Search This Blog

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Pterosaur Illustration and the Flood

Someone who wants to create a realistic illustration is likely to use surroundings that are authentic. Something that is used to represent historical matters are expected to have things that are appropriate to the period; no cowboys on horses firing ray guns, for instance. The same would apply to biblical illustrations.

A pterosaur illustration in 1863 about the Genesis Flood includes a surprising item. This raises some interesting points for Christians to  consider.
Made with PhotoFunia
Let's take a few more steps back. An illustration of the Genesis Flood would indicate animals that the artist expected to be alive at the time — especially if he believes the Bible. Way back in 1863, Edward Burne-Jones made a bit of art depicting Noah's Ark just after the Flood. While there are several errors in it. (Also, this one by Paul Gustave Louis Christophe Doré is gruesome, and there should be no bodies after the Flood, but the Ark looks good). Burne-Jones had some points in his favor as well. 

But why a pterosaur in the art? It's not like he saw on for himself, but he had access to information about such things. Apparently, he wanted to show that this critter was living at the time of the Flood. Also, the Ark itself is rather good, not like the silly stuff that people use to entertain children. Misrepresentations of the Ark or any other biblical history make it seem like just a story, and that's no good.
Have you ever thought about drawing an image of the events surrounding the global Flood of Noah? If so, what would you include in your depiction, assuming contemporary knowledge of animals that lived during that period? Would you include extinct kinds of animals such as dinosaurs, dicynodonts and pterosaurs, or only those alive today? To help explore these questions a case-in-point comes from a nineteenth century drawing recently on display in the Tate Britain Art Museum, London, entitled “Noah receiving the dove back onto the Ark” (1863).1 It was drawn with pen on a wooden block by English artist Edward Burne-Jones (1833–1898). Considered one of the last Pre-Raphaelites, before becoming an artist he had intended to become a Christian minister. His depiction of the Ark and what is floating in the flood water prompts several points worth discussing.
To continue reading, click on "A pterosaur in the Flood waters? — Artistry and being consistent with the Biblical text".

Sunday, September 08, 2019

Biblical Counseling and Creation Face Similar Opposition

As we have explained numerous times, biblical creationists and adherents of universal common ancestor evolution have the same evidence. Likewise, those who believe in deep time and recent creation have the same evidence; it is not theirs versus ours. Evidence is interpreted according to our presuppositions. There are surprisingly similar difficulties encountered with biblical counseling.


Creation science and biblical counseling face similar obstacles from those who do not realize that both secularists and Christians have the same facts available. Facts are interpreted according to presuppositions.
Credit: RGBStock / Dez Pain
Like with creation science, opponents of biblical counseling get all het up about "facts", but they are opinions and interpretations of observations. Creationists who add evolution do violence to the gospel message, and secular psychology has an evolutionary core which gives secularists a passel of problems. Biblical counselors approach the facts with God's Word as the ultimate standard, rejecting the idea that we are just modified pond scum.
Evolutionists have created a cottage industry out of accusing creationists of being committed to magic rather than science. Such epithets miss the point. Both sides of the debate traffic in facts, but interpret those facts based on different sources of authority that inform their worldview commitments.
. . .
When it comes to counseling, the debate between those committed to biblical counseling (as I am) and those committed to other approaches concerns whether the Bible is sufficient to inform the counseling task, or whether psychology provides a crucial adjunct to the conversations that happen in counseling. Those who believe that the Bible is not sufficient for counseling, and who argue for the necessary inclusion of psychological methods in counseling, point to the science of psychology to buttress their claim.
To read the entire article or download the MP3, click on "Biblical Counseling—Common Cause with Creation".



Sunday, September 01, 2019

Blue Eyes and Evolutionary Racism

Evolutionary dogma was used to justify the false idea of scientific racism, and the idea that blue eyes are a mutation were a part of that concept. Although Darwinists have attempted to skedaddle from the idea that lighter-skinned people are more highly evolved, the belief is still a pillar of evolution. You can't hide your lyin' racist evolution eyes.


