philosophies (for my 2-part article on apostates, false teachers, and theistic evolutionists, see "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars"). God doesn't cotton to people messing with the revealed Word: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. ​Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar (Prov. 30:5-6, ESV)". You savvy? There are people who have said that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. I'll allow that it sounds good, especially since we can learn some things about God from nature, as the Bible states. However, there are some serious problems in lifting up nature too high.
Here’s an experiment you can do anywhere. Imagine that you are standing in an open field. In this field you find the remains of a house that stood long ago. Your job is to come up with the reason that this house was there, describe who lived there, and explain why they left.

After making your best guess, what if you then found eyewitness accounts from those who lived there—accounts that showed your guess to be wildly inaccurate? Would you then reject those accounts in favor of your guess? Although this thought experiment might seem frivolous, the point is important. When looking for the truth about the unrepeatable past, the best approach is to first seek out eyewitness accounts of those who actually experienced the history.
To read the rest, click on "Is Nature the 67th Book of the Bible?"

We can learn a great deal about God from his creation, but how far does this go? There are limits to natural revelation.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Are You a Predator?

Greetings to you on this celebration of Lenin's birthday — I mean, Earth Day. Many environmentalists have good intentions about taking care of the environment, and Christians can agree with them. Hunting animals to extinction or near-extinction for sport, false claims of being aphrodisiacs, because ivory is mighty purty, and so on are wrong according to the biblical worldview. Dumping raw sewage into rivers, air pollution... Bible-believing Christians (I use this terminology to distinguish from owlhoots who pretend to believe the Bible and those who actually believe God's Word) have a different perspective on the environment and Earth Day. We believe in stewardship of God's creation, not exploitation, of Earth and its inhabitants.

Pagan evolutionary thinking places humans as a plague on Earth. Biblical creation thinking puts us in a responsible stewardship position.
Critically endangered Sumatran tiger at the Smithsonian National Zoo. Image credit: USFWS.
However, a passel of Earth-worshiping pagans want to slap leather with the Creator. According to them, we are not created in God's image, but are the products of evolution. Ironically, their rhetoric falls to the ground because if we're just the products of evolution and "survival of the fittest", we should do whatever we want in order to survive, so they contradict themselves. Another contradiction is the politically-motivated "green energy" movement that is impractical and actually harmful. For an example, see "Green Energy Calculated to Kill Birds".

Are you a predator? I'm not talking about lawbreakers, stalkers, and so forth, but humanity as a whole. Some extremists take their pagan evolutionary environmentalism to amazing levels, apparently desirous of hiring Davros to help them mindlessly exterminate most of humanity. They have amazingly bad unargued philosophical biases based on their fundamentally flawed worldview, and they refute themselves when they say that humans are bad medicine for Earth.
Humans are exceptional, all right; they kill everything else. What would Darwin do?

The human capacity for self-incrimination seems to match its capacity for violence. “Are humans unsustainable ‘super predators’?”, Science Daily asks. “Want to see what science now calls the world’s ‘super predator’? Look in the mirror.” The statement does not suggest our reflection should show pride. Like the other news media, reporters are engaging in self-righteous flagellation of their fellow species mates in response to Chris Darimont’s paper in Science Magazine, “The Unique Ecology of Human Predators.”

Maybe you don’t picture yourself like a lion on the prowl in the supermarket, but your eating habits—and those of global humans—are paid for in blood of other inhabitants of earth at unsustainable levels, Darimont et al. claim. Jonathan Amos at the BBC News summarizes the bullet points, if you’ll pardon the expression:
Not happening here, Pilgrim. To read the rest, click on "People Portrayed as Predator Plague on Planet".

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Sappy Evolutionists Redate Amber

Did you notice that Darwinistas tend to run away from specifics (i.e., those awkward things known as "facts")? We see words redefined (the logical fallacy of equivocation), and they even stack the deck so it looks like they have a winning hand. But cherry-picking data, changing dates, ignoring pertinent data — that ain't science, old son. They're pulling the same shenanigans with amber.

