Search This Blog

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Rhino-Elephant Fossil Upsets Evolutionary Timeline

When tales are told around campfires, people tend to expect flaws. Sometimes they point them out.

"I seen him pull his 44-40 revolver and sneak after Clem —"

"You said this was a pitch dark night so ya didn't see nothin', ya galoot."

"Fergot to mention I was using my night vision..."

The timeline for the evolution of dinosaurs is driven by the narrative, even though there is no evolutionary past for dinosaurs and new discoveries require evolutionists to repeatedly rewrite that troubled timeline. We have another instance of a major timeline problem.


A large critter called a synapsid is causing disagreement and confusion among paleontologists.
Lisowicia bojani image credit: Tomasz Sulej (CC By-SA 4.0)
The tale is told that there were little mammals running around while dinosaurs were becoming the dominant force. These little mammals did their best to keep out of sight. Critters like synapsids existed, but when something that could be compared to a military tank was discovered, paleontologists got a mite worked up. They can't agree if it's mammal or reptile, and the description is caused (for some) to be dictated by where the fossil was located. Actually, there isn't a whole heap to build on in the first place. The fossil record is not about an orderly account of gradual evolution due to "forces", but it shows evidence for the global Genesis Flood and recent creation.
Evolutionists call them “mammal-like reptiles,” but a very large fossil synapsid upsets evolutionary ideas.
It was as big as a hippo, and apparently very successful as an animal. New Scientist writes, “Ancient hippo-like reptile was a giant to rival the dinosaurs.” Science Magazine writes, “Giant mammal cousin rivaled early dinosaurs.” What was this creature, exactly? And why are evolutionists so startled by it?
To find out more, click on "Synapsids Went Extinct, but Did They Evolve?" A shorter, related article is "Super-Sized Synapsid in the Wrong Rocks".

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Altruism in Different Kinds of Animals?

Altruism is baffling to Darwinists, and they not only botch studies of it, but come up with bizarre ideas such as altruism being controlled by microbes. And that is just for humans. You have probably heard or read stories about a cat unable to nurse kittens, but the new momcat next door filled the gap. That's rather heartwarming and not entirely surprising. What about animals adopting other kinds of animals?


Altruism is baffling enough for evolutionists, but cooperation between species is very troublesome.
Credit: Freeimages / Lily Rosen
The expression, "Fighting like cats and dogs" may get a point across when describing folks wanting to slap leather with each other, but the animals themselves don't always fight. Sure, they probably get along when they're brought together when they're young, but even adults have been known to become pals. Darwinism requires "survival of the fittest" and a kind of "every critter for itself" approach.


Animals occasionally reject orthodox evolutionism. Interspecific (different species) cooperation and even adoption is baffling to evolutionists, especially when the animals involved are predator and prey. It is interesting that such happenings can remind Bible believers of the original creation when animals did not eat each other; that happened after the Genesis Flood.
Altruistic behavior is expected in humans to one extent or another. However, when animals behave altruistically, evolutionists are left without good answers. When, for example, an animal adopts an infant of another animal, it exhibits an evolution-defying altruistic behavior. Evolution predicts that animals will behave selfishly, seeking only to further their own reproductive success. Yet there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of animals adopting babies of their own species, or even more incredibly, members of other species, sometimes across the kind or predatory boundaries. These altruistic adoptions are powerful evidence for the original “very good” design God put into his creation.
To read the rest (and some interesting examples as well), click on "Interspecific Adoption: Can Evolution Explain Altruism in Animals?"



Sunday, December 16, 2018

Human Evolution Fails Scientific Analysis

Those of us who reject fish-to-farmer evolution tend to receive surprised remarks as if we were a tad bit unreasonable. After all "everyone knows" and "scientists say" that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, so who are we do disagree? Some even want to bully us, because loudness makes for rightness or some-such. 

For one thing, we do not need the vacuity of R. Clinton Dawkins, Bill Nye, or other owlhoots dictating our thinking. In addition, evolution does not stand up to serious examination.


Closer examination reveals that evidence for evolution is pitifully lacking.

I'll allow that such evolution is mighty popular among scientists and us commoners, but consensus does not make for truth. Seems that we have to suspend reason and science to accept such notions in the first place. Getting down into the DNA, evolution is not even possible. Add to that the fact that the alleged evidence for evolution among bones and such is pitifully lacking. The evidence actually shows that the we were created, created recently, created separately. 
The public is frequently led to think that the evidence of humans evolving from an apelike common ancestor with chimps is simply overwhelming. The claim is often made in bombastic, even intimidating terms, such as in this example of ‘elephant hurling’ tactics by a prominent evolutionist:
“There are now tens of thousands of hominid fossils in museums around the world supporting our current knowledge of human evolution. The pattern that emerges from this vast body of hard evidence is consistent across thousands of investigations. All models, all myths involving singular, instantaneous creation of modern humans fail in the face of this evidence.”
For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. However, when one starts to critically analyze these claims, things rapidly fall apart. For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. For example:
To learn more about what is going on, read the rest by clicking on "The myth of ape-to-human evolution".