Although evolutionists try to distance themselves from their racist dogma, it persists. One place is the refuted idea that blue eyes are a mutation from brown.
Credit: Freeimages / Ne¾a Èerin
Seems that when people are tearing down statues of people in the past who were considered racists, they would also pull down statues of Papa Darwin. Maybe have him disinterred from Westminster Abbey and dump him in the Thames. But no, evolution is a pillar of the left and is used to promote certain agendas.

Centuries ago, my eyes were blue, but became the steel grey they are now. My wife's eyes are startlingly blue; she even compared the color to that of the Siberian Husky. Her color never changed from childhood. 

The evolution story maintains that since we emerged out of Africa, we would have brown eyes because of our putative apelike ancestors. Digging into genetics, scientists have learned that eye color is complicated. It comes from pigment, genetic switches, and is not a mutation at all. It is actually part of the variety programmed into us by the Master Engineer. 
When it comes to the history of basic human traits, an evolutionary myth about eye color often pops up. The secular story maintains that blue eyes are the result of a genetic mutation that occurred in the recent evolutionary history of modern humans. This narrative is rooted in the belief that modern humans originally evolved from dark-skinned, dark-eyed ancestors from Africa. As the story goes, a mutation occurred when humans migrated into more northerly climates where the trait was supposedly favored by the lower-light environment. But, as I’ve discussed in previous articles, this out-of-Africa idea is contradicted by both genetic and linguistic data.
I hope y'all see it clear to read the rest, just click on "Are Blue Eyes in Humans a Mutation?"

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Deceptive Reporting on Yeast Evolution

Researchers commenced to fiddling with yeast, found a modification, and cried, "Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" They were shining ultraviolet light on the yeast. Maybe they got the notion from playing with a black light poster that had a picture of a hippie and had "Peace" in big letters.

Scientists fiddled with yeast, obtained a variation, and called it evolution. Instead, it shows no evolution, but instead, built-in adaptability designed by the Master Engineer.
Credit: Unsplash / Jonas Jacobsson
However it came about, they did not demonstrate any kind of evolution. They almost-intelligently designed a variation where a species of yeast can metabolize a food that it could not use previously. Every cell has a membrane that keeps good things in the cell and other things need to have an authorized escort. This yeast was given a transport so it could strap on the feed back for its new food. This may be beneficial for the brewing industry. What scientists found is actually evidence for special creation and built-in adaptability designed by the Master Engineer.
A research team at the department of Biotechnology at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands claims to have ‘evolved’ a species of yeast (Saccharomyces eubayanus) to digest a complex sugar called maltotriose. After exposing the yeast to high levels of ultraviolet light, they discovered a hybrid gene that gave it this new ability. The hybrid gene codes for a transporter protein which allows maltotriose into the cell. The yeast strain with the newly engineered gene was capable of increased maltose and maltotriose fermentation, which can be used in the brewing industry.
All living things, from single-celled bacteria to multi-trillion-celled-humans, have a cellular membrane that prevents things from leaking out of or from entering the cell. In order to live, food has to be brought into the cell through that membrane. Thus, all species have transport proteins that help to bring things into the cell. The genes responsible for transporting sugars into the yeast cell are called SeMALT genes. There is a diversity of such genes found among the many yeast species.
To read the rest of the article (it's a mite technical), click on "New sugar transport gene evolved in yeast? Mixing genes does not equal evolution!" Also, there is a follow-up feedback article, "Can mutations lead to new genetic information? A necessary clarification".

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Evolution, Mathematics, and God

For science to operate, we must have an orderly and predictable universe. If you drop a ball it will hit the floor or whatever. It would take unusual circumstances to drop a ball and have it fall up. Science depends on consistent laws of logic and mathematics, and these things defy atheism and naturalism.