Evolutionists are, once again, ignoring pertinent facts that interfere with their storytelling. This time, evidence from amber gets the cold shoulder.
Image credit: Freeimages / pawel tomkiewicz
Now that scientists can investigate more thoroughly instead of just putting things in order according to their paradigms, those awkward facts are interfering with their propaganda. Flowering plants and amber? Doesn't fit the timeline, so just ignore it and tell another story around the campfire. After all, can't admit that the evidence supports a recently-created Earth, can me?
Amber, fossilized tree resin, is being found at more and more locations around the earth. Insects, feathers, and other organisms are found encased in amber, but their occurrence is generally rare. Just recently marine organisms were even found in amber.

320-million-year-old amber discovered
Amber is mainly found in strata classified as Cretaceous and Tertiary. But just recently it was found in Carboniferous coal in Illinois, dated 320 million years old within the uniformitarian timescale.2,3 Such a date is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, for amber. The Carboniferous is supposed to be the time that many plants now extinct, such as lycopods, ruled the swamps and forests.
To read the rest of this short but enlightening article, click on "320-million-year-old amber has flowering plant chemistry". Also, you may want to check out "Amber-Encased Lizards Showcase Recent Creation".

Evolutionists are, once again, ignoring pertinent facts that interfere with their storytelling. This time, evidence from amber gets the cold shoulder.

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

Global Warming — Alarm and Reason

It seems that anyone with access to television, the Web, printed media, and even telegraph lines has hard of (and has an opinion of) global warming. In recent years, global warming has been renamed to global climate change because the dire predictions were untrue, and many scientists claimed that anthropogenic (man made) is utterly false. While there is some degree (heh!) of warming, the pause in it has also contributed to the concept's declining status.

Proponents of global warming use naturalistic presuppositions based on an evolutionary viewpoint. They also conveniently neglect inconvenient data and indulge in selective citing. How about a realistic view?
"Old Fire Alarm" Image credit: morgueFile / gracey
If you study on it, you'll notice that evolutionists and global warming proponents have pretty much the same presuppositions. They rely on naturalism (God is not the creator and is not in control of Earth), and indulge in selective citing of limited data in order to bolster their agendas and ignore inconvenient truth. It's a good idea to saddle up and ride to a high point for a broader view.
Since the late 1980s, global warming has been hotly debated, with many arguing that Earth is undergoing potentially catastrophic man-made climate change. Is Earth getting warmer? Is such warming, if real, dangerous? And is it caused by human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2)? Or, to put it another way, is catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (abbreviated as CAGW) real?

There has been a warming trend for much of the 20th century. In fact, ICR scientist Larry Vardiman did his own independent analysis of three different datasets and concluded that warming had probably occurred for at least the last 30 to 50 years.

But past warming is no indication that such warming will necessarily continue. In fact, there has been an apparent pause in this warming trend for the last 18 years. Nor does a warming trend automatically prove that human activity is responsible.
To read the rest, click on "A Realistic Look at Global Warming".

Proponents of global warming use naturalistic presuppositions based on an evolutionary viewpoint. They also conveniently neglect inconvenient data and indulge in selective citing. How about a realistic view?

Sunday, April 03, 2016

Understanding the difference between Darwinist evolution and speciation

I, Radar, have been having major health issues and have been very glad to have a friend like Piltdown Superman stepping up to make blog posts so that my absence does not mean the blog dies out.

It seems that there is a great deal of confusion and obfuscation involved in comprehending the difference between Darwinist evolution (which creationists reject) and speciation (which creationists support).  So I am going to make the distinction between these two versions of organism change very clear and do so in layman's terms.


First thing, the idea that life came from non-life does not enter in to this debate...thankfully, as that is one issue that we can put aside.  So let us give both sides a world in which life in some form(s) already exists on the Earth.  We know of no Earth without life.

Second thing, we will also allow the existence of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.  Prokaryotes consist of bacteria and archaea and are relatively simple organisms.

 "...any cellular organism that has no nuclear membrane, no organelles in the cytoplasm except ribosomes, and has its genetic material in the form of single continuous strands forming coils or loops, characteristic of all organisms in the kingdom Monera, as the bacteria and blue-green algae."

But "simple" is a relative term.  The simplest possible living organism, an organism that is self-sustaining and can reproduce, consists of many hundreds of thousands of components


Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has suggested that even a hypothetical simpler-than-can-be-found-in-nature must consist of hundreds of thousands of parts.  Quoting that article, "...modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes."   A reference is made to A. Goffeau, ‘Life With 482 Genes’ Science, 270(5235):445-6, 1995.

