Search This Blog

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Disingenuous Search for Truth in Evolutionary Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are many double standards seen in evolutionary science, not the least of which is anti-creationist censorship. I'll allow that many of the articles seen by the public are written on the lay level (as are many secular science articles), so anti-creationists point to those and mischaracterize creationary scientists as simplistic. Not hardly!

In reality, there are also many that appeal to those with a strong science background. Want three? "A Review of Mitoribosome Structure and Function Does not Support the Serial Endosymbiotic Theory",  "A 5D spherically symmetric expanding universe is young", and a PDF, "Could Magnetic Monopoles Cause Accelerated Decay?" (I seldom share articles of this nature on weblogs and social media because most of my readers are reg'lar folk like me.) Yes, creationists do get published in scientific journals. The point is that creationary scientists are just as qualified as their secular counterparts. Unfortunately, creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are blackballed from publishing material that challenges evolution. 


Credit: Pixabay / Charnchai
In a tremendous stroke of irony, when Darwin's Flying Monkeys© swarm social media, they are generally obstreperous, chock full o' logical fallacies — and get their curly tails banned. Then they shriek about "censorship", and commence to using fake accounts for trolling, deception, and criminal impersonation to ferret out personal information from other people. This is done to silence those of us who present the truth.


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Click for larger
Yet, creationists are censored in the public arena, so we need to set up our own areas so our side of the story can be told — which often includes information that secularists do not want known because it threatens evolutionism. Interesting that those decrying "censorship" ignore real censorship against creationary scientists. Essentially, they want their pie, and they want a big chunk of ours, too! Quite a bit of effort to silence the opposition to promote "science" and deny the reality of the Creator, isn't it?

The well-heeled evolutionary science industry promotes and protects their worldview, and they don't cotton to actually seeking and spreading truth. Let's look at an example of hypocrisy and non-science from the evolution industry.
When your view has been falsified by evidence but you prohibit other views, you are not engaged in truth-based inquiry.
In a book review in Science, Marcos Huerta enjoys a fact-free suggestion about the Cambrian Explosion he found in Wallace Arthur’s new book of sweeping generalities about evolution, Life through Time and Space. Shutting his eyes to fossil data, he switches on his imagination:
To read the rest, click on "Evolution Is Not Truth-Based Inquiry".

Advocates of evolutionism disingenuously say that they want to search for the truth, then shut out creationary scientists and ID advocates. Then they hypocritically complain about "censorship" while approving of scientific censorship in their favor: they want their pie, and they want ours as well.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Archaeology, Same-Sex Relationships, and the Apostle Paul

In AD 79. an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius suddenly wiped out the inhabitants of the Roman town of Pompeii, among others. That bad boy has not remained silent, and could be devastating to the 3,000,000 people in the area, who ignored the idea of not living near an active volcano. Didn't work for people in 79. (Useless trivia: Pompeii is pronounced pom-PAY, but a small community in Gratiot County, Michigan has the same spelling, and locals pronounce it POM-pay-eye. I was laughed at for using that pronunciation because as a kid, I lived near there, and did not know the real way.) So anyway, the tons of ash that fell on Pompeii was an effective preservative, and archaeologists have made many interesting discoveries.

Pompeii destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius, archaeology used to justify same-sex relationships
The Last Day of Pompeii / Karl Bryullov, 1833
Apostate clergyman Steve Chalke, who denies original sin in Genesis 3 and affirms the Pelagian heresy, believes that "erotic art" excavated by archaeologists at Pompeii refutes established Christian understandings of Paul's teachings about homosexuality. How Chalke diagrams his logic on the blackboard is unknown. He is joining in with other owlhoots who say that in Romans 1, Paul was only speaking of sexual abuse, but thought that same-sex "marriage" was acceptable. Such a claim impugns the integrity of God, the establishment of marriage in Genesis, its affirmation by Jesus, and implies that God is willing to let people misunderstand his word for 2,000 years.
In a recent lecture, a professing evangelical pastor in the UK, Steve Chalke argued1 that ancient erotic art from Pompeii, an ancient Roman town buried by a volcanic eruption in AD 79, shows that “New Testament verses that are used routinely to label same-sex activity as sinful were, in fact” not doing so.
Christians “Throw Bible Verses Around Without . . . Context”
Chalke reportedly asserted that “because of widespread ignorance of the ancient world and Graeco-Roman culture in churches across the West, we throw Bible verses around without understanding their context.” These pieces of explicit artwork supposedly provide the context to show that the New Testament is “condemning the abusive and exploitative sexual activity common in the world that Paul’s recipients lived in” rather than forbidding “faithful gay relationships” among Christians.
To finish reading, click on "Does Ancient Art from Pompeii Prove the Bible Supports Gay 'Marriage'?"
  
Excavated items from Pompeii are being used to justify same-sex relationships. Not only is the logic poor, but the theology in play is outrageous.

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Teaching Evolutionary Falsehoods to Children

It's natural for parents to try to shield their children from harmful things, but that can to too far and turn into "smother love". Some Christian parents have the incorrect notion that their kids should never learn about evolution. That's unrealistic, since the owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch control government-run indoctrination centers (schools), the media, secular science, public opinion, and much more. They're going to learn about it, so what can Bible-believing parents do?