Science, logic, and math are not possible in a consistent atheistic worldview. They are only possible through biblical creation.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
I am one of those people who shunned mathematics and thought I would never use it later in life. Wrong-o! We use math every day, often without realizing it. Astronomers must have a good grasp of advanced mathematics, as do people in other scientific disciplines. Evolution makes science, math, logic, and everything else impossible (if they are consistent in their worldview). In fact, these things depend on the principles of biblical creation, because if a universe without God was possible in the first place, such a random place makes math, logic, and science impossible!
You have probably heard of evolutionary biologists – those who study biology from the perspective of Darwinism.  And you have probably heard of evolutionary geologists, or evolutionary astronomers – those who study their respective disciplines from secular assumptions of origins.  But have you ever heard of evolutionary mathematics?  No doubt there are some mathematicians who believe in neo-Darwinian evolution, but can math itself have an evolutionary origin?  What would that even mean?
We can consider, at least as a hypothetical scenario, the idea of particles-to-people evolution in the field of biology because we know that organisms change over time.  We know that descendants are not exactly the same as their ancestors.  And therefore, it is natural to ask what kinds of changes are possible.  The evolutionist believes that organisms like fish can eventually give rise to organisms like people.  The creationist argues that organisms diversify but remain the same basic kind.  Contrary to the straw-man arguments asserted by some evolutionists, creationists do believe that animals change over time – but that there are natural limits to such change.  The fact that organisms change means that we can intellectually consider (for the sake of argument) either creation or evolution as a possible scenario to explain the patterns we find in living organisms today.
Although this article is a mite long, it is extremely interesting and useful. To finish reading, click on "Evolutionist Math".

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Easter Eggs of the Brain

Gamers are usually acquainted with Easter eggs, a term used to describe hidden rewards or effects. Physicians and scientists know a great deal about the human brain, but keep discovering more interesting things to investigate further. Here are a few more.

The more doctors and scientists research the human brain, the more "Easter eggs" they find. This testifies of the genius of our Creator and leaves Darwin behind.
Background image credit: Freeimages / artM
Just when they may think they've mastered a scene or a level in the brain game, something new is found. Back a few months ago, we got a head start (heh!) on brain studies with "Software in the Brain". Purveyors of minerals-to-man evolution keep on a-trying to lasso evidence for evolution where none exists. When that fails, they fall back on the old "Hail Darwin! Blessed Be!" invocations when they should really be giving credit to the Master Engineer who gave them everything they have.
  • The brain has a built-in draining mechanism to rid itself of cerebrospinal fluid, which saves us the trouble of attaching a spigot and finding someone to hold a pail for us.
  • It also conveniently forgets some things, which may be a blessing so we are not overloaded with clutter. (I wonder what will become of the belief that we never forget anything completely.) 
  • Although Neanderthals have been conclusively shown to be fully human, some evolutionists insist that studying them can help us understand how humans probably evolved. Start with your conclusion, end with your conclusion. Use circular reasoning and faulty presuppositions, plug in your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ and call it science. It is not really how it works, old son, but secularists do that quite a bit anyway.
You can read about these and more by clicking on "Brain Secrets Seen Through a Glass Darkly". Also, you may want to look at "Brains by Mistake: The Darwin Poof Spoof", your brain is the most complex object in the known universe but Darwinists say it is the product of multiple mistakes. Finally, "Brain Provides Shortcuts for the Will", the brain is like a smart assistant, allowing previously-learned actions to be called up on demand.

Sunday, August 04, 2019

Nearsightedness May Be Adaptation

For some reason, it did not click with me how to distinguish between nearsighted and farsighted. Like sitting up all night wondering where the sun went after it set, it finally dawned on me: farsighted means you can see what is far, nearsighted means you can see what is near. Recent research about myopia (the expensive word for nearsightedness) may fit into a creation science model.

