Search This Blog

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Are Evolutionary Scientists in Lockstep?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A while ago, I asked if creationary scientists need to be in lockstep, unified in all areas of science that they present. The answer is clearly no, since many fields of science, both historical and operational, change when new data is found and new hypotheses are presented. Biblical creationists are, however, generally unified on what the Bible teaches — that is not changing, but the models are fair game.

What about their secular counterparts? If you cognate on it a while, you'll see that such uniformity is not possible for the same reasons: science changes with data and new hypotheses. Unfortunately, Darwinistas will try to lasso biblical creationists with false assertions to the contrary, and say that we are opposing "science". (On a side note, science does not think, speak, or have opinions. Scientists who are doing science stuff are the ones who do those things.) When creationists are called "science deniers" because we disagree about secular views of historical science, it's interesting that the name-callers do not do the same thing to other secularists.

Various aspects of historical science, especially related to common-ancestor evolution, are presented by evolutionary proponents as if only idiots dare disagree on various subjects. The fact is, scientists have disagreements that Darwin's cheerleaders to not discuss, or may not even be willing to know.
Image credit: modified from Pixabay / Greyerbaby
One example is the Big Bang. It was resisted at first in favor of the "steady state" concept, which also had no scientific evidence, and was promoted by atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle. Although predominant, there are scientists who reject the Big Bang, and some propose the fact-free "string theory" for the universe.

Another area of dispute among scientists, but its champions present as settled science, is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Scientists are not in agreement on that, and every once in a while, "evidence" for bird-to-dinosaur evolution is challenged by secular scientists.

There are also disputes about our alleged ancestors in the evolutionary tree. Homo floresiensis, the little "hobbit" people, have several disputes surrounding them. Likewise, Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy", has had a great deal of controversy, though it was most likely just another extinct ape.

The same kind of thing goes for global warming (or "climate change"). I'll let you do your own research on the disputes regarding that, but here is one piece for your consideration.

If you can get away from the sites from Darwin's cheerleaders, you can do some research and see that many of the things presented as if there were no sane or scientific dissenters really do have dissenters. Scientists, whether evolutionary or creationary, are not in lockstep. Which is a good thing for both science and critical thinking. 

Various aspects of historical science, especially related to common-ancestor evolution, are presented by evolutionary proponents as if only idiots dare disagree on various subjects. The fact is, scientists have disagreements that Darwin's cheerleaders to not discuss, or may not even be willing to know.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Bees Coming In for a Landing

It's nice to be invited to an event and have a map on the invitation, and when you arrive, you're guided to a parking space and shown to the entrance. It may not be quite that involved with bees, but flowers are practically showing the way.


Image made at Flaming Text
God made a mutually beneficial arrangement where flowers emit electrical impulses, and bees can find where they want to go. Further, scientists ran some tests and discovered that if electric attracting devices were switched off, the bees were at a loss. Everything in this system has to be in place in both bees and flowers at the same time, or nothing works, nothing makes sense. Evolutionists cannot offer a rational explanation.
How do bees know which flowers to visit, and where on the flowers to land?

Visual cues are part of the answer. It has already been known that bees and other insects see flowers differently than humans do. Bees can sense both visible and ultraviolet light, and many flowers have markings in both wavelength (color) bands, which help to both attract pollinating insects from a distance, then guide them in to the center areas where they can find the nectar (and at the same time pollinate the flower). Bees can also detect plumes of fragrance from flowers.

It was also previously known that flowers have a slight negative electrical charge, whereas bees pick up a slight positive charge by colliding with dust particles while flying through the air. It had previously been observed with high-speed video that just before a bee lands on a flower, the positively-charged pollen particles on the bees’ legs jump across the gap and stick to the negatively charged flower.
To read the rest, buzz on over to "Flowers Create ‘Electric Landing Lights’ for Bees".

A remarkable system is in place for flowers to practically give lighted signs to guide bees to where they want to go. Evolutionists cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for the arrangement, which was clearly designed by the Creator.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Genesis Flood and Wilpena Pound

If you head north of Adelaide, South Australia, you can find Flinders Ranges National Park. There are several noteworthy geological landmarks, but our focus is on a huge basin called Wilpena Pound. The name wilpena is from an Aborignal word meaning "bent fingers", and pound is an English word for "livestock enclosure". Pretty big place to be enclosing livestock, though.


Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory
This is yet another area where uniformitarian geologists are unable to account for what is observed. Biblical creationist geologists, using the perspective of the global Genesis Flood, are able to make sense of empirical data. Lots of sediment-laden water, geological activity due to the cataclysm, receding flood waters — it all adds up, and is strong evidence for not only the Flood, but a young Earth.
Wilpena Pound is a spectacular saucer-shaped plateau perched above the surrounding countryside, some 430 km (270 miles) north of Adelaide, South Australia. Ringed by a mountain ridge in the Flinders Ranges, it’s like an enormous amphitheatre. St Mary Peak on the northern side is 1171 m (3840 ft) high, the highest in the Pound, and also in the Flinders Ranges. The features of Wilpena Pound can be convincingly explained by Noah’s Flood, the cataclysm recounted in the Bible that engulfed the planet about 4,500 years ago. In a nutshell, the sedimentary strata visible in the walls were deposited early during Noah’s Flood. Not long after, crustal movements warped and folded those sediments. Later, as the floodwaters receded from the continent, they eroded the Pound and the surrounding landscape.