Bible-believing parents can educate children correctly about evolution.
Credit: Pixabay / 7854
Out there in the real world (with a passel of help from the internet), there are sidewinders who actively attack God, the Bible, the Resurrection, creation, and other Christian beliefs. They will selectively cite data, misquote the Bible, use fake science (such as the "Canaanites disprove the Bible" fiasco or the "family tomb of Jesus" nonsense), and especially evolution. Evolution is foundational to atheism and many (if not most) secularist views.

Other attacks on our faith can be investigated and dealt with (often by simply waiting for more information), so let's focus on evolution. Christians need to be proactive. We know kids are going to learn about evolution, and some parents teach it to their own children. The difference is that the wise parent will teach it properly. In schools and such, the sanitized version of evolution is given, where flaws in the theory are ignored, and fanciful tales are presented as if they were science.


Take the kids to the natural history museums, and show them just how unnatural they are. As before, stories are presented as facts, our putative evolutionary apelike ancestors have suspiciously human-looking eyes when no scientist has any idea what the eyes actually looked like, so people are seeing opinions presented as scientific fact. I've read about parents and Christian teachers that took children to museums, and they troubled the guides' propaganda by raising points and asking questions.

Schools are dreadful at teaching critical thinking skills nowadays, and creation science ministries emphasize those skills. When presented with claims, the properly educated student or adult can ask probing questions, consider the theory of knowledge behind the claims, realize that most evolutionists have a materialist atheistic worldview that rejects facts that they dislike, and so on. We can prepare children for the lies they are going to be told, and how to deal with them.
Some parents are afraid that teaching their children unbiblical ideas like evolution or atheistic arguments would cause them to stumble in their faith, but the opposite is true. Our children are going to be exposed to evolution whether we like it or not. It’s not a matter of ‘if’; it’s a matter of ‘when’. Knowing this, one of the best things we can do for our children is to teach them unbiblical ideas, or in short, how the world thinks. Because if we do not, others will provide seeming explanations that might seem more plausible.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article. Just click on "'What?… Teach my children unbiblical ideas?' — Inoculate your children against compromise by teaching them the answers". IN ADDITION, I hope you'll read this informative article as well, "Seven ways to build a lighthouse — How Christian parents can help their kids navigate evolutionary education".
  
Bible-believing parents cannot, and should not, shield their children from evolution and other attacks on their faith. Proper education can help them deal with such matters.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Is Belief in Creation Fading?

A 2017 Gallup poll shows a decline in the number of Americans who profess belief in special creation without Darwin. A significant number believe that God had a hand in particles-to-propagandist evolution, and then there are those who believe in atheistic evolutionism. Does this reflect reality?


Credit: Pixabay / Barbara Rosner
While any poll can be suspect since we're not given many details, let's just assume that Gallup is being it's reputable self and the results are on the level. Biblical creationists would rightly ask why this is happening. There are several reasons, including the liberalization of Christianity, laziness in Christians regarding learning the truth of creation and teaching their children, peer pressure, and more.

Additional reasons for the fading belief in creation include, bluntly, persecution in academia and the secular establishment. Creationary students have been advised to keep their beliefs quiet until they get the degrees, and possibly the jobs, that they want. Professors tend to be not only leftists, but vehement misotheist bullies who seek to destroy the faith of students. Even teachers who believe in creation have to get out of Dodge; the author of the main article linked below, Dr. Jerry Bergman, was fired for his creationary beliefs and has written books about the struggles of other creationists.

The scientific and logical evidence supports biblical creation, but ideologues in educational power (coupled with lazy, compromising Christians) exert pressure on students who can leave home as believers and come back as atheists! Creation science is streng verboten, as is Intelligent Design, and fundamentalist Darwinists control the propaganda. Evolutionism is presented, but not any of the flaws. Only the sanitized propaganda is given.

Darwinism is the prevailing viewpoint in many nations, and the United States is following the trail ridden by highly secularized (as well as socialist and communist) countries elsewhere. Evolution is not to be criticized, or  Darwin's Flying Monkeys© will get you fired and probably burn a dumpster in front of your house just for the fun of it. My exaggeration on the dumpster part is only slight, but reflects the anger and fear of losing control in the secular science industry and academia — as well as trolling the internet. The truth is on our side, but they have control and an efficient propaganda machine and aren't afraid to use it to indoctrinate people.
A new Gallup poll shows, for the first time since the poll on this subject began, “a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the ‘Young Earth’ creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.” According to the poll, taken in May, the portion of the American public taking the creation position now stands at 38%. Furthermore, fifty-seven percent accept the “scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.” The poll reveals the largest factor in the shift is the jump in the number of Christians who see evolution as God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.
To finish reading, click on "Is Creationism on the Decline? If So, Why?" You may also like to read "Belief in Creation Declines".
  
A poll shows that Americans are becoming more like other secularized nations, accepting Darwinism and rejecting special creation in increasing numbers. Although truth, logic, and science are on our side, why is this happening?