An evolutionist researched the increase in nearsightedness and came up with no evolution. However, observations may support a creation science model.
Credit: Freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska
A Darwinist noted an increase in myopia. There is no "selection" or evolution involved, so it remains puzzling in that worldview. However, the Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET) model being developed by the Institute for Creation Research proposes that creatures are designed by their Creator to respond to environmental changes — the opposite of standard evolutionary views. More research is needed, of course, but the evidence may very well fit the CET model.
Steve Turpin, O.D., M.S., a Doctor of Optometry, wrote about an alarming increase in nearsightedness in developed societies on behalf of the Evolution Institute (EI). His conclusions actually contradict Darwinian evolution. In fact, everything Dr. Turpin writes would have nothing to do with evolution were it not for his evolutionary conception of human history. Turpin, like many evolutionists, equate the primitive human ancestors that they envision in their minds to certain native populations living around the world today.
To see the rest, click on "New Ways to See Nearsightedness". Unfortunately, there is no explanation for the myopic management of certain businesses I could name...

Sunday, July 28, 2019

Fish School Fossil — Anything but the Flood

Paleontologists were shocked — shocked, I tell you — to find a slab of limestone fossil with a school of fish. The standard myth (which just about anyone can refute with using their think bones and observations) is that fish die, sink to the bottom of the water, and are gradually fossilized.

A fossilized school of fish was discovered. Evolutionists are making excuses, but this is further evidence of the Genesis Flood.
Made at Hetermeel.com
Deniers of the global Genesis Flood try desperately to find rescuing devices to avoid that the evidence clearly illustrates. One jasper even suggested that they died en masse before they were buried, which only made things worse. Or was it global warming?

When a fish or something dies, it decays, gets scavenged, or something else happens. It does not lay there waiting to turn into a fossil. The right circumstances must be present. The fact that a number of these fish were obviously caught while schooling gives evidence for the Genesis Flood, old son.
A limestone shale slab from the Green River Formation, USA, has incredibly ‘captured’ a mass of 257 fish swimming together in a school. The fish, each just under 1 in (2.5 cm) long, belong to an extinct species, Erismatopterus levatus. Just before being fossilised they were swimming in the same direction. Swimming together in a school is a dynamic process and this slab amazingly preserves, in ‘freeze frame’ as it were, this coordinated collective motion. Such discoveries are rare. As pointed out in the New York Times, “It’s difficult, for instance, to find evidence of schooling fish in the fossil record. You need just the right circumstances to fossilize something like a school of fish in place within a rock. Then, that rock has to survive intact long enough for a paleontologist to discover it and study it”.
To be impressed by the full article, click on "A swimming school of fish fossilized in real time". A similar article with related news is "A Fossilized School of Fish". You may also like "Ken Ham Solves Great Paleontological Mystery".


Sunday, July 21, 2019

Disciples of Darwin Make Fake News

We have clearly seen many times that the news media for the secular science industry is primarily interested in two things: sales (including advertisements in "click bait" headlines), and convincing people that evolution is true. If evolution were true, they wouldn't need to resort to fake news and misrepresenting biblical creation science.

News media for secular science give fake news reports, but so do evolutionists themselves.
Mostly made at PhotoFunia
Money matters a whole heap to secularists, so I hope you clear the tracking cookies on your computer every once in a while.

There are numerous reports that claim to have evidence for evolution that came from researchers interpreting evidence with their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings™. Other times, the secular news media are putting words in the mouths of scientists. It's mighty strange that people have a trust-distrust attitude toward scientists, and Americans have a general distrust of secular media in general — many even call it "the enemy of the people"! Then people will read headlines or stories from the Darwin propaganda mill and accept them. Wouldn't it be nice if people utilized healthy skepticism and critical thinking?
. . . the scientific media is not much more trustworthy than the rest. This is illustrated in the recent coverage of a small bird found on the tiny coral atoll in the Indian Ocean called Aldabra. According to the widespread media coverage, the white-throated rail (Dryolimnas cuvieri) on this island was wiped out by a flood over one-hundred-thousand years ago, then the same species somehow re-evolved. These articles were claiming this species had somehow resurrected itself. But this is not what the actual scientific paper had claimed. The paper had claimed it was the same genus, not the same species, and rightly so since they were working with only two bones. The popular portrayal of this particular study was so egregious it prompted a stern rebuke from noted atheist evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne, who maintains a personal blog alongside his scientific publications. He wrote that “the popular press grossly misreported what this finding means, claiming that the same species evolved twice independently. And that’s just not true.” It is not often we can agree with Dr. Coyne, but in this instance, he is quite correct.
To read the entire article, click on "Can We Trust Science Media?" Here are some other articles to help illustrate the points made:


