Search This Blog

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 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?

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Bucking the Anti-Flood Consensus

Generally speaking, most evolutionists base their dogma on Lyell (a lawyer) and Darwin (a failed clergy student). Uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes seen today are what always happened, even way back yonder) is the rule, since evolutionary doctrine requires long ages. Catastrophic flood geology is unacceptable because it brings old earth geologists uncomfortably close to considering the Genesis Flood. 

Dry Falls image credit: NASA / Goddard / Harrison Smith
Image usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Every once in a while, geologists have no choice but to occasionally admit to catastrophic floods as probable causes for features observed by geomorphologists. J Harlen "Harley" Bretz wanted to figure out what went on in an area he called the Channeled Scablands over in the state of Washington, USA. Uniformitarian geologists were puzzled, and he proposed that huge floods were responsible. Took a long time for consensus-minded fundamentalist evolutionists to come around, but that is now the prevailing view. No, the Channeled Scablands area was not directly caused by the Genesis Flood, but the Flood did have a part to play. The real culprit was the Lake Missoula Flood — which some refer to in the plural. (For more about this, take a look at "Geology, Floods, and Fear of the Bible" and "Lake Missoula and the Genesis Flood".) So, what happened with Bretz and the consensus, anyhow?
National Geographic retells the lonely battle of J Harlen Bretz against the scientific establishment, and what made them so pig-headed.

Glenn Hodges tells in bold narrative how one man, not even trained in geology, figured out the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington state. It’s a story we’ve told before, but this article in National Geographic, with Michael Melford’s stunning photographs, is a keeper. The headline and subtitle give a flavor of what’s below:
To keep reading, click on "The Lone Ranger vs the Big Science Consensus".

Bretz studied the odd landforms in Washington state and said they were caused by catastrophic flooding. The consensus of the science establishment rejected his ideas. How did his views emerge victorious?

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Yes, Jesus Rose from the Dead

Scoffers often say that the Bible is "fairy tales", which exposes their ignorance of historical documents, mythology, and the wording of fairy tales. Scripture is very specific, and does not read like mythology or the sacred texts of other world religions. When this is pointed out, mockers may demand, "Give me evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. But leave the Bible out of it, use neutral ground and extra-biblical sources". This child doesn't play by their rules, which actually means to admit that the Bible is false, and they have the "wisdom" to decide that Jesus is worthy of their worship. No, evidence must be presented in the proper framework.

Credit: Pixabay / Unsplash
While, there are extra-biblical sources regarding Jesus, the events in Jerusalem were unimportant to the Roman Empire. Not all that many accounts were written that still exist, unlike the quantity of biblical manuscripts. In addition to being God's revelation to us regarding creation, sin, righteousness, salvation, Judgement, and more, the Bible is also a book of history. If people can get over their prejudicial conjecture and the genetic fallacy, and are drawn by the Spirit beyond their spiritual blindness, they could see that there is a great deal of evidence that Jesus, God the Son, defeated death so that we can have life in him.
Unlike many world religions, Christianity’s origins are not shrouded in an unwitnessed, mythical past. The Christian faith centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ. His life and miracles were witnessed by thousands, and His sacrificial death on the Cross was also a public spectacle. Three days later, God raised His Son from the dead, and over the next forty days, Jesus appeared to hundreds of individuals.

Overstating the importance of the Resurrection is impossible. It conclusively demonstrated Christ’s power over the grave, secured our hope of eternal life, and proved that He truly was and is the Son of God. Because He rose, Christ also proved that every non-Christian belief system is false, and that He will eventually return to judge this world (Acts 17:30–31).
You, too, can join is in celebrating the risen Lord! Also, you can read the rest of the article (or download the MP3) by clicking on "Resurrection — No Doubt About It".

Is there evidence that Jesus bodily rose from the dead? Yes, a great deal. This proves that he is who he said, death is defeated, and there is life for those who have received him.

Sunday, April 09, 2017

The Miracle of Convergent Evolution

When critters have similar characteristics (such as echolocation in both bats and dolphins) but no close relative in Darwinspeak, evolutionists invoke the miracle of convergent evolution. This term gets bandied about by these owlhoots as an "evolution of the gaps" rescuing device, the gaps are in scientific knowledge.
Made at Add Letters, then modified
The idea of convergent evolution can seem plausible on the surface and spoken with authority, but it is almost a quick-draw excuse for things that cannot be explained in their paradigm. It's becoming increasingly ridiculous as well as illogical and unscientific from the get-go. 