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Whale Study Supports Creation Model

A study on how whales became the largest mammals on Earth had some interesting speculations, with homage to Darwin and just-so stories added. Short answer: they got big because they ate a lot. The long answer involves conditions that gave them the proper food with the right quantity and quality. 

The study was evolutionary in nature, but variations in critters isn't evolution, it's simply variations. Nothing is changing into something else, like the fish-to-land-animals-back-to-the-sea whale evolution foolishness, you savvy? In fact, none of the long-age evolutionary claims can be substantiated. The blue whale evolution concept has failed as well. That's because they were created, and not the product of evolution.

Humpback whale "breeching" image credit: Sally Mizroch,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Several possible conditions that led to baleen whales' increase in size, such as ocean upwelling bringing nutrients, the Ice Age, windblown iron-rich dust assisting phytoplankton and helping with that food chain, and other possibilities fit right in with Genesis Flood models. Conditions during and after the Flood may have matched the evolutionary speculations, but without the millions of Darwin years obtained by circular reasoning and a whole whack of assumptions.
A study published in May in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B hypothesized how and when baleen whales (those which filter feed plankton, krill, and other small creatures) grew so large. Previous hypotheses on the subject had come up with several potential methodologies: change in diet to a particular niche, response to macropredator size, loss of competition for resources, larger intake of food, localized prey density, and so on. They were surprised to discover a correlation between intense wind-driven ocean upwelling and baleen whale body size. They also found that, by comparing baleen whales from the fossil record, today’s giant whales (like the blue whale) grew in size rapidly, starting at about the time of the late Pliocene (supposedly 3 million years ago) through to the late Pleistocene (conventionally dated to 100,000 years ago); the entire time period in Flood geology terms would be during the Ice Age (c. 2300–1900 BC).
To read the rest, click on "How and When Did Baleen Whales Get So Large?

A study on the evolution and size of baleen whales raised some interesting speculations. Some of the more reasonable material supports creation science Genesis Flood models.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Chowing Down on Propane

Some people say that the little things in life are what matter. We can adjust that to say that little living things matter. This goes all the way down to bacteria. Many people know that even though there are harmful bacteria, there are many that are necessary for life. Some even help protect the environment.

Mostly made at Atom Smasher
Way down in the deep blue sea are organisms that live on asphalt volcanoes and essentially chow down on propane. Seems weird, but it's true. It's also frustrating for evolutionists to explain the symbiotic relationship among the critters living there, and waving it off as EvolutionDidIt is beyond credibility.

So, why is it different when biblical creationists say that God created bacteria to adapt and to eat propane, and have a quid pro quo happening with other creatures? I think the principle of the impossibility of the contrary may apply. That is, although they don't want to admit that the Creator's design is the logical conclusion, evolution is clearly impossible. But fundamentalist evolutionists cling to their stories despite the lack of models, science, or logic.
Asphalt volcanos really do exist on the ocean floor. They leak natural gas, oil, and the same type of black glop we use for road pavement. They have been oozing for who knows how long, although scientists discovered them only 15 or so years ago. Unique sea creatures team up to eat their petroleum products. How could any living thing live off natural gas?
We know of special bacteria that eat oil. For example, they cleaned up the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill more quickly than some thought possible. But the mussels, sea worms, crabs, sponges, and other animals that thrive on the slopes of asphalt volcanoes cannot eat oil.
To eat up the rest of this article, click on "Propane Eaters Spur Creation Questions".
   
So, deep sea bacteria help clean up the environment by eating asphalt and propane. This frustrates evolutionists, since they have no plausible evidence or models. They also reject creation out of hand, even though it's the logical conclusion to what's happening way down in the oceans.

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Bad Assumptions to Attack the Bible

Christians and creationists encounter the so-called "New Atheists" as keyboard warriors, attacking God, the Bible, Christianity, Christians, and especially creation science. You'll probably encounter that one guy who acts like he is the one to come up with some great new insight to cause the collapse of theism, all by his lonesome. Better thinkers than you have tried and failed with the same arguments for a long, long time, Poindexter.


The Penitent Apostle Peter, Anthony van Dyck, 1618
When you study on it, you'll see that the logically impaired arguments leveled by misotheists today have a great deal in common with criticisms of the Bible used in days of yore. Today, we deal with speculations passed off as "science", with "scientists think", "maybe", "could have been", "perhaps", and so forth. Similarly, there were heretics that made up their own false theologies, and others who would join in by making up excuses essentially based on naturalistic philosophies. 