Sunday, December 09, 2018

Newly-Discovered Human Brain Neuron

Darwin's devotees like to remind the world that humans are classified as animals. Of course, with the limitations built into the five kingdoms, I reckon we have to be someplace, and we do have many similarities to creatures in the animal kingdom. However, we are not "just animals". Not only because we are created in God's image, but there are marked biological differences between us and critters. A newly-discovered neuron in the coconut between our shoulders is another of those features unique to humans.


Scientists discovered a special neuron that is unique to humans. This is another difference between humans and animals.
Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens
We have a heap of processing to do. Biologists may object to my comparison, but it seems that the extra-long dendrites in some of our brain cells might have a loose similarity to RAM in a computer, which gives it more room to work, and helps the computer work faster. Our dendrites also act like tiny transmitters. Still another reason to admit the obvious: we were created, and our "parts" working in unison show this.
With a new addition to the category of “uniquely human features,” MIT neuroscientists discovered a feature of human—not animal—brain cells. Certain human brain cells have much longer extensions called dendrites, and this research team found a uniquely human reason for it.
To read the rest, click on "Unique Human Neuron Discovered".

Sunday, December 02, 2018

NASA Admits Exoplanets Unlikely for Life

True believers in searching for extraterrestrial intelligence out there in the nothing much are becoming more desperate, even silly. They are basing their assumptions on atoms-to-alien evolution and the foolish notion that either God does not exist, or he does not mean what he told us in his written Word. However, these ETI seekers are building on foundations that should appear to be fundamentally flawed even to them — if they bothered to cognate on it for a spell.


Seekers of life in outer space are starting in the wrong place. Other stars are not hospitable for life, and only Earth was created to be inhabited.
Credit: NASA /ESA / G. Bacon (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There is an increasing amount of evidence that stars are nowhere near as well-behaved as our own sun, emitting powerful solar flares that would be killing of living things on their planets. The most plentiful stars, red dwarfs, are sneezy and grumpy. Blue ones can also be obstreperous. Earth was created to be inhabited, and that's a natural fact.
Superflares from the majority of stars would likely sterilize any planet in its “habitable zone.”
You don’t want to enter a HAZMAT zone. That’s where toxic materials pose a danger to life or the environment. NASA took on this word for a program called HAZMAT, standing for “Habitable Zones and M dwarf Activity across Time.” An article for NASA Exoplanet Exploration announces one of the first findings from HAZMAT: “Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets.” That’s because their parent stars, the most numerous in the universe (M-dwarf stars), are nasty.
To read the rest, click on "NASA Verdict: Most Exoplanets Are Not Habitable".



Sunday, November 25, 2018

Mitochondrial DNA Differences and Creation Science

We are hearing more and more about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in science news, and the topic crops up frequently in discussions on human origins. This kind is believed to be exclusively the property of women. Believers in microbes-to-mothers evolution think that humans came out of Africa somewhere about 200,000 years ago, while biblical creationists contend that humanity and everything else was created far more recently.


Creation science research in mitochondrial DNA yields results that support the biblical timeline.
Credit: “Dna” by renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Researching the history of mtDNA, a number of assumptions have to be used. Scientists do that, then they see if the results comport with reality. The generation time of the mtDNA is based on the assumptions that marriage and family customs are uniform, using an age of 15 years for mothers. In the biblical creation science paradigm, people lived a great deal longer, and biblical records indicate that they married and had offspring much later in their lives. 

Using reasonable assumptions about the past and calculating mutation rates with available databases, the number of 137 nucleotide changes in the population was indicated. The biblical view supports what is observed, while the evolutionary assumptions yield results that are vastly different.
In 2016, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson published an article in the Answers Research Journal regarding the origin of the differences in human mitochondrial DNA. While he has published previously on the topic of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), this article brings a study of African mtDNA differences and discusses how it supports the young-earth creation model. This article will summarize Dr. Jeanson’s research.
That is the abstract. The article is somewhat technical, but not excessively long. If you've a mind to, you can read the rest by clicking on "Origin of Mitochondrial DNA Differences".

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Fossilization Experiment Supports Genesis Flood

There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports special creation and refutes universal common ancestor evolution in the life sciences. We can see the specified complexity of many living things, all the way down to the cellular level. When it comes to the Genesis Flood, most of the scientific information comes from geology, paleontology, and dead things.

The old line about needing millions of years for fossilization to occur has been further devastated by crocodile research.
Credit: Pixabay / Angelo Giordano
I kind of wonder how many budding scientists were stifled when their mothers told them not to play with dead things. Some scientists were not playing with those Australian crocodiles that had become bereft of life, and commenced to conducting an experiment on fossilization. The usual uniformitarian story goes that something dies, sinks, (a secular miracle happens here where the critter does not get eaten by scavengers), gets covered by sediment and the like, then fossilizes after a few million Darwin years.

Ever hear the song, "I Go to Pieces"? Well, they did. The dead things disarticulated, to use the expensive word. They also decayed. In short, there was no chance of fossilization despite the best efforts of scientists. Once again, we see that the Genesis flood provides the necessary conditions for the fossils that are found.
A recent Australian research study on how crocodile carcasses decompose in water has important implications for fossilization.
The researchers were seeking to better understand the processes operating on a skeleton after the flesh decomposes, affecting such things as how much of the skeleton remains, and how much stays articulated (the bones aligned together as in life).
To finish reading, click on "Dead crocodiles down under — How croc decomposition helps confirm a crucial element of Bible history".