Atheists and evolutionists will tell you that they believe in science and evidence. Common-ancestor evolution has precious little evidence, and convergent evolution has zilch. Zero. Zip. Nada. Then they say that we believe things without evidence. Hypocritical, methinks.

I reckon it's too much for Darwinists to consider that the Creator used the same design features, no, that's not naturalism, so it cannot be considered.
Why do they embrace convergent evolution so eagerly? Because it serves as a rescuing device for an important dogma of evolutionary theory. (A rescuing device is a completely fabricated conjecture devised to save someone’s theory from contrary evidence.)

Evolutionary theory holds that physical features shared by different creatures are strong evidence for evolution. To evolutionists, common traits are best explained by their descent from a common ancestor—not by a shared common design. Darwin taught:
Y'all can find out what Papa Darwin taught and read this extremely informative article by clicking on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle".

The idea of "convergent evolution" is spoken with authority when discussing common traits in diverse life forms. It is an overused rescuing device to cover up for lack of actual knowledge.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

Creation and Good Eatin'

Warning: Better strap on the feed bag before reading the linked article below (or hearing the audio), since it's about food and has a good chance of making you hungry. Even so, I wanted to grab a second lunch—

"Good thing you didn't, Cowboy Bob. I've seen your picture and you don't need it."

So anyway, as I write this, my wife and I finished up the leftover corned beef and cabbage from St. Patrick's Day, which is not a "traditional" Irish supper. When I was younger, I wasn't fond of cabbage or its relatives. Tastes change, especially when something is prepared in a way that is pleasing to the one consuming it.  There are many foods from around the world (many of which can be abused, as I pointed out above in that "conversation"). It may be surprising to see that God created them to be tasty, and even more so when enhanced with spices that he also gave us.

Food was created for nutrition and pleasure
Credit: Pixabay / TheAngryTeddy
There is an interesting interaction going on. Foods were designed to appeal to us, and we were designed to appreciate the flavors. It's a win-win situation. (Do people still say that?) None of that "evolved for a purpose" stuff that Darwinists insist on; we like it, it's made for us, and beneficial as well.
Confession time. On rare occasions (not to exceed once a month—other than around Christmas), this cut-the-grass-with-a-hand-pushed-reel-lawnmower workout warrior likes to swipe his way through the colorful confines of his wife’s Pinterest boards. I admit it; this social media powerhouse pulls me in. I’m a sucker for her jam-packed collections with such innocuous names as “Breakfast,” “Dinner,” and “Dessert.”

Those titles hardly do them justice. That’s because my wife’s mouth-watering online discoveries get my taste buds firing as I skim through beef barley skillet and peanut butter banana bread and French toast casserole. If she’s discovered it, that means we’ll be eating it soon. And with each tap, I can already taste the chocolate cheesecake, rosemary sweet potato fries, and ranch chicken pizza.

If you didn’t catch that . . . we like food.
To read the rest or get the free MP3 download, click on "Taste and See".

Another gift from our Creator is food. It's not just for nutrition, but designed to appeal to us, and we are designed to appreciate it.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Insect Sanitation Engineers

This is one of those posts that has interesting information, provided people can get over the "Ewww Factor" for a spell. I had a post about dung beetles, which are important sanitation engineers for the environment, but I reckon most people had to kind of steel themselves to read it. This is another of those.

Credit: Openclipart
One of the creatures that people wonder why God created is the cockroach, and some wish they'd just all die off. The revulsion probably comes from our mental images, memories, experiences, and such with the unpleasant ones that invade our dwellings. Even though there's a stigma, if there are cockroaches in your home, it does not necessarily mean that you are dirty or a bad housekeeper. Mayhaps the association comes from actually dirty living quarters where the nasty things have a grand hoedown. Even so, they're clever at getting into even the cleanest home — especially if you live near an infestation. Only five of the thousands of species are bothersome to humans.

Cockroaches are all over the world, so we'll have to get over the heebie-jeebies. It would help if we learned to appreciate some of their qualities. They are a high-protein food source for other critters — and some people like the crunchy bugs. In addition, they are beneficial for their environments, essentially helping with leaf litter. Some scientists are using cockroach biomimetics for robotic design.