So it is understood that a typical prokaryote has many hundreds of thousands of components and often millions of them.  This is what Darwinists consider "simple life."

More complex organisms have cells with a classic nucleus and are called eukaryotes. 

"any organism having as its fundamental structural unit a cell type that contains specialized organelles in the cytoplasm, a membrane-bound nucleus enclosing genetic material organized into chromosomes, and an elaborate system of division by mitosis or meiosis, characteristic of all life forms except bacteria, blue-green algae, and other primitive microorganisms."

Eukaryotes consist of vast numbers of components.  A cell will be more complex than Mycoplasma and a typical human being will have probably 20 to 70 trillion cells.  However, life does not exist in a vacuum and, for each human cell, there will be about 10 microscopic organisms living upon and within that person.  We cannot digest food properly without a host of bacteria breaking down the food we eat, for instance, and if we had the vision to see all the life floating in the air, creeping on the surfaces of our room, clinging to our skin and so on and so forth, well, it would make an exceedingly good basis for a horror movie, n'est-ce pas?


We did not even discuss the remarkable complexity of the cell, the remarkable coding mechanism that is DNA or any of the other aspects of life that Michael Behe has written of in his books, particularly Darwin's Black Box.  His book argues that there are irreducibly complex systems in living organisms, systems that put the lie to Darwinist evolution because they would not be able to be built by one-change-at-a-time mutations. 

But that idea of mutations building new life forms is fundamentally flawed.  Mutations are mistakes, they are coding errors, they are glitches in the machine.  You would not expect to purchase a bicycle and then keep dropping it down the side of a canyon in hopes it would become a Harley-Davidson.  You'd not throw a bunch of wood and nails into an empty field and expect the pile of stuff to build itself into a house.  This is what Darwinism asserts, that breaking things necessarily builds better and more complex things.  However that is the reverse of what happens in the world around us.


Yes, there is an amazing number of different organisms that exist from the heights of the tallest mountain to the deepest parts of the oceans.  New varieties of known life forms are constantly being found.  Beyond that, we find fossils of organisms we'd not previously known continually, although many "new" finds are simply the same dinosaur or shellfish found before of a different size than the first found.  We also know that many organisms have gone extinct within recorded history.  So with so many varieties of living things, it seems to make sense that Darwinist evolution must be true.  How the heck could so many life forms exist unless simple life evolves into more complex life?  Especially since the fossil rock records seem to present a world of simple aquatic life forms evolving into very large and complicated animals?

In fact, the fossil rock records represent flood layering - layers made by a flood, a receding of floodwaters and the various post-flood events like rapid glaciation followed by melting ice and dike breaks, and also volcanic and tectonic events related to a world-wide catastrophic era.  Darwinists do not like people to actually know very much about the fossil record.  For instance, 90 % of the dinosaur fossils are carnivorous or omnivorous therapods, a percentage completely unsustainable in a real ecosystem.   But animals able to run fast and swim AND survive on carrion would have a much better chance of surviving longer during a rising global flood...thus the preponderance of therapods in the fossil rocks. 


Study organisms, and you will find that all have a gene pool from which they can reproduce many varieties of the same kind.  Grasses come in an incredibly wide variety of forms, many of them produced by men who understood that desired qualities of plants can be selectively bred.  Dogs, same thing, and cattle and fish...on and on.  We can breed for all sorts of variation in dogs, to stay with that example, but we cannot breed a dog into a cat.  Also, not all features of organisms can be selected for in an organism.  Don't expect someone to be able to breed a moose-style horn rack on the head of an Irish Wolfhound because antlers are not included in the genetic structure of the dog kind.

Studies on speciation have proved a few interesting things.  Rapid speciation is possible in organisms that breed often and when there are quick changes in the ecosystem.  I posted an article or two on rapid speciation, just in case you want to search through Radaractive and find them.  I would also suggest searching for articles with keywords like "redundancies and contingencies."

I believe God put life on Earth and designed it well enough that any changes in the environment would not be sufficient to wipe out life during the time He intended the world to exist.  The Earth is like a space station that allows life to thrive while being surrounded by an incredibly hostile environment.  When humans build a space craft, we build in all sorts of redundancies to all systems, so if there are failures in a system, those living within can still survive.  There are contingency plans in place to deal with catastrophic events.  So God made many kinds of organisms with very rich gene pools so that changes in environment and even a world-wide flood would not deplete the world of organisms necessary to provide a world-wide ecosystem that supports the human population.