Sunday, November 11, 2018

Evolution and the Stuff Happens Law

There are all sorts of "laws" floating around on the internet, and many of them are simply opinions or observations. One is "Poe's Law", where something in the extreme is difficult to distinguish from parody. Atheists frequently use this when attacking Christians and creationists as a form of an ad hominem. Who is Poe, anyway? Where are his or her papers, and were they peer reviewed? No, it's not a "law" or anything resembling science. Neither is "Murphy's Law". Just cultural things. There are also axioms in evolution that are considered laws or facts that have nothing to do with science.


When Darwinists are unable to deal with scientific evidence but want to validate their guesses, they essentially say Stuff Happens

When Darwinists evosplain how a critter or other organism came into being, they often use the principle of Making Things Up™. Essentially, they are using obfuscation, bad logic, and fancy terminology because their worldview drives their interpretations of data. Evolution cannot be legitimately validated, so board the train to the Imagination Station and present guesses as science.



Evolution is so malleable, it can be twisted to explain almost anything — which means that it explains nothing. Just plug in mutations and natural selection. Just say, "It evolved", praise Darwin, blessed be! People deserve better than that, and we get real science from the biblical creation approach.

The "Stuff Happens Law" can be compared with evolutionary explanations, and we can see how this parodic law is just as scientific as many evolutionary speculations.
The most vacuous scientific explanation of all meets the standard requirements of science.
We often describe Darwinian evolution as equivalent to the “Stuff Happens Law” (SHL). There is no such law, of course; in actuality, it is an anti-law “law.” The worst explanation scientists can give for a phenomenon is to just shrug, throw up their hands, and say, “stuff happens.” Scientists want reasons for phenomena. They want to identify causes for things. Stochastic variables can play a part in causation, such as in statistical thermodynamics, but the consilience of causes should amount to an explanation that provides  understanding of how things work. Saying “stuff happens” amounts to a capitulation, a lazy way of saying, “I have no idea.”
Now, what if a Darwinian tried the comeback argument that “stuff happens” is a scientific theory? In a humorous bit of playful sophistry, we can show that the Stuff Happens Law satisfies all of the requirements for scientific theories. Look:
This is getting good. To read the rest, click on "How the Stuff Happens Law Can Be Scientific". I also strongly recommend an article that supplements the previous one, "Darwin Given Credit for Non-Darwinian Observations".

Sunday, November 04, 2018

Our Earth-Moon System

If you are like me in this regard, you like to look at the moon, whether in the Western sky, the big orange harvest moon, over a body of water, or other places. The longer the better. Miss Beadle at the Walnut Grove School taught us that the moon plays a big part in tides, but there's a passel more to the moon's effects that was known way back then. In fact, we need our moon.


The moon is more than just a pretty face, it is necessary for life on Earth.
Credit: Unsplash / Kyle Johnson
Let's go back to the tide business. Since the moon is larger and closer to Earth than the moons of other planets, it has a tremendous effect on tides. Sure, the sun and even some planets have an effect, but we really need the moon to keep things from being stagnant and life in the oceans from dying off.

Lots of critters are nocturnal, and do their hunting and other critter stuff by the light of the silvery moon. Not just coyotes and such, but things we don't think about in and around water. 

The earth wobbles on its axis, but since the earth is so big, we don't pay it no nevermind. But this wobble, as well as the overall tilt of our blue ball in space, are kept in check by the gravitation of the moon. Both wobble and tilt have a very strong impact on life, and we don't want those things to change. There are more fascinating facts about the moon that the Master Engineer placed to rule the night in the article below.
Our moon plays a critical role in producing the environment required for life to thrive on Earth. If the moon suddenly disappeared, then the consequences for many forms of life would be devastating. The moon is the second-brightest regularly visible celestial object in Earth’s sky. . . .
Without the moon, all clear nights in areas without artificial lighting would be too dark for many nocturnal animals to search for food. Consequently, if the moon disappeared, some species would likely become extinct. Even the biological clocks used by many life forms are closely tied to the moon.
To continue reading, click on "The Moon: Required for Life on Earth". You may also like "Consider the Moon". While there is some overlap, there is a section in the linked article about the futile efforts of cosmic evolutionists to explain the origin of the moon through naturalism.



Sunday, October 28, 2018

Surprises of the Palo Verde Tree

If you get a notion to saddle up and ride in the semi-desert areas of the American Southwest, you can expect to come across the palo verde tree.  Keep an eye out for it the next time you watch a Western movie. It is a big shrub or small tree that folks use for landscaping and ornamentation. Some can get rather large, so there is quite a range in sizes. There are varieties of it in many parts of the world (and can be a nuisance if you ask people in the Land Down Under), and it is fond of having less water than most other trees and shrubs.