Speaking of design, there is no evidence of cockroach evolution: they have remained the same over millions of Darwin years. Fact is, these things some of us love to hate (especially the five home-invasive species) have been designed by our Creator for specific purposes.
Discovering a cockroach infestation is a horrifying experience, and they are difficult to get rid of once established in a residence. Synonymous with filth and unsanitary conditions, some wonder, ‘Why would God create such a disgusting creature?’ Were they really part of God’s original ‘very good’ creation?

In fact, while they get a bad reputation from their pest cousins, there are thousands of species of cockroaches that do not infest homes, and actually play vital ecological roles. They also display indicators of ingenious design that robotics engineers are learning from.
I don't want to bug you, but I suggest reading the rest of the article. Just click on "The cockroach: nature’s garbage men".

If  people can get over the "Ewww Factor" for a spell, there are some surprising things about those sanitation engineers of the insect world, the cockroach. They're even being studied for applications in robotics!

Sunday, March 19, 2017

The Mind is Not the Brain

Today we're going to examine two articles on a similar theme, if'n y'all don't mind. Although secularists hold to methodological and philosophical naturalism (briefly stated, no God, even if the logical conclusion and the evidence leads to God), they still search for non-material concepts like free will and the soul. By doing this, they're inadvertently admitting that their worldview is inconsistent. Now secular scientists are obtaining evidence that we are not just "meat machines", and the mind/soul/consciousness is still operational.

Brain is not consciousness
Credit: Pixabay / PeteLinforth
The brain has two hemispheres that work together, and are connected by a kind of conduit. Doctors and scientists have been puzzled when people with damaged brains have rerouted, and then used other areas that are not damaged. What if that conduit is severed?
Experiments with split-brain patients in Amsterdam lend support to the idea that one immaterial being operates the physical brain, even when damaged.

The University of Amsterdam UVA News posted an intriguing headline: “Split brain does not lead to split consciousness.” Split brain refers to a condition when the corpus callosum, the “pipeline” between the brain’s two hemispheres, has been severed. Classic experiments seemed to show that the left side of the brain could only perceive objects on the left side, and vice versa, leading researchers to conclude that each hemisphere generated its own conscious identity. UvA psychologist Yair Pinto has run new experiments to show that is not entirely true. The experiments are difficult because of the rarity of people having the condition. Pinto had two subjects to work with, allowing a certain level of confirmation of his findings.
To finish this first article, click on "One Spirit Can Operate a Split Brain". Then, there's a related article waiting for your return.

See? Here's an introduction to the related article that I promised you. Cue the beginning of Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb": "Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?"

Although 1955 was before my time, a classic Alfred Hitchcock Presents television story called "Breakdown" involves a man who was in a crash and people thought he was dead. He was alive, however, and trying very hard to communicate, almost to no avail. Patients with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) have been locked in and unable to communicate, and their loved ones wonder what's happening on the inside. One woman with ALS was connected to a computer and was able to have some motion and communication.

Taking it further, more communications experiments have been conducted with ALS patients, and the results are encouraging — especially when the patients answer questions.
Four ALS patients unable to move at all learned to communicate with their thoughts. Despite their condition, they all said they were happy.

What’s a person thinking when they cannot move a muscle? It’s a tragic question asked by family members of patients with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a degenerative disease that gradually robs them of movement. The patient can become ‘completely locked in’ where cannot even move their eyes, and exist in this state for years. Is the ‘person’ still there? Is he or she in pain or miserable? We may now have the means to answer those questions, thanks to new techniques developed in Geneva, Switzerland. Researchers describe how they overcame a limitation with standard EEG techniques, which might respond to involuntary eye movements rather than thoughts. At The Conversation, Ana Matran-Fernandez describes the procedure:
To read the rest, click on "The Mind Is Free When the Body Is Locked-In". Both of these articles indicate that the spirit is not just the brain, but the brain is used by the spirit. We were created in God's image. You have a spirit, and it will live on after you die. Do you know where that will be? You can be sure.

The spirit or consciousness is not simply the electrical and chemical impulses in the brain. Recent studies are showing that the materialistic approach to science does not properly address this.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Human Evolutionary Dates in Conflict

When presenting evidence refuting evolution and affirming special creation, Darwin's Flying Monkeys© tend to swoop down and insist that evolution is a "fact", then gibber various "proofs" of evolution. Added to their alleged facts are items that are dated way back yonder.

