Search This Blog

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Manufactured History for Evolution

If you want to know something for certain, check with a reliable eyewitness. Better yet, go and look for yourself. When it comes to universal common ancestor evolution, by definition, there can be no eyewitnesses. To go and look requires time travel, and there is no sign of that happening.


Credit: Pixabay / HypnoArt
Of course, you can also employ the complex evolutionary principle of Making Things Up™ and build your own alternate history. Imagine an ancient protein that existed 500 million Darwin years ago, and use some biochemical work in your imagination. Lots of inference, but no real science. Hard to believe that people take these scientists seriously, and even pay them. Evolutionists are desperate to keep their death cult going because there is no evidence for their beliefs, so they go haywire trying to make up their own realities. Otherwise, they have to admit the truth of the Creator, the eyewitness, and learn what he has to say.
As the old saying goes, “ABC” or Anything But Creation. In the case of a recent report, evolutionists look to chance and “molecular time travel” (as the article calls it) rather than the Creator as the explanation for their theory.
Recently, secular scientists revealed their speculation of alternate evolutionary histories by studying a protein they supposed existed half a billion years ago. Using a large “set of genetic variants” from “a resurrected version of an ancient protein” they theoretically discovered “a myriad of other ways that evolution could have” occurred. Are they on to something valid or is this another unsupported speculation?
It won't take too much of your time to read the rest of the article. Just click on "Evolutionists Embrace Time Travel and Alternate Histories".


Sunday, October 22, 2017

Deception in Evolutionary Transgender Research

If you care to examine the evidence and pay even a little bit of attention to the secular science news, you will see that image of the impartial, unbiased scientist has ridden off into the sunset.



The unbiased scientist will never come back, because that was entirely a myth. Scientists are human, and have worldviews into which they try to see if the evidence fits. In the case of evolution, the evidence most definitely does not fit reality, so they tamper with definitions and even the facts so they can say, "Aha! Evolution!"


A study in transgenderism as an evolutionary benefit was conducted with disingenuous redefintions and basic denial of biological science.
Credit: Freeimages / Richard Dunstan (modified)
It is a demonstrated fact that the secular science industry is becoming increasingly leftist in its research and conclusions — especially when logic and facts are twisted to achieve the illogical conclusions that sidewinders desire. One of the popular items is transgenderism. In the United States, the estimate is less than one half of one percent of the population identifies as transgender, but the way leftists, social justice warriors of the left, anti-Christian bigots, and politicians distort that number, it seems much larger than is supported by reality.

Some folks try to use evolution to justify "gender fluidity", where someone's gender "identity" can change, even by the hour. (This must cause extra washing on laundry day.) They also try to use science to defend transgenderism. This is impossible, as there is no scientific research to support the idea that someone can change their sex. People who claim that a sex can be changed through surgery are science deniers.

Also, there seems to be a distinction between sex (the biological aspect) and gender (the way society perceives people). I remember being involved in a forum that was all about men's concerns. Many people wondered what it means to be a man. Some people felt that a "real" man is interested in sports, motor vehicle mechanic work, and so on. This definition of "man" involved protecting the family, loyalty, hunting, and similar things that belong to the manly stereotype. They did not know how to deal with the fact that many women do the same things! Also, since I am not into sports, automobiles, hunting, and so on, I must not be a real man. However, I am confident in my masculinity. I wonder how they felt about manly men who would participate in needlepoint, knitting, and other activities that typically belong to women. 

In some cultures, whether isolated from those who are technologically advanced, or in developed urban areas, men will be the ones involved in typically female activities around the home. That does not make them transgender or less manly! They remain men. This also applies to when women take on duties or employment that are often associated with men; they do not change sexes. It is also true when men and women simply do not feel like being typical, and being involved in activities that are not typically associated with their sex, and then going back to their usual roles later.

Some animals can change their sex when necessary (clownfish are all born male), but this is an aspect of our Creator's design and genetic engineering. Some owlhoot evolutionists are changing the definitions of male and female, and of transgenderism, to suit their leftist proclivities. That's not being scientific, that's just sneaky. Also, slapping "evolution" like a bumper sticker onto the research is disingenuous, since this has nothing to do with evolution.