Analysis shows that the palo verde was designed to adapt by the Master Engineer.
Credit: Flickr / Larry & Teddy Page (CC BY 2.0)
The palo verde has not had a great deal of study in the past, which is unfortunate. Most trees do their photosynthesis through the leaves, but this one uses the trunk, stems, and petioles (a petiole is the part that attaches the leaf to the stem). There is significant disagreement on genera and species. Some are green, some have different flowers than others, some are yellow, some are bluish — I reckon there's good reason for discussion on those things.

Particle-to-plant evolutionists are stumped (see what I did there?) to provide any plausible evidence or model of descent with modification. However, the adaptations present seem to indicate engineered adaptability, although this concept is not discussed in the article linked below. Our Creator designed the palo verde to thrive in conditions that most other plants would shun, and analysis supports this view. Although the following article is rather technical, if I could get something out of it, I think you can, too. I read some parts of it quickly.
The palo verde tree, Parkinsonia spp., is well known to residents of the desert southwest and Mexico, yet there are few studies of it in the technical literature. As a drought-resistant, woody plant, it is unique in several ways, most notably its bright green trunk, stems, and petioles where most photosynthesis is performed. Stem photosynthesis is, however, not unique to this desert plant. Other unusual features of the palo verde plant include extensive root systems, heavily cutinized epidermis and vascular bundles, sunken stoma, very small leaves (leaflets), drought-deciduous behavior, idioblasts, C4 photosynthesis, and the plentiful accumulation of storage products, oil, starch, and calcium oxalate. These features make this plant uniquely fitted to thrive in arid, desert biomes. More work is required to clearly isolate and describe such tissues as the cambium, primary and secondary phloem and xylem bundles, and the extent of internal cutinization of this unusual woody plant. We conclude that the sum of these unique features make it purposefully fitted to the biomes in which it grows.
To read the rest of this admittedly challenging but also very interesting article, click on "A Light and Electron Microscopic Study of the Palo Verde Tree of the Desert Southwest".


Sunday, October 21, 2018

Non-Evolution for Sulfur-Cycling Bacteria

Proponents of molecules-to-marine biologist evolution have everything covered. Too much. Evolution explains everything, and when cornered on poor science or faulty logic, they have a prairie schooner-full of rescuing devices and fudge factors. (Papa Darwin has a fudge factory, and if you get the golden ticket, you may be able to go on a tour.) Evolution is likened to an irresistible force based on environments. Except when it isn't. If something doesn't evolve over a few zillion Darwin years, it is called "stasis", and proves Darwin's "null hypothesis". Such is the case with sulfur-cycling bacteria.

Lack of change in bacteria that use sulfur is no surprise to creationists.
Credit: Freeimages / Rick Hawkins
Sulfur-cycling bacteria process dissolved sulfur in surrounding water, and can live in environments that are free of oxygen. Since there is no sign of evolution over all that alleged time, evolutionists fall back on the claim of stasis. It's a win-win conjecture, but is unscientific and explains nothing, despite claims of obedient secular science media and some scientists. Biblical creationists, however, are not surprised by lack of changes.
In spite of evolutionary expectations some bacteria have not changed for billions of years. A formation in Western Australia claimed to be 1.8 Ga old contains fossilized sulfur-cycling bacteria. These bacteria metabolically are fueled by seawater sulfate, meaning they can live in an anoxic zone. They are very similar to those found in another formation that is dated 2.3 Ga old. Contrary to evolutionary theory the sulfur-cycling bacteria are essentially identical with modern types:
To find out the reason for all the excitement, click on "Sulfur-cycling bacteria 1.8 billion years old the same as today".

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Time and the Origins Debate

Scoffers often claim that the Bible is a "book of fairy tales", which shows their lack of intellectual honesty (among other things). Fairy tales often begin with, "Once upon a time...", and tall tales cowboys tell around the campfire tend toward the vague side. The Bible is very specific about people, places, and times (such as Haggain 1:1, Matthew 2:19-23, and Genesis 8:4). Fairy tales and mythologies do not have such detail, but time is important in the Bible.

Time is essential to the study of origins.
Credit: Pixabay / Linus Sch├╝tz
The Bible is reliable as a source of history, but some sidewinders saw fit to "remove Moses" from geological ages. They were committed to deep time, and the true history in Scripture was tossed aside. After all, Papa Darwin needed huge amounts of time to make it look like his conjectures were plausible, and those folks wanted to give it to him. Many religious people were willing to accept this "science", and compromised accordingly. In fact, time is essential to the study of origins.
The idea for a documentary on Genesis came from a conversation I had with my then ten-year-old daughter.
She was watching a creation-evolution debate and was bothered by a number of things the evolutionist said. Her concern was that the events he described — a billions-of-years old earth, the direct relationship of men and animals, the impossibility of a global flood — were completely different from the events described in Genesis.
I knew how she felt. As a 15-year-old, I had been bothered by the same things. I recall reading books by Richard Leakey alongside books by Henry Morris. After weighing both sides of the question, I came away convinced that Genesis was an accurate book of history.
. . .
What I learned over the next few years changed my view of science, history, and the Bible. Here are three of the more important things I discovered:
To find out those three important things and read the rest of this helpful article, click on "Why Time Matters to the Origins Debate".