Human evolution dating has serious problems

What many of them do not realize is that there is considerable disagreement on the dating of human evolution; it depends on who you ask. The main items on which evolutionists focus are two supposed splits in their mythological history: the one between humans and chimp lineages, and another between modern humans and Neanderthal-type humans. One of the greatest failings for human evolutionary timelines involves molecular clocks. This isn't just a tweak for Daylight Saving Time, either. Why are there so many date problems if evolution is almost-settled science? Because this kind of evolution never happened, old son. Creation happened, as the evidence indicates.
If you listen closely to newscasters, schoolteachers, and evolutionary experts when they talk about our evolutionary history, you will notice discrepancies in the numbers they quote. Do those discrepancies bother you? Or do you, like many people, simply hear another really big number and move on with your day? Well, those discrepancies are pretty big, and they bother scientists who are concerned about the accuracy of their claims.

Now keep in mind that evolutionary scientists are not in the habit of questioning whether or not apelike-creature-to-human evolution occurred. Nor are they in the habit of attributing the sorts of differences that distinguish us modern humans from Neanderthals to a cause any different from that which makes us different from our supposed ape cousins. But, with complete confidence that we are the products of millions of years of evolution, they would like to know when the key events in our evolutionary history happened.  
I hope you'll take the time to read the rest of the article. To accomplish this, it would be mighty helpful to click on "Resolving Human Evolutionary Dating Dilemmas". A similar article is also worth your time, "How Many More Anomalies Can Darwinism Take?"

The human evolution timeline is considered to be almost settled science by Darwinists, but there are some very serious problems in the dating.

Sunday, March 05, 2017

Dinosaur Egg-Citement

Way back in 1842, Richard Owen classified some unusual critters as Dinosauria, using parts of two Greek words that mean terrible lizards. (Not all were so terrible — some were the size of chickens — but Owen probably didn't know that.) For quite a spell, folks reckoned them to be reptiles until some uppity Darwinists decided to claim that they evolved into birds. There are many insurmountable problems with this idea, including bone structure, breathing mechanisms, the development of wings, and more. Now eggs are cracking wise against evolution.

Dinosaur eggs refute bird evolution
Made at Image Chef
If dinosaurs evolved into birds, there would have to be a whole heap of similarities between them. Although dinosaurs appear reptilian, the evolutionists who believe in dino-to-bird evolution insist that dinosaurs had to be warm blooded, not cold blooded like other reptiles. They know this because it fits with their narrative, not because of actual evidence. A startling analysis of dinosaur eggs reveals that the time in the egg of the young 'uns, as well as the quantity of egg laying, had far greater similarities to reptiles than to birds. This supports what creationists have been saying along, that dinosaurs and birds were created and did not evolve.
Prevailing secular theory considers birds to be living dinosaurs, but new science is hatching to support the stark differences between these creatures. The data demonstrate dinosaurs were more likely cold-blooded like all modern reptiles.

Dr. Gregory Erickson of Florida State University and his colleagues from the University of Calgary and the American Museum of Natural History recently published their findings on dinosaur incubation periods in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They found that dinosaur eggs took roughly twice as long to hatch as comparable bird eggs.
To read the rest, click on "Dinosaur Eggs Not Bird-Like After All".

Dinosaur eggs are not being friendly to proponents of dino-to-bird evolution. Analysis shows what we've known along: dinosaurs were reptiles.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Creation and the Rules of Science

Some folks get on the prod when it's pointed out that science is not some kind of monolithic entity, but rather, is a philosophical system of interpreting evidence in the natural world. There are people who feel the need to protect what they consider science (especially common-ancestor evolution) from outside influence and scrutiny. This task is expedited by self-serving definitions.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.
Generated at Add Letters
By presupposing both methodological and philosophical naturalism exclusively, evolution has actually hindered scientific progress — especially in medical science. Creationary viewpoints from credentialed scientists are rejected out of hand, and the saying, "Follow where the evidence leads" does not apply when the logical conclusion is God the Creator.