Arguing from presuppositions (assumptions about what is true) and faulty epistemology (how someone knows something is true) are joined up with bad logic. "Prophesies were not fulfilled, and made up after the fact". "The Virgin Birth was a cover-up for Mary's pregnancy from a Roman soldier". "What the apostles wrote about the life of Jesus has little resemblance for what really happened". How do you know that? Were you there, or can you furnish reliable eyewitness accounts? Do you have anything resembling evidence, or do you rely on prejudicial conjecture? A bit of critical thinking and challenge can make fluster naysayers.
Is the Bible the reliable Word of God or a fallible collection of human religious ideas? The purpose of this article is to show that the conflict between secular science and the Bible is not new, but dates back to the days of the early church. Greek scientists like Porphyry and Celsus questioned the reliability of the contents of Genesis, Jonah, Daniel, as well as the factuality of Jesus’ Virgin Birth and Resurrection. This paper will demonstrate how early Greek scholars alleged that the holy Christian Scriptures were unreliable productions of men and will consider the commitment of the early church to these writings as the voice of God.
To read the rest of the article and see the poor reasoning of misotheists, click on "Battle for the Bible in the early church".
   
Misotheists today have a great deal in common with the anti-Christians of ancient times. Unbelievers and heretics would use bad logic and assumptions that had no basis in fact.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Another Evolution Revolution?


There's a whole heap of consternation going on in muck-to-man evolutionary circles. Yet again, they make much ado about practically nothing. Paleontologists have a piece of bone and a tooth, and it means that they have to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Watch the textbooks not get changed. Again. 

Trouble arises because because of evolutionary presuppositions and the narrative that humans and chimpanzees split off the Darwinian timeline and commenced to evolving their separate ways in Europe instead of Africa. Katie, bar the door! It would help matters a great deal if they avoided bad science and had a realistic worldview — such as the eyewitness account of creation, that wasn't threatened to be overturned when supposedly significant items are discovered. But they don't cotton to hearing the truth.
The CBC News headline “7.2-million-year-old pre-human fossils challenge evolutionary theory” tells it all. Another headline at The Telegraph was more confident, exclaiming that “the history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa” as previously thought. The source of these and many other reports was an article published in PLoS One that was far more modest than the frequent headlines that were very confident of the conclusions.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Yet Another Revolution in Human Evolution". For additional information, I recommend "'Prehuman' Fossil Age Questioned".
   
Evolutionary paleontologists made fragmentary discoveries that should supposedly cause a revolution in evolution. The big deal is made of very little information, and caused by bad science coupled with evolutionary presuppositions. They actually have nothing of significance.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

A Monstrous Muddle for Evolutionists

Way back when, scientists thought that the platypus was a prank, what with looking like it was built from spare parts and all, and being unfriendly to evolutionary classifications. Jump forward about 150 years from the "you gotta be kidding me" time, and we get another one: a fossil called Tullimonstrum, or the Tully Monster. Not the kind of monster that will jump out and eat your car, since it was 10 cm (4 inches) long.


Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu TamuraCC BY-SA 4.0
This, too, looks like it came from spare parts. Seems like scientists would be suspicious, since it was first discovered in the 1950s in Illinois, and no other fossils appear to have been found. Darwinists have dust-ups over how to classify the thing, and you'll find articles about the mystery being solved, no it is not, and so on. I suspicion that this was made by our Creator to remind us that there's still very much that we don't know.
From a biologist’s perspective, a few identifying clues stand out—but only a few. One is that it had a notochord. A notochord is a stiff rod made of cartilage that runs down an animal’s back like a backbone, providing support while it is an embryo. All vertebrates and some invertebrates have notochords. In vertebrates, the notochord can later become part of the vertebral column. This makes it an important clue to one of the most basic distinctions in biology: was the Tully monster a vertebrate or an invertebrate?
To read the entire article in context (or download the MP3), click on "How to Solve a Monster Mystery".

The "Tully Monster" is a strange creature known from fossils, and those are found in only one area. It defies evolution, but is not a problem for biblical creationists.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Reproducibility Crisis in the Science Industry

One of the axioms we were taught about science is that someone floats a hypothesis, gives it some testing or adjustments, discards if necessary, then the hypothesis graduates into a theory and possibly becomes a fact. Looks good on paper, but there is a serious problem in the science industry called the reproducibility crisis. Essentially, there's not much happening in the area of retesting and verification. It's bad enough in origins science, but when it affects people's lives through biomedical research, that's mighty low.

Credit: Freeimages / doctor-a (modified)
There are several reasons for this. One of the main reasons is that fame and fortune in the secular science industry goes to the ones who have the sensational news, especially if it claims to give evidence for minerals-to-mycologist evolution. Scientists and other people also need to know what does not work, but that information is often neglected.

In origins research, sometimes it actually is difficult to reproduce someone's research. Try obtaining the original material that was tested. Also, evolutionists are biased, and want to prove their point (often to give them self-justification in their rebellion against the Creator). Kind of hard to tell if their papers gave all the facts. Actually, we've seen that pertinent facts are omitted (here is one example), so it can make someone a mite wary when asked to take someone's word for something.