Sunday, October 07, 2018

Another Dinosaur Highway Surprise

A superhighway of dinosaur tracks was discovered in Alaska. These highways have assorted tracks and puzzle secular scientists

There is a series of dinosaur tracks in Texas extending up into Canada, and some folks call it a highway. Secular scientists cannot sufficiently explain it because it requires specific conditions that can only be explained by the Genesis Flood. Recently, things took a walk on the worse side.

Way up in Alaska, another "superhighway" was discovered in Cretaceous rocks.

"I guess you could say that instead of a Jurassic park, they had a Cretaceous parkway, Cowboy Bob! Hahahaha!"

Oh, boy. Moving on.

There were many tracks, including different types like therizinosaurs and hadrosaurs. The corresponding rock unit in China had bones but no tracks. Scientists speculate that this area was a route from North America to Asia. Other assemblages of footprints (one includes a mammal) are baffling secular scientists. This wouldn't be so difficult if they would run to the truth: the Genesis Flood is the rational explanation for such groups of footprints.
The recent Alaskan discovery of an unusual assemblage of footprints in Cretaceous rocks has paleontologists scratching their heads. 
Anthony Fiorillo, of the Perot Museum of Nature and Science and his co-authors, reported the trackway discovery in Scientific Reports.1 The numerous footprints were found in Denali National Park in central Alaska in the Cretaceous Lower Cantwell Formation. 
. . .
What made this discovery unusual was the co-occurrence of footprints from two completely different types of dinosaurs: Hadrosaurs (duck-bills) and therizinosaurs—odd-looking bipedal dinosaurs with long necks and long arms and long claws. Fiorillo stated,
To find out what he said and read the rest (it works out nicely that way), click on "Dinosaur 'Superhighway' Explained by Global Flood".



Sunday, September 30, 2018

Rapid Magnetic Field Reversals

You know that those pointy rock things in caves that hang down are stalactites, right? Stalagmites and the ones on the bottom, pointing up. Stalactites, because they stick tight to the roof (we hope), and stalagmites because...they're not stalactites, I suppose. I suppose you also know that the magnetic field of the earth is studied partially through rocks? A stalactite was doing its thing, sticking tight, and it was studied for radioisotopes. The results surprised researchers.

Research on a stalactite showed that the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself in a short time.
Credit: RGBStock / Aschwin Prein
The magnetic field is our deflector shield, protecting us from deadly radiation and such. Deep time adherents cannot deal with the fact that the magnetic field shows the earth to be thousands, not millions, of years old. It has reversed itself a few times, and creation scientists figure it to have happened during the Genesis Flood, as Dr. Russel Humpreys discussed here, and more rapid reversals have been found. Apparently, the tight stalactite study shows changes that even secularists cannot escape.
Contrary to what geophysicists have claimed for decades, magnetic reversals may occur ‘ridiculously quickly.’ Or is confidence in experts ridiculous?
Surprise, surprise. We’ve been told that magnetic reversals, recorded in rock signatures, take thousands of years. But in one human lifetime? That sounds ridiculous. It is being seriously proposed by an international team, reports Brandon Specktor in Space.com.
To read the rest, click on "Stalactite Indicates Ultrafast Magnetic Reversals".


Sunday, September 23, 2018

Redshifts and the Expanding Universe

A conversation topic that comes up on the lonesome trail is how the universe is expanding, and why scientists believe this. Yep, nothing like having coffee and beef jerky at the campfire and discussing redshifts, relativity, and other cowboy stuff. Seriously, though, redshifts are a mite tricky, since they have more than one source.

Image adapted from public domain pictures:Albert Einstein from the Library of Congress and Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365 by NASA,
neither of which endorse the site contents.
You've heard of the Doppler effect? The most popular example is when you're waiting for a train to go by and its whistle changes pitch, sounding lower as it gets farther away. Waves are waves, just some are faster than others, so the same thing applies to light waves. Redshifts are when celestial objects are moving away. Blueshifted light happens in a few cases, and that means they are approaching us, but never mind about that now. Getting into a bigger picture and bringing Albert Einstein into the picture, redshifts also indicate the expansion of the universe itself. 

There was a popular version of the universe called the steady state, where it had no beginning and will have no end, and somehow it replenishes itself. Various incarnations of the Big Bang have been in vogue for several decades, but that was resisted at first because secularists didn't cotton to the implications that if the universe had a beginning, it had a Beginner. Interestingly, some creationists resist the idea of the expanding universe because it implies the Big Bang, so they lean toward the steady state view. There's no need for this, and the expanding universe does not demand adherence to the Big Bang, darling of secular cosmologists; creationists can indeed build a biblical model of cosmology.
Dr. Danny Faulkner recently published an article in the Answers Research Journal making the case for redshifts being cosmological. He makes a number of important points about redshifts, quasars, and an expanding universe. This article will summarize Dr. Faulkner’s research.
. . .
Dr. Faulkner makes the case in his article that redshifts are cosmological because they are the result of the universe expanding. He bases this on something called the Hubble relation. The Hubble relation is a linear way of showing that redshift increases with increasing distance or decreases with decreasing distance. The Hubble relation ties to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. According to general relativity, the universe is either expanding or contracting. The universe could stay stable, with no expansion or contraction, but only under very specific conditions. If the universe is expanding, redshift ought to increase with increasing distance. Since the Hubble relation confirms this, most scientists have accepted that the universe is expanding. If redshifts of distant galaxies are due to expansion, then their redshifts reflect distance, and we say their redshifts are cosmological.
To read the entire article, click on "Are Redshifts Cosmological?"