A common falsehood spread by Darwin's Cheerleaders™ is that creationists do not use actual science, relying only on the Bible or saying, "God did it" as a catch-all explanation. In reality, creationary scientists are fully credentialed and active in various scientific disciplines. One's view of origins does not preclude the performance of observational science. I'll allow that biblical creationists have the Bible as our starting point, but secularists often deny that they have materialism as their own starting point. At any rate, they try to make the rules and control the definitions, thereby keeping creationists out in many cases. This is definitely not the true spirit of scientific inquiry, it's just circling the wagons against those they consider enemies. It all comes down to worldviews.
‘Creationism isn’t science.’
‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’
Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls ‘stunned indignation’ to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let’s examine these.
This is a "classic" article from 1988, but the material is still relevant today — if not more so, since many recent illustrations could be added. To finish reading, click on "The rules of the game — As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true". Also, I suggest you check out the Related Articles at the end.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Forensic Science, Creation, and the Age of the Earth

When investigating a crime scene or conducting any kind of historical research, eyewitnesses are of primary importance. Of course, they can have confusion, factual errors, or even personal agendas that may color their testimonies. Confirming stories with other witnesses is important (as long as they were not kept together, enabling them to "get the story straight"). Witnesses can be affirmed or discredited by several factors, including physical evidence.

The concept of forensic science has been around for quite a spell, but has not been all that consistent and scientific until recent years. Some elements of forensics as well as logic were used by characters in A. Conan Doyle, Edgar Allen Poe, Erle Stanley Gardner, and others. It is primarily used in the investigation of crime scenes and to bring criminals to justice, and has been very successful. Ideally, the investigator must be completely objective, which may be difficult to do because it goes against human nature. 

Forensic (historical) science is very useful, but can it answer questions about the origin of Earth and life on it?
Image credit: Pixabay / byrev
How far back can a detective take an investigation? There have been cold cases that have been solved after many years, but the older the incident, the more unreliable the information becomes, and witnesses may no longer be available. Historians can use written testimonies as well as physical evidence regarding, say, World War I, and have a reasonable reconstruction of the events. The events in Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars in 55 BC are sketchy at best.

Some folks try to use forensic science to reconstruct the origin of Earth, and life itself. Both biblical creationists and evolutionists use historical (forensic) science, but neither side is unbiased: both want to see if the facts support their worldviews. Creationists do have an eyewitness, God the Creator, who gave us his written Word. Reason and evidence support the testimony contained therein.
There are multiple scientific disciplines, but there has not been one in recent years that has captured the attention of the general public like the investigative research of forensic science. Forensic science gained popularity in the early 2000s due to several crime-related TV shows, which have dramatized the realistic framework upon which forensic investigation operates. This phenomenon called the “CSI effect” continues to foster the whimsical interpretation of this scientific discipline; however, forensic science provides police agencies and the community a realistic medium upon which to investigate past crimes and review current evidence. Forensic science requires trained personnel to evaluate evidence for intrinsic value and to make educated hypotheses as they attempt to reconstruct past crimes. Eyewitness testimony works in conjunction with the physical evidence and can be used to corroborate or invalidate the reasonable conclusions about the evidence’s relationship to the crime.

When considering the origin of the earth and mankind, one must consider two major and conflicting viewpoints: creation by a perfect God or naturalistic evolution. The creation account in Genesis is not only supported by the evidence found in creation itself (Romans 1:20), but is internally consistent throughout Scripture as an infallible eyewitness testimony of a perfect God (Proverbs 30:5). Secular evolutionists assume that the origin of life occurred by chance and that, through random occurrences, life continues to evolve with no purpose. Most importantly, evolutionary explanations for life have never been observed and there is no eyewitness account to support the claims. As a forensic investigator searches for clues to past crimes, evolutionists, particularly since Darwin, continue the exhaustive search for evidence to support their ideas.
To finish reading, click on "Can Forensic Science Trace the World’s Origins?"

Forensic (historical) science is very useful, but can it answer questions about the origin of Earth and life on it?

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Comedies of Darwinian Errors for Question Evolution Day

That's right, gang, Question Evolution Day has arrived again! This event has several layers, and one of the primary reasons to have QED is for prompting people to actually think, and not just believe the agitprop from the science industry. "Scientists say..." Big deal. Let's not appeal to authority, shall we? If people thought logically and examined the tendentious evidence for scum-to-scholar evolution, hilarity would ensue.

