Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Plants Know How to Survive

There is a great deal of beauty in nature. Why? Evolutionists try to make color about function and survival, but many animals are color blind, so that idea fails. What about plants? You can find a dazzling display of colors in some surprising places at unusual times, such as the "superblooms" in Death Valley. But those colors don't do plants much good. Seems more likely that God blessed us with the beauty in nature, doesn't it?


Plants provide beauty, but evolutionists cannot find a function for it. They are also designed with survival abilities that testify to the ingenuity of the Creator.
Image credit: Freeimages / blue sky
In addition to being colorful, plants are able to survive, and sometimes compete with each other, such as in their ability to sense light and shade, and take appropriate action. Dandelions have spread around most of the world, which can be annoying to some people, and have some surprising survival abilities. And how does a seed know which way to grow up out of the soil? Read more about these by clicking on "Plant Brains Solve Problems".

Plants provide beauty, but evolutionists cannot find a function for it. They are also designed with survival abilities that testify to the ingenuity of the Creator.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Science Deniers Try to Make Dinosaur Soft Tissues about Evolution

Seems like the riders on the evolutionary owlhoot trail have a mind to deny science when it interferes with their paradigms — especially when it comes to dinosaur and other soft tissues. They raised a ruckus when soft tissues were found in the first place, saying that something was wrong. How about contamination? Fair enough. Testing was done in great detail, confirming that the soft tissues were indeed original material.

Then the Darwinoids were using some kind of science of the gaps invocation to imagine that some yet unknown process preserved blood cells, tissues, and so forth for millions of years. The evidence shows that dinosaurs did not become extinct millions of years ago, which adds to the other evidence that the Earth was created recently. They don't want to admit that.


Evolutionists tried to deny science and claim that the soft tissues in dinosaurs and other creatures were genuine. Others say they're old but remarkably well-preserved, and indulge in wild speculation about using them to map evolution.
Graphic assembled from images at Clker clipart.
Some evolutionists are in a compromise position. They admit that the tissues are real (but still very old), then use unsustainable speculations about mapping evolution. Although it is speculation about the unobserved, untestable, unrepeatable past, they still call it science.
Remember back in 2005 when we first heard that evolutionary paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer had discovered red blood cells and pliable blood vessels inside a T. rex’s leg bone? Bible-believing creationists rightly proclaimed the preservation of dinosaur soft tissue as evidence that dinosaurs were preserved in the fossil record much more recently than evolutionists claimed. Evolutionists were generally skeptical that this material could really be soft tissue belonging to a bona fide dinosaur because they—like creationists—could not believe that soft tissues could survive for millions of years.

Other scientists have now discovered soft tissue within additional upper Cretaceous fossils. Some evolutionists have come to accept the notion that soft tissue, such as collagen in a camel dated at 3.5 million years, could be preserved for at least a few million years. However, many remain skeptical that soft tissue—especially intact protein molecules—could survive in these dinosaur bones dated at 65–80 million years. They tend to attribute components of apparently ancient soft tissue to contamination, if not of the samples, then of the equipment used to analyze the material. University of York’s Matthew Collins, for instance, declared that the T. rex proteins Schweitzer sequenced were too complete to be ancient, saying, “Old proteins get damaged and destroyed, and there is no evidence of any damage in those peptides—they looked fresh and that would be surprising given their age.” Meanwhile Schweitzer and colleagues have continued their work verifying that soft tissue samples really belonged to the dinosaurs in which they were found, identifying more protein components, and even discovering one mechanism by which blood cells and vessels might be preserved.
To finish reading, click on "Do Proteins in Dinosaur Blood Vessels Map Evolutionary History?"

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Apes Are Not Our Cousins

Darwinists are fond of saying that humans and apes are remarkably similar, especially based on DNA similarities. That is a lousy comparison. After all, humans share DNA similarities with other humans, but we have obviously distinct differences from each other. Genetic similarities do not tell the whole story, and saying things to the effect that apes are kin to us except harrier is disingenuous.


Evolutionists like to say that because we have similarities in DNA with apes, so they are our hairy cousins. The truth is that there are many major differences.