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Dinosaurs, Feathers, and Bird Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The majority of atoms-to-Archaeopteryx evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Not all, but most. Because they are locked into their paradigm and lasso the evidence that fits, these evolutionists get all a-twitter when someone reports dinosaur feathers. Then the obedient secular science press go hog wild with sensationalistic stories, imaginative artwork, and evoporn in general.

Evidence for feathers on dinosaurs is myopic at best.

Some of the dinosaur feather stuff is simply fake news, and other reports are myopic at best. That is, they "see" quill knobs, "protofeathers" and similar in the absence of actual feathers. Scientists also mypoically avoid other rational explanations for what they actually see. There is also disagreement among these scientists which dinosaurs are the alleged ancestors of birds, and even whether or not dinosaurs had feathers in the first place.

Instead of asking how dinosaurs evolved into birds, secular scientists should be asking if the evidence supports such evolution in the first place. There's a passel of particulars involved beyond the clever morphing animation that is presented. For an overview of some of the problems, I suggest you read "Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds?" before we get into some of the more technical material.

Biblical creationists are excluded from serious examination of evidence, relying on photographs, casts, reports of secular scientists, and so on. That last part is a big problem, since creationists have to rely on the real or alleged authority of those scientists. Paleontologists know their jobs, but in this area, they need to have discussions with anatomists, avian, and other experts before making pronouncements about evolution and dinosaur feathers. After all, they are only beginning to get some insight on the true colors of dinosaurs, so it seems reasonable to exercise caution when claiming that a certain dinosaur fossil had feathers. Especially if it came from the fraud factory in the Liaoning Province of China.

The logic seems to be, "We found dinosaur feathers. Therefore, evolution. Therefore, the Bible is wrong!" We see this kind of convoluted logic all too frequently, where something appears to support evolution, so Darwin is proven right. (It helps their cause to conflate variation with evolution in the old bait-n-switch.) Doesn't work that way, pilgrim. Real scientists should be using the available evidence, not just what supports their worldview and gets them more grant money. Instead, they keep getting surprised and embarrassed, and have to rewrite stories of dinosaur evolution all over again.

Unfortunately, some biblical creationists are accepting what secularists say about dinosaur feathers. They seem to be forgetting their own training and healthy skepticism, and should be more circumspect. I'll allow that they are right that if evidence for feathered dinosaurs was conclusive, it is not a threat to the Bible or creation science. If God made feathered dinosaurs for his own reasons, we can accept that. Let me reiterate that it would not be justified to extrapolate that a feathered dinosaur proved they evolved into birds, you savvy?

After all that, we come to a technical article. After that, something less technical but still very helpful.
Feathered dinosaur candidate fossils have drawn huge interest from secularists who have fitted them into a dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary narrative. The same fossils draw interest from biblical creationists who strive to accurately categorize them into Genesis kinds. Some researchers, including creation paleontologists, accept feathered dinosaurs partly on the basis of detailed secular descriptions. Conversely, some creation scientists with expertise in other disciplines remain unconvinced that those secular descriptions have eliminated enough evolutionary bias to legitimize feathered dinosaurs as a Genesis-friendly category. In addition, secular reports fit the feathered dinosaur candidates into conflicting categories, and include disputes about whether certain fossilized structural remnants really represent feathers. Other intractable barriers against evolution from dinosaur to bird, including centres of mass and respiratory systems, should call into question attempts to conflate the categories. Thus, both creation and anti-creation researchers remain divided over how to categorize feathered dinosaur candidates, and even over the legitimacy of ‘feathered dinosaurs’ as a category.
To read the rest, get comfortable and maybe have some snacks handy, and click on "Researchers remain divided over ‘feathered dinosaurs’". Then we have something shorter but more specific, below.

An anti-creationist wanted to know about alleged quill knobs on dinosaurs. He also challenged CMI's intelligence and integrity.
Question: why are birds not dinosaurs? On your own principles, an eagle, a penguin, and a hummingbird do not share a common ancestor; they are not “birds” by virtue of being a single “kind”. Similarly, you don’t deny that birds are vertebrates, even though surely vertebrates are a plethora of distinct “kinds”.
Given that many theropods share similarities (e.g. hollow bones, bipedality, etc.) with modern birds that they do not share with other “dinosaurs” like Triceratops, why can both T. rex and Stegosaurus be “dinosaurs” but an ostrich or toucan cannot? It cannot simply be because birds were created on the fifth day while most dinosaurs were created on the sixth; by that standard whales and bats cannot be mammals.
Oh, boy. To read the entire question as well as the response, click on "Feathered dinosaurs? — Have quill knobs and feathers been found on dinosaurs?" You may want to save this article for future reference because it has quite a few helpful resources.