Here are two reports to give you an idea why I've got the bit between my teeth. First, common-ancestor evolution is supposed to show increasing complexity, not loss of traits or keeping things the way they are. (Natural selection maintains the status quo, and is a concept that creationists fully accept. It was also originally postulated by a creationist before Darwin hijacked and dismembered the concept.) The loss of teeth in various organisms is called "convergent evolution" without evidence, but is an example of nothing happening. Diversity among turtles and tortoises is touted as evidence of evolution, including evoking climate as a driving force. Something that looks like a shark in the fossil record is essentially indistinguishable from modern sharks, so no change is considered evidence for evolution. Sure. Read about these and more at "The Darwin Fail Comedy Show".

The second part is where scientists think they have positive natural selection. Repeats in proteins as horizontal evolution, and presumably new functions. See what I mean about critical thinking? That's neither scientific nor logical. This article has more examples of circular reasoning, assumption, and presenting evidence with presumptions. However, the actual facts, without the interpretive dance, fit in quite nicely with biblical creationists' expectations! For that article, click on "Darwinians find Positive Selection".

There is a great deal of misinformation and even deception presented as evidence of Darwinism, but it is loaded with bad logic, assumptions, and poor research. Keep an eye out for the tentative wording in so many articles that the evolutionary science industry churns out. In the meantime, we hope you do question evolution, and come to realize that yes, we are the product of the brilliant design work of our Creator. Evolution and atheism are incoherent and irrational, and biblical creation science makes the most reasonable use of the facts. God has made himself known, and is waiting for you to come to him.

Believers in evolution are presented with many claims, but those come up empty. Meanwhile, biblical creation is the most rational explanation of the facts, and tells you about our Creator.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Rapid Changes, Evolution, and Creation

Darwin said that changes were gradual and random. Additional research not only refutes this, but supports predictions from biblical creation science.

That rapscallion Charles Darwin said that changes are gradual and random, and would lead to the emergence of new organisms. This has been a staple of evolutionary speculations for a mighty long time. Darwin was wrong, and his disciples not only keep deleting the memos, but perpetuate the mythology. The have to cowboy up and face facts, however. Adaptation has limits, and modifications appear to be a design feature from our Creator.

There have been many examples of rapid speciation that evolutionists have been surprised to see. This supports the Genesis Flood, since if changes happened slowly, we would not have the diversity in living things that we see today, and critters would be much the same as when they de-Arked. Secular scientists are claiming "fast evolution" (careful, that word does not mean what they think it does, it's variation, not goo-to-giraffe evolution). This is further confirmation of creationists' predictions. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Oh, and watch how they try to spin disastrous news as evidence for evolution.
A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments. "Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere" is one headline from the theme of the Royal Society's life science journal in January, 2017. But its content further bolsters creationist theory.

The pace of change within organisms is a keen topic of interest. One reason many people doubt evolution is that no one has ever seen one kind of creature change into another. Plant and animal breeders have never done it in thousands of years of concerted effort. Even experiments intended to force evolution along by inducing radical genetic mutations in breeding pairs result in crippled, but not basically transformed, progeny. Remarkably, both creationists and evolutionists are content with this fact.
To read the rest, click on "Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory".

Darwin said that changes were gradual and random. Additional research not only refutes this, but supports predictions from biblical creation science.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Mutations Not So Random After All

Papa Darwin's ideas require huge amounts of time, hence the bellicose propaganda of his disciples for an old Earth. However, another evolutionary concept involves chance and random mutations, but the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful to an organism. Darwin was ignorant of the work of Mendel (peas be upon him) and did not know about mutations, his followers incorporated that idea later.) I'll allow that some mutations seem beneficial at first glance, but are usually disadvantageous in other ways.

In addition to long ages, evolution requires mutations. Random ones. Studies are showing that mutations can actually be targeted, which supports biblical creation science.
Image credit: Stuart Miles /
Do mutations add genetic information, such as evolutionists insist? There are problems with that term, some of which are semantics, and a good part is how "information" is defined, so the answer may be a qualified "yes". What can prove to be frustrating to evolutionists is the way mutations may be a part of the Creator's design (which is borne out by rapid speciation), and scientific discoveries are inadvertently supporting predictions from biblical creation.
Evolutionists look at examples of animals adapting to their environments, and they assume that in this way, given enough time and enough tiny changes, primitive frogs have turned into turtles, and fish into philosophers.