Another reason that test results are not reproduced often enough is human nature. We like incentives (I get an occasional gift card for working enough overtime, but I doubt that a gift card to the lab's commissary would be sufficient for them). Many people want the glory, and will cut corners and even cheat to get it. Because of the pressure to perform that some scientists face, well, they may do what it takes to get recognized. No glory in replication of someone else's work. But there may be some accolades in discovering that a "great discovery" was actually more fake science news. Some folks are stepping up and sounding the alarm.
Concerns about unreliable findings in biomedical research, such as cancer research, have been well documented. The problem is known as the ‘reproducibility crisis.’ If this is a problem in a field open to observation and visible in the here and now—biomedical research—what about evolution, which is based on events and extinct life forms that are claimed to have existed eons ago?
University of Bristol Professor Marcus Munafò writes in Nature in a book review about the crisis,
Nuh uh. You have to read the professor's remarks and the rest of the article by clicking on "Unreliability in Science Reaches Epic Proportions". You can also listen to an audio version with surprisingly good text-to-speech voices.

The inability and unwillingness to reproduce research in biomedical and evolutionary science is becoming outrageous. It also illustrates the fact that secular scientists are human and prone to the same vices as the rest of us.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Heretics in Secular Cosmology

The dominant secular concept for the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang, but y'all probably knew that. It's been around less than a hundred years, preceded by the Steady State. Astronomer Fred Hoyle disliked the Big Bang and gave it that moniker out of derision, but it stuck. Neither speculation about the universe has any significant observational evidence.

Credit: kraifreedom / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The Big Bang of today is not the same as in Ol' Grandad's day. Flaws are found, and it keeps getting modified with rescuing devices that look good on paper, but still have no observational evidence. Now you're more likely to hear about "inflationary theory", and some ornery cuss may want to slap leather with your for calling the Big Bang an explosion — but that's how it was established. Fundamentalist atheists and other secularists are like biblical Christians in one respect: low tolerance for heretics. In this case, the heresy is that a few cosmologists are disputing the scientific validity of inflation, and others are circling the wagons against those who are disputing the consensus. All that hassle to cling to cosmic evolution, and they're all wrong: the universe was created, and created recently. No explosion, inflation, or anything else. As for Christians, there's no valid reason for you to hang your hat on materialistic ideas when you have God's Word, you savvy?
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory. They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.
Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.
To finish reading, click on "Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American".

Atheists do not tolerate cosmological heretics. In this case, some are daring to say that "inflationary theory" has no evidence, and cannot save the Big Bang.

Sunday, July 02, 2017

Bizarre Burrowing Rodent Befuddles Darwinists

Much as I wanted to skip this article because the creature under consideration is ghastly to behold, once again, the ugly things that trigger the "eww factor" are actually quite interesting. I'd rather use the name sand puppy, the naked mole-rat

"Isn't Naked Mole-Rat the CIA code name for Hillary Clinton?"

Now, be nice, this isn't a political piece. Besides, the White House Communications Agency selected Evergreen for her, but code words change over time. Donald Trump's name is Mogul. Code words — hey, nice job of getting me on a rabbit trail.

So anyway, the naked mole-rat is native to Africa, and in a separate family from other mole-rats. It has several unique properties that thwart ribosome-to-rodent evolution and illustrate some of the Designer's abilities.

Fun fact: the naked mole-rat is modest at the beach and uses a changing room
Image credit: Pixabay / cocoparisienne
Although a mammal and having many needs of other mammals, this puppy acts almost cold-blooded because it has some control in regulating its body temperature (thermoregulation). The nekkid mole-rat also has the ability to live for much longer periods of time in an oxygen-deprived environment, and can live on (of all things) fructose. This critter is relegated to evolution's mysterium tremendum, since they cannot offer a reasonable explanation and simply say that it exists and has these features, therefore, evolution. That's not science, old son, that's faith. It does not take blind faith to reach the logical conclusion that the complexities (and possible medical benefits from studying) of the naked mole rat are the product of our Creator.
Naked mole-rats are highly social, cold-blooded, subterranean mammals. They live much longer than most rodents and are pain resistant, cancer resistant, and suffocation resistant. These characteristics naturally intrigue scientists wanting to help people live longer, healthier lives. The naked mole-rat’s decreased sensitivity to pain, for instance, results from a mutation affecting nerve function, and study of this mutation may reveal ways to decrease chronic pain in people. The latest naked-mole-rat discovery has awakened hopes for innovative medical interventions for heart attacks and strokes. These are events that damage the heart and brain through oxygen deprivation.
To finish reading, click on "Naked Mole-Rats: Evolutionary Marvel or God’s Grand Design?"

An amazingly ugly creature has some amazing survival abilities. It also thwarts evolution. In addition, it is being studied by medical scientists for imitating its abilities for humans! 

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Bad Behavior and Evolutionary Thinking

Darwin devotees assume that we evolved from savage brutes and did almost nothing for most of our alleged history. This defies human nature. Evolutionists contradict themselves on the definition of human nature, and especially where it came from.

When challenged to give a source for morality, some atheists say that they obtain it from evolution. Such a concept is difficult to reconcile with people who say that evolution is just a biological theory and is not a part of daily life. In reality, evolution is not confined to academic and scientific discussions, as it permeates multiple facets of society itself.