Sunday, September 09, 2018

Horseshoe Crab Defies Evolution, Helps Medical Science

Way back when, Papa Darwin referred to critters that are found in the fossil record and are also doing right well today as living fossils. Such things troubled Darwin, and his disciples are making excuses even today. One of those living fossils is an arthropod called the horseshoe crab. It looks like an armored land and sea vehicle for a tiny invader. Yes, I've been watching science fiction again.

Horseshoe crabs not only defy evolution, but they are providing benefits to medical science.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In addition to defying evolution and affirming recent creation, horseshoe crabs are also providing some medical benefits from their blue blood. It can be used to detect toxins on things that get put into a human body. Don't worry, they're not bled dry and tossed in the trash can. They're actually released so they can go on about doing crab stuff. Scientists are working on using recombinant DNA technology to mimic the blood. Of course, they praise Darwin, (blessed be!) because of unproven, assumed evolutionary ancestors. No, old son, it's common design, not common origin. Use your intelligently designed mind to see the work of the Creator.
During all these alleged millions upon millions of years there has been no change in these animals, while sub-human creatures became man, dinosaurs evolved into birds, and a group of mammals even returned to the oceans to become whales. Is it not strange that mutations and natural selection have not affected the horseshoe crab for all this supposed deep evolutionary time? Creation scientists maintain horseshoe crabs have always been horseshoe crabs since their creation thousands of years ago—that’s why the fossils match the living creatures. 
Today, these post-Flood creatures are literally keeping people healthy with their uniquely designed blue opaque blood. Medical science has discovered that horseshoe-crab blood is very sensitive to contamination, such as bacterial toxins. 
To read the rest, click on "Horseshoe Crabs: Living Fossils or Living Laboratories?"

Sunday, September 02, 2018

Geologists Rescuing Deep Time Conflicts

Since Hutton and Lyell, secular geologists have been committing depredations to promote their deep time beliefs. Observed evidence frequently reveals conflicts with the stories they tell about the age of the earth, so they commence to rewriting their timelines. Some of their rescuing devices seem like peyote dreams and not much like actual science.

Secular geologists are having to rewrite their timelines again.
Dolomite boulder image credit: US National Park Service
Secularists have a problem with dolomite, since it does not appear much in Cenozoic strata. It appears where it's supposed to in other strata, so they came up with the idea that rocks were not buried long enough for changes to occur. Good luck with that and the Dolomites in Italy.

The Grand Canyon has been studied many times. Maybe they should quit, since geologists keep encountering problems such as the "flat gaps" which indicate rapid deposition. Now, the Sixtymile Formation has to be redated at millions of years younger than previously thought. This fouls up the fossil dating as well. This also causes problems for a previous rescuing device for a topic that puts a burr under their saddles, the Cambrian Explosion.

The Genesis Flood explains a great deal of geological evidence, so biblical creationists do not have these panicky redating problems. After all, the world was created much more recently than secularists want to believe. (If you think on it, you'll see that creationists are the true freethinkers.)  To read about the items mentioned above, and more, click on "Geology and Anomaly Are Practically Synonyms".


Sunday, August 26, 2018

Your System Cleaner

This is not about computer system software, and system cleaners can remove things you want left alone, or have to be deliberately activated. In this case, it is about an important organ. We have read about the eyes, ears, heart, spleen, and other things. Seems right that we should continue this organ recital with a short discussion of the liver.

The liver is extremely important to cleaning us out on the inside and keeping us alive.
Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
If you were to watch a camera or x-ray of the liver in action, it would be rather boring because it doesn't move around like, say, the heart. But it is working. It has many functions to aid in digestion, and it removes many harmful things, including many poisons we inadvertently ingest every day. (Some people may want to give the liver some help by using supplements, but that may not be such a good idea.) Some of us need to have its function tested on a regular basis to see if medications are interfering with it.

Purveyors of evoporn consider the fact-free "explanation" of "it evolved" sufficient, but that strains credulity. Worse, it denies credit to the Master Engineer, who obviously designed such an intricate and efficient system.
Hopefully, you are very careful about what you put into your body. Yet every day your body has to get rid of poisons. In fact, you can’t eat without producing poisons that should kill you. It sounds like a catch-22: don’t eat, and you starve to death; eat, and your body makes poisons that could kill you. How are you still walking around?
The answer lies in one of the most important organs God put in your body — your liver.
The liver is practically a chemical factory, which does hundreds of jobs that keep you alive.
To read the rest of this article and get instructions for a science experiment, click on "Round-the-Clock Detox". An audio version is also available for download, but without the experiment. 

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Two Wolves in Tasmania

This entry takes place down south. No, not Arizona, you silly Americans, but south down Australia way, all the way to the island state of Tasmania. For a long time, a critter known as the Tasmanian wolf (or tiger, also the unromantic name of thylacine) was uninhibited. Unfortunately, they are probably extinct now since the last one known died in captivity in 1936.

The dingo is wrongly blamed for the extinction of the thylacine.
Thylacine art by John Gould, 1863
The thylacine was not something to roll over and play dead. It had no problem killing fresh meat at chow time, and was not known to scavenge or even return to a previous meal. It was a marsupial. Through evosplaining, marsupials are considered "primitive" and placental mammals are "advanced", but in reality, marsupials and placental mammals were created on the same day. 