Creationists have long agreed that inheritable adaptation happens via natural selection. This helps explain how the kinds represented on the Ark were able to rapidly diversify afterwards into many different varieties, even new species.

On its own, natural selection can only sort (or get rid of) existing information. It cannot generate any new information or variability itself; it can only choose from what is already there. Genes come in pairs, are reshuffled at reproduction, and many exist in at least two forms, so living things have a lot of built-in variability already. Thus the ‘dog kind’ pair on the Ark could have diversified rapidly into coyotes, dingoes, wolves, etc. without any genetic novelty necessarily introduced into their DNA.
To read the rest, click on "Designed to adapt?"

In addition to long ages, evolution requires mutations. Random ones. Studies are showing that mutations can actually be targeted, which supports biblical creation science.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Knowing the Dog Nose

Basement Cat has been camping out in the kitchen lately, even pressing her nose up to the base of the stove. Yep, something's hiding in there, probably a mouse (which is probably getting her scent as well). Not only do cats have great eyesight and hearing, they have about 80 million smell receptors, and we only have somewhere around 5 million. Dogs have us both beat. Depending on the size of the animal, they can have 300 million smell receptors, and their ability is very intricate.

Dogs and other animals have been given an amazingly intricate and effective sense of smell. This is clearly another gift from our Creator to some critters in his creation.
Image credit: Pixabay / Suzzamar
There are other animals that can smell and locate specific things from quite a long way off, but it's kind of tricky to ascertain the skills of wild critters. Observation seems to be the best tool. The doggerel written for evolutionism cannot adequately explain the origin of the sense of smell, how it's processed, and the variations among different creatures. It is logical to conclude that this is another of the abilities our Creator has given to his handiwork.
If you have been to an airport recently, you may have noticed an increased number of canine staff on the TSA payroll, weaving through the security lines and along the busy corridors. In the nine airports that I have been in the last six months, I have seen German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, and Labrador Retrievers working these patrols. Beagles are another popular breed for this line of work. They are all sniffing out the scene for signs of something amiss. Depending on their training, they can be sniffing for anything from illegally imported meats to drugs to firearms. What about dogs makes them the best candidate for the job, and why these breeds of dogs?
No need to get your nose out of joint, you can finish reading the article (which has some really interesting science) by clicking on "What a Dog’s Nose Knows!" You may also like "Souped-Up Sniffers".

Dogs and other animals have been given an amazingly intricate and effective sense of smell. This is clearly another gift from our Creator to some critters in his creation. 

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Velocious Changes Perplex Secular Scientists

The basis view of secular geologists is uniformitarianism, where slow and gradual processes have been the cause of most physical features of Earth. They've had to reckon with observed scientific facts that refute their paradigm, and some will grudgingly allow that there are occasional catastrophic events. Other times, they really don't know what went on.

Several examples of quick changes on Earth's surface in recent times raise questions about secular geology, and the accuracy of their methods.
Image credit: CIA World Factbook (usage does not imply endorsement)
Evidence shows that the Sahara Desert was once tropical. What caused the arid conditions? Scientists have some speculations, but can't figure why the changes were permanent. On a similar note, the Atacama Desert in Chile was habitable, even having wetlands, thousands of years ago. Greenland lost plenty of ice several times, and did it quickly (Vikings farmed the green land, after all). Quick changes, no long-age explanations. No, anthropogenic global warming cannot be invoked.

To hotten things up some more, studies of crystals are being conducted about the Gede volcano in Indonesia. The long processes used to explain volcanoes, their build up and eruptions, yield to inconvenient truths that the things can build up and go boom in a mighty quick span of time. Even dormant volcanoes may become active again.

Moving down yonder to Indonesia, scientists are also puzzled by the presence of volcanoes and earthquakes there. It's not exactly a hotbed of tectonic activity, so what's the deal? Attempts to palliate ideas that uniformitarian, old-Earth geology may not be as conclusive as once believed fall flat. Kind of makes you think that Earth may be young after all.

To read about these items, click on "Rapid Earth Changes in Historic Times".

Several examples of quick changes on Earth's surface in recent times raise questions about secular geology, and the accuracy of their methods.