Sunday, July 14, 2019

Evolutionists Proud of Poor Bacteria Research

It seems to be increasingly commonplace that when faced with setbacks in cosmic and biological evolution, Darwinists commence to proclaiming that they are "excited" about the discoveries. In research on E. coli, scientists were actually proud of the damage done and even took time out to directly mock Jesus. Sure, that's science, Blossom.

Evolutionists fiddled with some DNA and broke it. They celebrated, and also took the time to mock Jesus. This is not science.
E. coli image credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (CC by 2.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
These are the same kind of jaspers who decided we have "junk" DNA and vestigial organs based on the complex scientific principle of, "We don't know what it does, therefore, evolutionary trash". Scientists did not understand the purpose of codons. Instead of waiting until they knew more, the declared a section to be where evolution happens.

Since secular scientists presuppose the wasteful, inefficient, chance-dominated belief in evolution, these took something that was designed by the Master Engineer and fiddled with it. Instead of admitting that everything is in its place for a specific reason, they tampered with the DNA and essentially broke it. This was a cause for celebration? About like taking the engine out of an Aston Martin DB5 and replacing it with a 1971 Pinto engine. "It won't actually run, Mr. Bond, but it rolls downhill quite nicely". Your tax money at work.
Researchers have just reported a newly recoded bacterial genome in which genetic optimization was markedly reduced. Optimization is a principle of designed systems. Scientists hacked the bacteria’s genetic code and it experienced a huge reduction in growth. It also exhibited an abnormal cell shape. Despite this obvious detriment to the bacteria, the researchers gloated that life could still operate—a common, yet failed evolutionary argument.
To read the rest, click on "Hacked Genome Damages Cell, Declares Creator's Genius".


Sunday, July 07, 2019

The Hard Facts on the Medusa Virus

Depending on which version of ancient mythology you read, Medusa had a head of serpents and whoever looked upon her was turned to stone. Talk about having a hard day! Borrowing from the gist of the mythology, researchers came up with something called the Medusavirus. No snakes, though. And you're not likely to "catch" this virus.

The newly-cultured Medusavirus is very large and complex. There are many factors that puzzle evolutionists, and it seems to support special creation.
Medusa by Jacek Malczewski, 1900
The Medusavirus is not only large in size, but it also has a large, complex genome. Believers in universal common descent evolution have a difficult time finding an explanation for it, as there is no lineage, contains special genes, and gene transfer happens rapidly. Even so, scientists are wondering what it really is. While more research will be conducted, we do have something unique that supports creation and is antithetical to evolution.
A novel ‘giant virus’ (diameter 260 nanometers, 1 nanometer is 10-9 meters) has recently been discovered in a Japanese hot spring. Masaharu Takemaru, a virologist at the Tokyo University of Science, named it Medusavirus after the Greek legend of the Medusa, who was so ugly that people looking at her would turn to stone. Researchers have cultured Medusavirus inside the amoeba Acanthamoeba castellanii. The virus induces the amoeba to dehydrate and harden in self-defense (a process known as encystment). If they fail to do this, these amoebae will be invaded by the virus, which hijacks the reproductive machinery to produce more viruses. Then the amoeba bursts to release the new viruses.
To read this short but technical article, click on "Newly discovered Medusavirus turns evolutionary theory to stone".