Mostly made at Atom Smasher
One way to tell if a philosophy is permeated with problems is that is inconsistent. Atheism is both arbitrary and inconsistent, and appealing to evolution is ridiculous. Our chimpanzee "cousins" engage in cannibalism, torture, rape, and more. We can't say that it's wrong, because they are animals doing animal stuff, but when we engage in such activities, those are immoral. To be consistent, why are they wrong? According to evolutionism, we are the strong ones at the top of the food chain. Whatever an individual or a group thinks is the best way to survive should be acceptable. In reality, the final source of morality and ethics is God's Word, and we are created in his image.
If you subscribe to news feeds, read the newspaper, or watch TV, you could be forgiven for thinking that we modern humans have been behaving very badly. In recent years, we have variously been blamed for causing: global cooling, global warming, famines, floods, mass extinctions, plagues, deforestation, landslides, earthquakes, and much, much more. All the problems on planet Earth are apparently our fault, and it’s only supposed to get worse. Naturalist and evolutionist Sir David Attenborough summed up this thinking well: “Humans are a plague on earth.” But this raises an interesting question: if naturalistic evolution is true, why does it matter that we’re a “plague on earth”?
To read the rest, click on "Evolution vs human behaviour — Human behaviour belies evolutionary explanations for our existence".

When evolutionists complain that humans are immoral, they are being inconsistent. According to their worldview, it's survival of the fittest, and we're going whatever it takes, singly or in groups, to improve our survival. The biblical worldview has very different reasons for morality.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Scientists Discover Men and Women are Different

Who would have believed that men and women are actually different if scientists had not said so? Actually, most of us already knew that. We have different hardware, software, and firmware. The postmodern political correctness movement is pressuring the American military to lower fitness standards for women to do that same combat jobs as men, which is admitting that the differences between sexes exist. Last I knew, the Marines were not having any of that.


The Luncheon Of The Boating Party, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1880-1881
Our obvious differences are can also be seen through genetics. Bill Nye the Leftist Agenda Guy's views on gender have changed (not because of science), and his earlier TV show about the clear science has been edited to reflect his evolving non-science views. Listen up, pilgrim: those who want to deny what God told us back in Genesis about only two sexes are not only Scripture deniers, they are science deniers. We know that secularists try mighty hard to avoid admitting that the Bible is right about something, but they cannot change the truth. There's a passel of genetic differences between men and women, and even between male and female critters. What we also see is an accumulation of mutations, which is devolution.
An article in New Scientist titled “Sex Differences in Human Gene Expression” concluded that “Researchers uncover thousands of genes whose activity varies between men and women.” Specifically, their study found 6,500 genes were differentially expressed. They concluded that men and women are distinctly dimorphic, consequently one result of this fact is that they have very dissimilar disease susceptibilities. The sexual dimorphic traits result mainly from differential expression of the genes that exist in both sexes. These results strongly go against the current politically correct view that the only differences between males and females are a few minor plumbing variations and a couple of small hormones.
To read the rest, click on "Surprise: Men and Women Greatly Differ Genetically". Also recommended is this episode of Dr. Albert Mohler's The Briefing, (which you can listen, download, or read the transcript) that has two pertinent segments: Bill Nye again, and the pregnant "man".

Once again, the Bible is proven right. In this case, scientists discover what God said and what everybody knows: men and women are not the same. The difference in this study is that there are profound differences on the genetic level.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Underground Agents of Regeneration

They work underground, seldom seen. There are many of them, and they are working to make our lives better. Sounds like a spy movie or something, but in this case, the underground is literal. We're talking about earthworms. Some folks only think of them when a robin yanks one out of the ground or someone uses them for fishing. Farmers have greater understanding and appreciation of them.

Credit: USAID (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There are bunches of earthworms in the soil, and they are just doing worm stuff. They eat, burrow, poop — and their activity benefits the soil, therefore, benefits us as well. Since they eat waste and since billions of people do not have proper sanitation facilities, USAID has a project called Tiger Toilet to use the wrigglers in breaking down human waste products! Initial results are promising, with a benefit of comparative lack of odor. For more about this, click on "Testing the 'Tiger Toilet'" and "The Results Are In: Tiger Toilets Field Trial Findings".

In his wisdom, God gave us earthworms to help regenerate soil and break down waste, and we're using the creatures. Creepy evolutionists at Darwin's Ranch are stealing credit from God and giving worms credit for the ecology that led to the Cambrian Explosion. What are those ranch hands smoking, anyway?

Despite their size, earthworms are surprisingly helpful creatures. They occasionally venture above ground in broad daylight but are mostly night crawlers. They are best known for their underground habits, such as recycling organic waste, aerating soil, and helping organic matter to decompose.
Earthworms are detritivores—garbage eaters—the ultimate in dirt-digesting junk-food consumers. They eat almost anything—scraps of fruit, morsels of dead animal flesh, leaf litter, etc. As an earthy, underground version of “filter feeders,” they ingest whatever is buried and rotting in topsoil or within near-surface soil. Meadows and pastures are crawling with worms! Their numbers may reach above 300,000 per acre, especially in chalky clay soil. The aggregate weight of a dairy farm’s earthworms likely outweighs the total weight of livestock grazing above them.
To burrow into the rest, click on "Thank God for Earthworms!"
   