But there is far more to the world of organisms than simple survival.   The vast array of colors and shapes and sizes and behaviors of life on Earth provides amusement and entertainment to us...hence the popularity of animal shows on cable networks.  Dancing and hopping Birds of Paradise, meerkats being meerkats, animals like dogs and dolphins willing and able to do tricks and have relationships with us?  God is a God of wonders and love.  There could be just one kind of plant, one kind of herbivore, one kind of carnivore, and so on...everything could be just one color.  We would still live if there was only one variety of dog or if all people had brown skin and brown eyes and brown hair.  It might be a bit boring but how would we know, if we did not know other varieties existed, that we were missing out on anything?


Paleontologists have found flesh remains in fossils for decades and we are just now finding out about it.  Virtually every contention that Darwin made (that was not stolen from a creationist) has been disproven.  Darwinism flies in the face of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so-called "living fossils" are found year after year.  No matter how hard Darwinist science tries, they cannot figure out a way to get a cat to become a rodent or a bacteria to evolve into an aphid.  No new information enters into the gene pools of organisms, they either lose information or information becomes corrupted.  A poodle is a dog, but it has less information than a mixed breed, not more.  Speciation involves winnowing out potential features rather than adding new ones in. 

So why do people want to believe in Darwinist evolution?   Why are they so opposed to the idea that God created it all when the incredible contortions of logic to believe that everything just poofed into existence from nothing?  Is it simply because they fear that knowing there is a God who gave them life is a responsibility?  Probably so...and yet, if God did create all things, the responsibility is there whether acknowledged or not.  What do you think about that?

Friday, April 01, 2016

Lying for Darwin

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Is it my imagination, or is the evolutionary propaganda machine going into overdrive? We keep seeing assertions based on blind faith presented as if they were actual science, claims that evolution must be true because of the Creator's "poor design", and more. 

Similarly, "junk" DNA was labeled as junk because they sampled some of it, didn't know what it was, and assumed it was left over from our alleged evolutionary past. Then they were humiliated when real science was done and the junk DNA concept got pitched down an abandoned mine shaft.

We get that they interpret evidence through their biases (we all do it), and they present it in the same way, even though they're in error, or even indulging in deception. People believe this nonsense because it's what "scientists say". Also, they believe it because evidence for creation is actively suppressed, so they have less opportunity to find out the truth about evolution unless they start to question it and begin searching for answers.
More entries in the #liar4darwin category, where blatant misrepresentation and outright dishonesty about creation science, the Bible, and science itself are going into overdrive.
Image from Openclipart
Some of these sidewinders are actively lying. That's right, I said it! My conclusion is that people who should know better and know how to do research are not doing so because they are agenda-driven to promote the false gospel of Darwinism. It's not a difficult conclusion to reach, since there are many frauds in evolutionism.

A very popular short video claimed that we can see evolution in our own bodies. It relied on the false, outdated, discredited "science" invoking "vestigial structures", and also that humans have tails. (Interestingly, this video by Creation Ministries International about "human tails" was released several weeks before the evolutionary propaganda video was released.) Answers in Genesis refuted this video, see "Is There Really 'Proof of Evolution . . . on Your Body'"?

Speaking of Answers in Genesis, Kenneth Keathley played fast and loose with definitions of words, doing the old equivocation bait 'n' switch. He actually claimed that Ken Ham believes in macroevolution because Ham, along with other creationists, accepts speciation. (The author of the following article is generous to Keathley, but I say Keathley is dishonest.) To see replies to his claims, click on "Does Ken Ham Embrace Evolution?" and "A Follow-up Response to Professor Keathley’s Erroneous Claims". EDIT 12 April 2016: Creation Ministries International joined in, which supports my remark that Keathley is being dishonest.

I suspicion that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are getting mighty agitated because the truth of creation science is making significant headway. Don't just listen to what "scientists say", but do some critical thinking and examine the evidence, see what is true, what is false, and what is agenda-driven fakery misrepresenting both science and God's Word. The truth is found in God's written Word, not the ever-changing of man-made science philosophies.