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Altruism, Creation, and Evolution

On one hand, people will try to destroy others who do not agree with their views. On the other hand, we try to help others at considerable personal risk, and have even signed on to perform rescues on a regular basis. We are a baffling bunch at times. Darwin and his followers cannot explain altruism.

Darwin and his followers cannot explain morality and altruism, even with game theory. Christians and creationists know the source.
Credit: RGBStock / Copta
Helping others is hit or miss. We can be horrified or angry when someone refuses to help someone else, such as on an episode of Barney Miller: Officer Stan Wojciehowicz arrested someone for not grabbing a purse snatcher. This child believes that at the very least, people can call an emergency number to possibly save a life or property.

Some folks think that morality (thus, altruism) are the result of evolution, but that idea is loco. But they keep trying, saying that human cooperation is because of evolution; we evolved it for a purpose. (So, evolution is blind and purposeless except when it isn't, natural selection magically did it. Right.) Why are animals altruistic toward each other, and they sometimes save people, Papa Darwin? Some evolutionists are attempting to plug altruism into game theory. Actually, morality and altruism come from the source that is anathema to naturalists.

One aspect of being made in our Creator's image is morality. This is expressed through kindness, compassion, and altruism. God cares not only about us, but about animals, and we take care of our own beasts as well as forming animal rescue organizations. However, we are not highly-evolved animals, and caring for critters as well as for each other cannot be reasonable explained through evolutionary thinking or evolutionary mysticism that denies God.
Jargon-rich theories to explain altruism in Darwinian terms melt in the light of justice.
To Darwinians, morality is just a game. Literally. Evolutionists have long turned to game theory and other tricks to try to explain humans’ propensity to care for others. Altruism has been a conundrum for natural selection ever since Darwin considered it. Evolutionists have come up with possibilities like kin selection (the notion that caring for one’s kin increases the fitness of the family), group selection (expanding the target of selection to populations), and reciprocal altruism (“you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”), but those notions fail to explain many examples of self-sacrifice, including human altruism. People will send money around the world to help those in need that they will likely never meet, and risk their lives to rescue strangers. How did that evolve?
Darwinists have fought among themselves over competing hypotheses for the evolution of altruism. Those fights, however, are usually kept out of public view. Current Biology, an expensive Darwin-Only paywall journal, published a series of open-access articles last week on the evolution of altruism as if to hold an open house. “No controversy here,” the articles proclaim. “Darwin our champion can still take on all comers.” But do the game theorists succeed in connecting their toy models to reality? Let’s take a look.
To continue reading, click on "Evolution Cannot Do Justice to Morality".


Sunday, June 23, 2019

Vestiges of Bad Design Claims

Actually, the title is a blend of two lame ponies that evolutionists trot out. One is vestigial organs or structures, the other is about dysteleological claims that our Creator was a lousy designer. Apparently, armchair atheists and evolutionists can do better. That'll be the day! We have two podcasts to consider.


Evolutionists try to tell us that our Creator is a bad designer, and that we have leftovers from our evolutionary past. Both concepts are easily refuted.
Credit: Unsplash / Liam Welch
If you study on it, you'll realize that the "God fouled up" arguments are not based on science, but on atheistic presuppositions and personal preferences. (It also shows that they do know God exists, as they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and seeking rescuing devices.) Anti-creationists cannot design a "better" eye, since they have the blueprints and materials available. Upon further examination, their assertions are nonsensical.

Related to this is the allegation that certain organs (or structures) are vestigial. That is, junk left over from our evolutionary past. Evolutionary thinking has hindered medical science many times, as people who have their tonsils and appendixes removed because of evolution can attest: they were harmed by rote removals. Arrogant secularists did not (and seldom do now) humble themselves and realize that just because they do not understand something does not mean it has no purpose. Evolutionists were humiliated by "junk" DNA — which do have uses. So do vestigial organs, pilgrim.