In addition to genetic dissimilarities, there are many other differences to take into account. Especially in the way they act. Also, even though they can learn some rudimentary sign language, apes cannot grasp the complexities of language. If you study on it, you should be able to see that humans and apes were created separately; we are created in God's image, they aren't.
Over the past half-century or so, dozens of dedicated Darwinists have devoted decades of their lives to studying the behaviour of apes and monkeys. The public is regaled with stories about the likes of Jane Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and mountain gorillas, respectively. The social structures, behaviours, communication and so on of apes and monkeys are scrutinized for the slightest evidence that they have thoughts and minds not all that far from our own. We are regularly left to conclude that the differences between mankind and these alleged ‘close relatives’ of ours are really minor ones of degree, not kind.

Two developments in particular have comforted and reinforced the masses in such evolutionary notions.

One is the high percentage of genetic (DNA) similarity which such primates hold in common with humans. Chimp DNA is supposed to be anywhere from 96% to 98.7% identical to that of humans, depending on who is telling the story. The reason for the variation is that no-one has yet sequenced an ape’s DNA; other, much cruder techniques are used to give a ‘guesstimate’ of the similarity.
To finish reading, click on "Furry little humans?"

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Circular Reasoning, Fossils, and Deep Core Dating

Although purveyors of an old Earth don't cotton to having people know this, but their wayss of determining the age of our planet are based on bad logic and circular reasoning. Data for radiometric dating are cherry picked, and the method is loaded with assumptions. Then we get into the index fossils... 

How old are the rocks?

"Check the index fossils."

Great, so how do we know the ages of the index fossils?

"Because of the rocks they was found in, ya idjit!"


To preserve old Earth beliefs, secular scientists and their sympathizers use circular reasoning. This is apparent not only in radiometric dating and the use of index fossils, but also in deep core drilling.
Graphic based on an image from Clker clipart.
And evolutionists wonder why biblical creationists want people to learn critical thinking, reasonable skepticism, and how to spot logical fallacies!

In a like manner, there is an abundance of circular reasoning in deep core drilling, whether in ice or ocean sediments. Sure seem desperate to avoid admitting that the evidence indicates a recently-created young Earth, don't they?
Many Christians are reluctant to accept the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent creation because they believe secular dating methods prove that the earth is extremely old. The apparent agreement between seemingly independent dating methods is seen as a powerful argument for millions of years. But closer inspection reveals that these methods are not truly independent, and the agreement between them is the result of circular reasoning.

. . .

To study past climates, scientists drill and extract cylindrical rods of ice, known as ice cores, from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These cores can be thousands of meters long, and secular scientists routinely assign ages of hundreds of thousands of years to the deepest ice within these cores. However, creation scientists can plausibly account for the excessive ages assigned to these cores, as past articles have demonstrated.

Likewise, scientists also extract long cores from the ocean floor. These cores are composed of sediments that have settled on the ocean floor over time. Because deep-ocean sediments are so thick, secular scientists assume they were deposited over millions of years. This might seem reasonable since sediments accumulate very slowly today. But there is good reason to suspect that the bulk of these ocean sediments were deposited in the last half of and very shortly after the global Flood of Noah’s day.
To read the entire article in context, click on "Deep Core Dating and Circular Reasoning".


Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Poorly Understanding Evolution — and Creation

There is a frequent claim from evolutionists the people who reject evolution simply do not understand it. This is fallacious. In fact, some Darwinists show their lack of understanding of evolution, and exhibit lack of logical thinking when presenting straw man arguments of creationists and ID proponents.

One of the favorite tricks that Darwinoids have when the troll the Web is to claim, "You don't believe evolution because you don't understand it!" That may come as a shock to evolutionary scientists, as many do not understand it themselves. The whole thing is fallacious, including bifurcation (there are only two possibilities, ignoring others such as people who do have a handle on the thing and have rejected it on scientific grounds), and begging the question. There's a bit of ad hominem in there if you look closely.

Many biblical creationists reject evolution on both theological and scientific grounds. Some of us have to correct Darwinists on their own belief system, as well as showing the major flaws inherent in the system (then they often claim that they're being repressed, or words to that effect). These same crusaders for the faith of evolutionism have a heap of logical fallacies that they show no hesitation in using when attacking creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. To see some straw man and other fallacies analyzed, click on "Who Misunderstands Evolution?"