Our Creator has blessed us with crawly things. Earthworms are beneficial for soil and waste disposal as well as other ways of helping us.

Sunday, June 04, 2017

Tiny Motors that Help Keep You Alive

Do you hear the trillions of motors working inside you at this very moment? Of course not. They're tiny, and they're basically swimming. Bacteria and most cells have them, and the bacteria have flagella that motor around performing their own functions. Cells have something very similar called cilia, but they are built quite differently than flagella.

Credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation
These motors are part of the equipment that God gave us to help keep us going. They are also very frustrating for evolutionists, as their specified complexity cannot be explained by evolutionary conjectures, and evolutionary scientists admit that one did not lead to the evolution of the other.
Inside your body are trillions of little hair-like whips attached to most of your cells. They are constantly moving, pushing debris out of your body and sensing the world around them. A couple of centuries ago, biologists assumed they were useless remnants of bacterial evolution. Now medical researchers have found those ideas were dead wrong. These structures are essential for life and are found in virtually every organism—from algae and plants to reptiles and mammals.

The complexity of these structures, which contain functional motors, astounds evolutionists, who cannot explain how so many intricate, interacting parts could arise together. Yet they remain doggedly certain an answer is within reach. Just one problem—they also have to explain how these motors adopted such different essential roles within each creature on the planet! 
To finish reading, click on "The Motor of Life".

Trillions of unbelievably small and intricate motors are inside you, helping keep you alive. They defy evolutionary speculations and illustrate the ingenuity of our Creator.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Evolutionists Get Silly with Silicon

Silicon is something that we hear about quite frequently, since it has many variations and applications. You've heard of silica? There's some. The stuff is found all over the place, especially since ninety percent of Earth's crust has it. We use it in many forms, including concrete, porcelain, abrasives, and purified silicon is used in electronics. Found in nature, too. Not so much in animal life, though. Some evolutionists have the notion that silicon could be the basis of life on other planets.

Purified silicon image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Enricoros
Since they were able to force bacteria to use silicon. Big deal. Still, they figure that since silicon is chemically similar to carbon, and silicon might be abundant on some other planet, then mayhaps life evolved using silicon. The first problem is that they presupposed evolution and denied the work of the Creator, then assumed evolution elsewhere in the universe. That's what they do. It's disheartening to see scientists using bad logic and ignoring basic chemistry in their pursuit of affirming evolutionary dogma with "maybe" and "perhaps".
Recent research from the laboratory of Frances Arnold shows, for the first time, that bacteria can be made to create organosilicon compounds. Of course, this does not prove that silicon- or organosilicon-based life is possible, but according to Space.com contributor Charles Q. Choi it “shows that life could be persuaded to incorporate silicon into its basic components”.
Carbon is the backbone of the most important biological molecules, including DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, sugars, hormones, etc. Even calcium-rich bones are formed on a carbon-based protein scaffold. Life on Earth is based exclusively on carbon. The chemistry of carbon permits it to form the long-chain molecules, which serve as the basis for life. 
To finish reading, click on "Silicon based bugs — Scientists discover the first silicon-based life forms … in their imagination!"

Some evolutionists are manipulating bacteria in hopes that it will show the possibility of evolution from silicon. These scientists conveniently ignore basic chemistry and biology in the pursuit of their false narrative.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Still Unclear on the Evolution Concept


There's a great deal of confusion about the meaning of the word evolution, and Darwin's Disciples use it to their advantage. Several different definitions exist, but the usual perception is that it means particles-to-poet common-ancestor evolution, which is supposed to be purposeless. Proponents of this kind of evolution often conflate evolution with natural selection or variation, and then mislead people (perhaps even misleading themselves) by presenting something that is not evolution as evolution. Then these sidewinders can say that they have "proof" of their brand of evolution. This also enables the blatant lie that creationists who deny evolution are "science deniers".

But do they even know what it means? We expect people to say societal, cultural, linguistic, and other things as evolution, and that seldom invokes Darwinian principles. There are often presentations of evolution that are animistic and pantheistic, giving evolution a kind of intelligence and teleology, which makes evolution a deity with the ability to choose. But they deny the Creator who gave them life and a nice planet to live on. So evolution is an intelligent designer? Can't have it both ways, kids.

More obfuscation occurs when Darwinian ideas as used in an intelligently designed program in meteorology. Yes, you heard me right. Evolutionary thinking is becoming increasingly fatuous, especially when applied to social systems and technology. To read some really wacky material on deranged Darwinism, click on "Pretending Intelligent Design Is Like Evolution".

Evolutionists confuse people on the meaning of the word "evolution" to improve their ability for deception, but they are confused themselves. Programming for meteorology using Darwinian ideas? Spare us.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

More Dinosaur Protein Fragments Interfere with Evolution

Several things make fundamentalist evolutionists go haywire. Two of them are the increasing evidence against Lucy as a part of human lineage, and the soft tissues, blood cells, collagen, and the like in dinosaur bones. Bring these topics up, and the hands at the Darwin Ranch have to work overtime at the Propaganda Mill to defend their paradigm.


