Search This Blog

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Trees Talking in the Forest

When the subject of communication comes up, people tend to think about words. These are spoken as well as the written forms of what can be spoken. There are studies of vocalizations and other sounds from animals and even insects for communication. Essentially, we tend to think of communication as something related to sounds and vibrations. It is a bit surprising to learn that plants also communicate.


the Master Engineer has equipped trees with tree mail to communicate
Modified from a US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Aaron Henson
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the Marines or the US Department of Defense)
Trees, forests, nature — all are good for our physical and mental health. David Coppedge speaks from experience when he tells us the benefits of hiking and camping in God's creation. He pointed out that the Japanese have a healthy custom that they call forest bathingThis is not to be confused with California New Age wackiness of the same name. God has given us things that are both sanative and enjoyable.



The communications of trees has been referred to as "tree mail". Darwin's concept of competition for survival is uprooted because trees have been shown to not only protect themselves, but alert others through their network. (I can imagine: "Hey, I'm getting munched on over here. Everybody taste bad now!") They also invite fungi into their dwellings for a mutually beneficial arrangement: "Come to the forest side, we have cookies". Research is still underway and there is a great deal to learn, but the whole wood-wide web concept is fascinating. Yet again, we see that the Master Engineer has given living things what they need to survive and thrive.
Researchers are discovering that trees form communities that “talk” to each other, sharing their needs and providing mutual assistance. Yes, you heard me correctly. It’s mindboggling, even for someone like me who has spent his life studying nature’s wonders (forest ecology in particular).
Now, it’s important to remember that forests aren’t human or alive in any sense like animals (they lack the “breath” of life, or nephesh, according to God’s Word). Unfortunately, some current researchers blur the line, imbuing plants with animal or human attributes, such as feelings and consciousness, which they don’t have. The science itself is fascinating, without any need to make trees sound human-like.
When the Bible proclaims that “the trees of the woods” give glory to God, this metaphor may be a reality in unexpected ways.
To read the entire article or download the MP3 by my favorite reader, click on "Talking Trees — Secrets of Plant Communication".



Sunday, May 20, 2018

David Attenborough and the Failed Tree of Life

Naturalist David Attenborough has been a presenter of naturalism and nature documentaries for a very long time, and is a source of pride for the not-so-Great Britain. He has a prairie schooner-full of honorary doctorates, possibly for being a fine fellow who is easy on the ears. (He does not have advanced earned degrees aside from a two-year intensive course at Cambridge, where he scored a 2.1. Do a search for his education, and you'll see that he has "a degree in natural sciences". Kind of vague, don't you think?) I suspicion that Attenborough is so adored is because he presents a great deal of evoporn for the undiscerning, who accept his faith-based assertions. He has also promoted discredited evolution, such as the aquatic ape concept. One episode in the 2009 series was "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life".

David Attenborough presented the evolutionary "Tree of Life" without actual science involved.
Ernst Haeckel's version of the "Tree of Life" via Wikimedia Commons
He began his BBC presentation by discussing the biblical account of creation, and then commenced to saying things that were not correct. From there, the iconic "Darwin's Finches" were discussed, but when someone lassos a bit of history, he or she will learn that Darwin had no idea of what they were; the legend was built up over the next few years.

Then we come to the main subject, the "Tree of Life". There are many versions of it because Darwin did not have a handle on this,  either, and evolutionists don't cotton to the traditional view so much any longer. Biblical creationists say that an orchard is a more accurate analogy. The following article discusses several other things Darwin and his disciples inaccurately believe, including alleged "transitional forms" such as Archaeopteryx, and several other important subjects that are unfriendly for diatoms-to-Darwin evolution. Attenborough and many others go to a great deal of effort to deny the Creator his rightful place, and they do it with fanciful tales and assertions that have no evidence.

To read this informative article, I hope you'll follow the non-missing link right here: "David Attenborough: Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life". Also, you may like to see this fact-free historical fiction video presented as science:



Sunday, May 13, 2018

Viking Bones Fight Carbon-14

Somewhere around 873 AD, the Great Army (also called the Great Heathen Army by the English), mainly from Norway, Denmark, and Sweden commenced to do some raiding. They sure did like the British Isles for pillaging purposes, but for some reason, this army was more ambitious. Skipping ahead, a burial ground was discovered in Repton.


Carbon-14 dating of Viking bones in England yielded erroneous results
Postage stamp from the Faroe Islands depicting a Viking Ship, via Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain
Carbon-14 dating results were at odds with historical eyewitness accounts, so rescuing devices (excuses) were utilized, but were not convincing in light of the evidence. This account helps illustrate how assumptions in radiometric dating can have erroneous results. It also shows how some scientists are not thorough in considering pertinent data. Further, it highlights the great but unfounded faith that some people have in such dating methods. Later, the dating was done again, taking into account certain factors that were neglected in the first place. Carbon-14 is a useful tool, but such dating methods are not exact. When done properly, carbon-14 can give approximations from which to work. Forensic evidence is not as reliable as, but can supplement, eyewitness accounts.
Radiocarbon dating is considered one of science’s tried-and-true methodologies. But could there be a forensic flaw in measuring carbon-14 dates using conventional methodology? Could dates assigned by that method be vulnerable to faulty assumptions that render them invalid?
Indeed they can. The age assignment for certain Viking bones caused a decades-long controversy until the carbon-14 methodology used to date them was recently exposed for its flawed assumptions. This case demonstrates that one-size-fits-all radiocarbon dating doesn’t work.
To read the rest, you can invade "Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions".

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Secular Science Industry Needs Damage Control

The public has an odd mixture of admiration and suspicion for secular science. You can often hear or read the expression, "Scientists say...", and people happily accept the statement as truth. On the other hand, there is more public awareness of bad science, character flaws in scientists (they are human and not monoliths of objectivity, after all), and even outright fraud.


The secular science industry has many problems that need to be corrected
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
The secular science industry is losing credibility, especially in areas regarding molecules-to-machinist evolution, and they need to do something about it. One major difficulty is that many scientists have a materialistic mindset based on an evolutionary worldview. That means morality is subjective, and if doing dirty deeds helps them prosper, so be it. Meanwhile, biblical creationists are held to a higher standard, and these problems are not rampant in the creationary community.


via GIPHY

There are other difficulties in secular science. Many have been in the corral a mighty long time, and folks are getting upset. Paleontologists are naming too many species (such as male, female, and juvenile dinosaurs unnecessarily classified as separate species). How about claiming a hypothesis was demonstrated by post-dating the proposal until after the fact? Since scientific racism gets people on the prod nowadays, National Geographic had some apologizing to do.

Peer review is treated as if it was a guarantee of scientific accuracy and integrity (which is absurd). People get haywire when something is presented that doesn't meet their standards, not peer reviewed by scientists that they approve of (especially if it came from a creationary perspective). I reckon many of those wouldn't understand a hard science peer-reviewed paper after a week of study, so complaining about peer review is a cop out. But I digress. Some things are getting peer reviewed after publication. For that matter, fraud and downright bad science is getting a pass in the peer review process on multiple occasions.

You can read about these and more by clicking on "Big Science Trying to Wipe Egg Off Its Face"