In reality, human transgenderism has nothing to do with biology (except in rare cases involving birth defects, but the exception does not establish a rule). We are not birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and so on. No, being "a man trapped in a woman's body" is psychological, not physiological. In the following article, note that those who elected to have gender reassignment surgery (bodily mutilation and a denial of God's design) have an increased suicide rate.
Some argue that transgenderism was caused, or at least influenced, by evolution. Some of them support the notion of transgender transgender by claiming that Transgenderism “Showed Evolutionary Benefits in Ancestral Societies,” namely they helped others with child care and other tasks. In a 2013 paper in Nature, VanderLaan and his colleagues studied 146 non-transgendered societies and 46 transgender societies in both current and older hunter-gatherer societies. 
To read this fascinating article in its entirety, click on "Does Transgenderism Have an Evolutionary Benefit?"

Sunday, October 15, 2017

The Age of Mysterious Newgrange

When traveling the countryside of Britain, you may come cross burial mounds (passage graves, cairns, barrows, tumuli, and other names). They are indeed mounds, and locals pay them no nevermind for the most part because they have a passel of them. Megalithic monuments in England such as Stonehenge and Rollright are famous, and it helps that they're out in the open and all. Head north of Stonehenge, then east, and cross the Irish Sea, and you'll eventually reach a somewhat newer entry into the category. In County Meath, Ireland, is a structure known as Newgrange. It was just another lump until the entrance was found in 1699. 

New Agers are fond of these structures, which are found on the evidence-free "ley lines". The group Celtic Woman remade the song "Newgrange", originally recorded by Clannad. The song mentions Druids and a forgotten race, but there is really no way of knowing who built Newgrange, and why. The purpose is disputed as well. Burial chamber? Solstice observatory? Both? Something else? The discovery is rather fascinating.

Credit: Pixabay / hbieser
Something worthy of creationary research is the abundance of similar burial mounds all over the world, including stone chambers and mounds in New England. People are puzzled that there may have been communication between ancient Americas and Europe way back yonder. Mayhaps a creationary explanation is that this could be another example of people bringing their memories and legends after the dispersal at Babel? It may be worth a look.

Some archaeologists cogitate that Newgrange is a few hundred years older than Stonehenge. How do they know this? Radiocarbon dating. However, the selected age fits with secular opinions, and creationists want to know if radiocarbon dating is reliable, and how it was calibrated. (The unreliable orbital tuning to calibrate for ice cores method comes to mind.) When assumptions are made before testing, the results are predetermined, so the secular bias rules the day. That's how it works. In reality, a great deal of work needs to be done, without secular assumptions, to determine a more accurate date for Newgrange.
Clearly something is wrong with radiocarbon dates, but what? As an astronomer who analyzes how humans mark time by the regular movement of celestial bodies, I have long wondered whether different branches of science could work together to solve these questions. If we could somehow find a reliable, independent astronomical way to date stone structures, perhaps we could show how older radiocarbon “dates” must be revised to match these more accurate astronomical dates, which are certain to line up with the Bible’s timeline.
To read the entire article, click on "Uncovering Assumptions at Newgrange".

The barrow at Newgrange is a fascinating discovery, and it puzzles archaeologists. Another area of interest is whether the date assigned to it can be reconciled to biblical chronology.

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Languages Did Not Evolve

Proponents of microbes-to-man evolution have their naturalistic starting point for their presuppositions and the way they interpret evidence, and biblical creationists stand on the revelation of God's inerrant Word. Evolutionists have a simplistic view of the origin of language, which is essentially grunts and such to form words to communicate danger or various needs. Creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve as fully operational intelligent beings, which includes the ability to use languages. A serious examination of the languages after the confusion and dispersal at Babel strongly supports the creationary view.


Credit: Pixabay / Roger Casco Herrera
A simple way to see that, contrary to evolutionary viewpoints, languages have become less complicated over time. Ever read a book from the 19th century or earlier? Literature from back then is often more elegant, with a richer vocabulary.

Let's take a look at how language and spelling has changed in a few English language Bibles.