Made at the Breaking News Generator
Mary Schweitzer took a lot of heat for her studies in dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists didn't cotton to the news and threw her under the prairie schooner, saying that there must have been some foul-ups somewhere because they couldn't handle the implications: soft tissues and so on can't last millions of years. That indicates they're not as old as evolutionists claim. Schweitzer tried to come up with a rescuing device involving iron as a preservative, but that was untenable. Discoveries kept on rolling in, none of them friendly to long ages, but fit the biblical creation timeline.
When Jurassic Park hit the box office in 1993, the idea that dinosaur DNA—as in the movie—or proteins could still be available for study in the modern world seemed to be pure fantasy. And 12 years later, when Dr. Mary Schweitzer found red blood cells and blood vessels inside a fossilized dinosaur bone, much of the scientific community still found the idea preposterous. After all, how could fragile biological molecules or soft tissues be preserved for millions of years?

Mary Schweitzer published papers in 2007 and 2009 asserting that her team had isolated collagen from dinosaur bone. In the face of continuing skepticism, she and others have continued applying new technology to old bones, seeking to prove that that the proteins they have found are the real deal, not modern contaminants. The latest additions to this growing body of research came from two far-flung research centers, again asserting that dinosaur soft tissues and proteins have survived not only in fossilized material believed to be 80 million years old, but even in fossils dated 195 million years old.
To keep reading the bad news for Darwin, click on "Preservation of Dinosaur Protein Fragments Flies in the Face of Evolution’s Millions-of-Years". For a similar report with additional information, see "Definitely Dinosaur Protein". Also, if you want a technical report, for free, by microscopist Mark Armitage, "Preservation of 'Triceratops horridus' Tissue Cells from the Hell Creek Formation, MT", the instructions for how to obtain that are in the right-hand column in this post at The Question Evolution Project.

Evolutionists are upset by reports of soft tissues, blood cells, and more in dinosaur bones. More news is bad news for them, but support the biblical creation timeline quite nicely. Dr. Schweitzer confirmed her previous work.

Sunday, May 07, 2017

Careful, Those Plankton are Armed!

Way back yonder in the olden days, I was taught that single-celled organisms were "simple". Lots of people were for a mighty long time. Then, better technology helped better research, and lo and behold, now we know that single-celled organisms are not so simple. This puts a burr under the saddles of Darwinoids because it goes against their narrative. It also startles them when lower life forms pack firepower.


Credit: Matthew Trump / Wikimedia Commons
It was amazing enough to learn that certain shrimp were looking to slap leather with their version of pistols, Now we learn that some dinoflagellates have a form of Gatling gun firepower. That's right, the tiny critters go a-hunting! Evolutionists expect simple things to be uncomplicated and cooperative with the story that simple things evolved into more complex things. They tend to invoke the non-science of the gaps, "convergent evolution". Creationists know that life has specified complexity that was given to it by our Creator.
Plankton is the general name for the tiny creatures that drift with ocean tides and currents and form the basis of the ocean’s food chain. Phytoplankton (plants) undergo photosynthesis and are made up mainly of diatoms. Zooplankton (animals) include protozoa which feed on diatoms, and baleen whales (the non-toothed variety) feast on both kinds of plankton.
To finish reading, click on "Lowly Plankton Packs High-Caliber Heat".

Creationists know that things were designed for their own purposes. Evolutionists believe the simpler organisms are very simple, and that's why they are surprised so often by new discoveries. In this case, dinoflagellates have fire power for hunting.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Return of the Carnivorous Lorikeets

Remember a spell back when we posted about birds in the parrot family that got a notion to chow down on flesh? Scientists were startled by this news. Turns out, though, that they may not have been if they were paying attention to such strange goings-on around them.

Credit: Morguefile / wallyir
Years ago, when I played Dungeons and Dragons, I developed my on monster called the piranhakeet. You can tell I didn't take the game seriously. But I didn't realize that there was a modicum of science in my silliness.

Let's back up a mite. In the beginning, everything was created not only very good, but vegetarian. After the Fall and Flood, lots of changes happened. Critters developed a taste for other critters, and some for humans. And humans were given license to eat God's gift of tasty animals. But birds? Sure, some eat worms and bugs, but actual meat? It turns out that carnivorous birds have been around for longer than scientists thought — and not just parrots.
When Professor Daryl Jones of Griffith University, Australia, first heard of rainbow lorikeets eating meat, he was “shocked”. Rainbow lorikeets are a beautiful Australian parrot species (Trichoglossus haematodus) renowned for eating fruit (much to the dismay of orchardists!), as well as seeds, nectar, and pollen. In other words, 100% herbivorous. But two years ago the owner of a back yard bird-feeding station north of Brisbane reported that lorikeets were eating the mincemeat he’d left out for carnivorous birds, e.g. magpies, kookaburras, and butcher birds.
To chew on the rest of the article, click on "More meat-eating lorikeets (and other parrots, too)".

In the beginning, everything was vegetarian. After the Fall, then the Flood, meat eating was allowed. Some critters that people always considered vegetarian are turning carnivorous. What's happening?