Now enter the dingo. Bad dog. Bad! They are opportunist predators, and do a a passel of rotten things. But these "advanced" placental mammals, which are smaller than the fierce thylacines, are given credit (or blame) for their extinction due to Darwinian "competition". This is probably a case of a known criminal receiving blame for a crime for which he was innocent.
Australia’s wild dog, the dingo—classified by some as a subspecies of the wolf, Canis lupus dingo—is certainly viewed by many as sinister and savage, not to be trusted. It has been blamed, with good cause, for mauling sheep, stealing (a British tourist was robbed by a dingo on an Australian beach in 2012) and even ‘murder’. There’s something else the dingo is blamed for, though, that is worth examining. Through competition (for food, habitat, etc.) the dingo is said to have caused the disappearance from mainland Australia of the Tasmanian wolf—a marsupial carnivore also known as the thylacine, or (because of its stripes) Tasmanian tiger.
Dogs/wolves/dingoes are placental mammals, while marsupials (e.g. the kangaroo, koala and possum) have a marsupium, or pouch, in which they carry their young. The thylacine’s scientific name, Thylacinus cynocephalus, means ‘pouched one with a dog’s head’.
Evolutionists have traditionally viewed marsupials as more ‘primitive’ than the ‘more advanced’ placental mammals. Albert Le Souef, then curator of Taronga Park Zoo in Sydney, wrote in 1923:
You can find out what Al wrote and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Placental versus Marsupial: A tale of two ‘wolves’". As for the video below, it would be nice if some were still living.



Sunday, August 12, 2018

Lizard and Other Finds Fluster Evolutionists

Proponents of atoms-to-anoles evolution are having increasing difficulties in supporting their stories, as evidence continues to mount in favor of special creation. Quite often, they will get all agitated about fossils that they consider ancient, even the "first ancestor" of some critter or another. Then the fossils turn out to be mostly identical to creatures that are living today. One of these is the lizard Megachirella wachtleri.

Fossils of lizards, other critters, and other discoveries are being troublesome to evolutionists.
Cropped from an image at Wikimedia Commons by Ghedoghedo (CC BY-SA 3.0)
They got themselves all agitated that this new fossil gave "valuable information" about the alleged evolution of lizards. However, it does nothing of the kind. This so-called ancestor is dated much older than previous fossils — and it is still a lizard. No transitional forms or anything, just evidence that organisms were created to reproduce after their kind, the way the Creator intended. Worse for secularists, they keep uncovering evidence for the Genesis Flood!

In related news, anole lizards diversity. Wake the neighbors, call the press, spread the word! Actually, this is nothing new for creationists, who expect speciation and diversity in the first place.
Evolutionists celebrate the earliest fossil lizard, but have to push back the origin of lizards by 75 million years.
CT scans of a fossil found in the early 2000’s has revealed it to be a lizard. Its location in the Dolomite mountains in Italy requires evolutionists to date it at 240 million Darwin Years. That, however, pushes the origin of lizards 75 million years earlier than evolutionists thought. From the bones, the artwork and the text, though, nothing reveals this animal to be a transitional form. It looks like a lizard one might find scampering about today.
To read about the two stories mentioned, click on "First Lizard Was 100% Lizard". In related news, you can read about more surprises dismaying to evolutionists at "Upsets Surprise Evolutionists". Finally, a mix of paleontology, global climate change, biology, and more in "Scientific Discoveries Can Cast Doubt on Long-Held Beliefs".


Sunday, August 05, 2018

Degenerate Codons and Evolution

It may sound like a scientific insult, but degenerate in the genome context is quite specific. Advocates of universal common descent evolution presuppose their belief system (not pulling the reigns back and stopping to ask if evolution is true in the first place), and working from that starting point. This is why evolutionary scientists were embarrassed when they claimed that certain parts of the human genome had "junk" DNA, and this has been refuted. Still clinging to their faith in naturalism, evolutionists have referred labeled some codon areas as degenerate sites.

Evolutionists referred to some codon areas as degenerate, so evolution could happen there. This is false.
Credit: Freeimages / schulergd
Since evolutionary scientists could not explain why codons had redundancy, and could not understand why the third codon base was different from the first two, it was the maverick that could allow evolution to happen. And there are four layers of instruction. Further research shows that such a belief needs to be put out to pasture. If scientists took the view that the Master Engineer put things together the way he did for specific reasons, they may not be embarrassed so often.
While the idea of codon degeneracy has been promoted for years as a viable place in the genome where evolution can occur and actually be measured, research discoveries over the past decade have increasingly discredited this concept. Perhaps the most exciting discovery is that other codes are embedded within and overlay the codons.
In one study, it was found that a different set of code overlaying the codons instructs cellular protein machinery called transcription factors, which control the expression of genes, where to latch on to the DNA inside genes. While one group of codons delineates the amino acid order in a protein, the exact same sequence of DNA letters can also instruct cellular machinery where to bind to the gene to make the RNA copies needed to make a protein. Researchers called these codes duons.
To read the entire article (which is not overly lengthy), click on "Codons Are Not Degenerate After All".