Most Bible readers are comfortable with modern translations, and have to slow down to read their King James Version (most commonly, it is the 1769 version). The actual 1677 KJV is considerably different. Let's look at Genesis 11:8-9 in that version: "So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence, vpon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the Citie. Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad vpon the face of all the earth".

The Geneva Bible of 1587 gives us: "So ye Lord scattered them from thence vpon all the earth, & they left off to build the citie. Therefore the name of it was called Babel, because the Lorde did there confounde the language of all the earth: from thence then did the Lord scatter them vpon all the earth".

Moving back 1526 Tyndale version: "Thus ye LORde skatered them from thence vppon all the erth. And they left of to buylde the cyte. Wherfore the name of it is called Babell because that the LORDE there confounded the tonge of all the world. And because that the LORde from thence skatered them abrode vppon all the erth."

You can see some differences, but let's add one more, the Wycliffe Bible from the late 1300s: " And so the Lord departide hem fro that place in to alle londis; and thei cessiden to bielde a cytee. And therfor the name therof was clepid Babel, for the langage of al erthe was confoundide there; and fro thennus the Lord scaterede hem on the face of alle cuntrees".

Just for fun, you can see and hear the Old English Beowulf (from about 975-1025) at this link. I have no problem admitting that I need the translation. Was the Grendel dragon a dinosaur? Just wondering.

Enough with the English history, and let's dig a bit deeper into languages themselves. There are language groups. Some of the ancient texts are exceptionally complex and difficult to categorize, let alone, translate. Ancient languages have deteriorated over the years (there are marked difference between New Testament koine Greek and modern Greek, including subtleties and tenses). Some languages have ceased to exist, which increases the difficulties of translation.

There is no evidence that languages evolved, conjectures presented as science notwithstanding. Actually, languages have devolved.
Evolutionary theory, when applied to origins of language, fails utterly to explain the phenomena of original complexity, subsequent loss and degeneration, and the array of unrelated languages in antiquity that even now are only partially understood due to that complexity. It is here contended that only a biblical approach can explain the complicated grammar, morphology, phonetics and syntax found in ancient texts. From what we in fact find from these texts, and because these phenomena could not arise spontaneously or gradually, a supernatural interruption near the beginning of post-diluvian history is the only explanation. The supernatural interruption which created these many complex languages is precisely what is related in Genesis 11:1–9.
To read the entire article (which I think may take the average reader about 45 minutes, so make yourself comfortable), click on "Languages of the post-Diluvian World". Also, for an article on using language as evidence for God's existence, click on "Language Itself Testifies of the Creator".


 

Sunday, October 01, 2017

Rewriting the Human Evolution Story — Again

The piffle of human evolution is becoming more risible with the passage of time. New members are hurridedly added to the ancestral parade with great fanfare, only to be quietly removed when sufficient data is collected. Darwinian mythology is presented as science, and timelines frequently need substantial revision, whether in human or other life forms. It happened again.


Source: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Tools and tools were discovered that sent repercussions through the "out of Africa" scenario, both with the dating and location of our putative origins. One of the main problems with evolutionism is the presuppositions that control the story. 

Seems like they'd have themselves a confab and say, "This ain't happening. Mayhaps we should take a serious look at the true human history of creation as recorded in Genesis. After all, creationists don't have these problems!" Not likely, since they're committed to naturalism, and there is no room for the Creator in their historical fictions.
Evolutionary scientists recently announced that fossils from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, dated at around 300,000 years old, are the oldest Homo sapiens fossils ever discovered. This claim is based on the shape of a skull and the presence of stone tools at the site. This represents a potential rewrite to the human evolution story that pushes back the origin of “modern” humans by 100,000 years. It would also suggest that the “cradle of civilization” included the entire African continent rather than just eastern Africa, as long claimed by evolutionists.
Even the pro-evolution magazine Scientific American acknowledged that these Moroccan fossils “mess up” the accepted human evolution story. Why?
To read the rest of their consternation, click on "The Ever-Evolving Human Evolution Story".

The story of human evolution needs to be rewritten again. This time, fossils and tools mess up the timeline and the alleged location of our ancestral origins.