In the steep escarpment that forms the edge of Wilpena Pound you can see sedimentary layers exposed, and that they are approximately horizontal. Closer up, at Rawnsley Bluff (figure 2), we can see something of the features of the sediments. The harder quartzite strata form steep cliffs, while the softer layers form sloped aprons. Geologists have given the different layers different names. The sediments forming the Pound have been called the Wilpena Group. From the surrounding countryside to the top of the rim, some 450 m (1,500 ft) of strata are exposed at Rawnsley Bluff.


Most biblical geologists would consider that these sedimentary rocks were deposited early during the global Flood. One important feature indicating these sediments were deposited in the Flood is their enormous physical size, which is a feature of the gigantic Flood catastrophe. One aspect of size is geographical extent.
To read the rest (and see the illustrations as well as related short videos), click on "The awesome wonder of Wilpena Pound, Australia — How the cataclysm of Noah’s Flood explains it".

A large basin in the Flinders Ranges, Adelaide, South Australia has remarkably strong evidence for the Genesis Flood. It is also evidence against uniformitarian geology, and in favor of a young Earth.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Plant Evolution Under the Sea

Does an octopus have seagrass in his garden? Particle-to-plant evolutionists have been having a mighty hard time fixing to explain how plants evolved. Scientists give us terms like "information is very incomplete", then assert that, although debated, the fossil record "suggests" that flower plants first appeared 160 million evolutionary years ago. You sure got it nailed down there, Hoss! 


Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.

Adding to the debate was sequencing the genome of seagrass. Biologists didn't like what they saw in it, and made several amazing assertions based entirely on their worldview, not on evidence. It re-evolved? Has missing genes? Sounds more like personal preference than actual science. Here's a thought: plants didn't evolve on land or under water because they were created. That makes the best sense of the evidence.
It's fairly easy to explain the evolution of plants, animals, or people if one presupposes that Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact. For example, evolutionists assume that flowering plants (phylum Anthophyta) evolved from non-flowering plants perhaps 160 million years ago. Several problems secular scientists face are that they don't know where this massive and diverse group of plants came from, how they arrived, or when they supposedly evolved. Does new seagrass research help solve these problems?

Biologist Futuyma wrote, "The angiosperms, or flowering plants probably originated in the late Jurassic…." These words, penned by biologist Solomon, sound similar: "The origin and early evolution of flowering plants continue to challenge botanists."

One might think fossils would clear up this mystery, but one research team wrote, "Although the information is very incomplete, the fossil record suggests that the flowering plants first appeared about 160 million years ago…." And other plant experts admit, "In spite of extensive research the origin and temporal and spatial distribution of early flowering plants are still a matter of debate."
To read the rest, click on "Seagrass Re-evolution".

Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.

Sunday, July 03, 2016

Some Birds Won't Fly

The average New Zealander is about the size of a domestic chicken. Their nostrils are at the end of their long beaks, many are endangered, and they are strongly territorial —

"That's wrong on so many levels, Cowboy Bob!"

I was doing humor based on conflation. In this case, the kiwi bird is the national symbol of New Zealand, and the people are internationally known as Kiwis. (They are also known for having a great sense of humour, a fact of which I am certain because I just made it up.) If evolutionists can use conflation (such as using variations in organisms to imply that bacteria-to-bird evolution is true), and make up their own "facts", is it necessarily wrong for other people to do the same? But I've dealt with that many times before, so don't pay it no nevermind just now. Anyway, the kiwi ties in with the rest of this post about flightless birds.


Are flightless birds the product of a common ancestor that flew, and then they lost their ability to fly later on? Creationists have different views on this, as well as rejecting long-age evolutionary assumptions.
Kiwi image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust
Although they have no scientific backing it, evolutionists believe that flightless birds evolved from a common ancestor that once flew, and these varieties lost their abilities. Naturally, biblical creationists reject the long-age naturalistic evolutionary view, but are divided: did God create some to be flightless, or did they lose their flying abilities? There are points to be made both ways, but some non-flying birds are exceptionally well suited for their environments, such as the penguin.
How would you describe a bird? Why, it is a feathered creature that flies through the air, of course! Flight is perhaps the most distinctive and enviable characteristic of birds. Genesis 1:20 even tells us that on Day Five of the Creation Week, God spoke into existence “fowl that may fly above the earth.”

But wait! There are 38 species and endemic island subspecies of flightless land birds and 26 flightless waterbirds alive today (out of approximately 10,000 present-day bird species). They can be placed in four major categories: the ratites, penguins, rails, and waterbirds (and additionally two unusual species—a parrot called the kakapo and the heron-like kagu of New Caledonia).

Did God originally design them this way, or did they lose their ability to fly? How can they be explained as part of God’s creation? Let’s take a look at each category to see any evidence of special design, and then you decide.
To read the rest, click on "Flightless Birds—Alternate Flight Plan".

Are flightless birds the product of a common ancestor that flew, and then they lost their ability to fly later on? Creationists have different views on this, as well as rejecting long-age evolutionary assumptions.