One of the more outrageous and comical beliefs about vestigial stuff is goosebumps. Evolutionists say it is because our more hairy ancestors would sense danger and their hair would raise up so they looked more fierce. Another bit of foolishness is that our back problems exist because we are not supposed to be walking upright, but on all fours. Add to this that selfishness shows evolution, or the ludicrous claim that an atheist made in a debate (I have to find this again) that religion began because Neanderthals heard thunder and could not explain. That's "reason". 


We are not the products of evolution. The evidence refutes evolutionary speculations and supports recent creation and design. Earlier, I mentioned that we have two podcasts. They are with Bob Enyart and Dr. Jerry Bergman. First, "RSR with Jerry Bergman on the 'Poor Design' Invalid Argument". Second, "The Vestiges of the Vestigial Argument". I have to make a disclaimer, however. Bob Enyart does excellent work on creation science, but he believes in the dreadful "open theology". Fortunately, those are not mentioned here, but you may hear them in his theology podcasts.



Sunday, June 16, 2019

Rebellions at the Darwin Ranch

Normally the hands at the Darwin Ranch get on the prod because of creation science evidence, lack of peyote, or cheating at poker. When some get to feeling a mite intellectual, they start to question evolution itself and having debates. There is no evidence for evolution. What to do?

Evolutionary concepts have had many changes over the years. Some of its critics are evolutionists who are presenting different approaches. None of them work.
Lomonosov in Germany: The scientific DebateEugene Lanceray, 1900
Years ago, traditional Darwinism was almost dead in the water, so the neo-Darwin (modern synthesis) was established. That satisfied some folks for a spell, but evidence was still lacking. Things got worse for evolution as the science of genetics that was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) grew and produced information that is hostile to evolution.

Some scientists postulated that evolution happened so fast that you can't see it, others came up with the "neutral model", and another group of rebels saddled up with the "Third Way". Scientific evidence does not support any of them. Evolution's adherents disagree, but they still ride for the Darwin brand. It seems to this child that to believe in something despite of the evidence or wishing for evidence is faith, not science.

Of course, the evidence supports biblical creation science, but that's bad medicine; those owlhoots are too committed to naturalism to consider it. They are determined to avoid the Creator, because that would mean that he makes the rules. We must all humble ourselves and come to him on his terms, not through our own demands.
The Modern Synthesis was clearly in trouble. Modern molecular biology was just getting off the ground in the 1970s and 1980s, so evolutionists hoped some magical mechanism would be found to explain how creatures could evolve rapidly as Gould and Eldredge argued. However, new discoveries about the cell and DNA were only revealing more complexity and mystery.
As if these problems were not bad enough, evolution’s worst nightmare was yet to come—the modern revolution in molecular biology and genomics. Because of the immense level of genetic and cellular complexity, evolutionary scientists in different fields are now at odds with each other as to how evolution can even work.
To examine the entire article or download the MP3 by my favorite reader, click on "Evolution’s Surprising New Critics". I also recommend an earlier post, "Evolutionary Rescuing Devices Need Rescuing".


Sunday, June 09, 2019

Had It with Hadrosaur Evolution?

Adherents of the Darwin persuasion are frustrated because there is no sign of dinosaur evolution. They just showed up in the fossil record. Additional discoveries call for the rewriting of dinosaur evolution. Now they want to get a head in the game — that is, the evolution of hadrosaur heads.

There is no evidence for dinosaur evolution, they simply appeared in the fossil record. Evolutionists make things worse by speculating on "evolutionary bursts" about hadrosaur heads.

This came about because some of the hands at the Darwin Ranch had ridden into town. Their foreman, Rusty Swingset, was a bit morose even though it was payday. His ladyfriend, Jacqueline Hyde, wasn't herself today. But he had more bothersome matters on his mind. Evolutionists put on a pretense of getting excited over bad evolutionary science, but Rusty knows the latest research is just a meadow full of bovine buttons.

Critters like Edmontosaurus show up fully formed, like the others. Eddie had complex teeth for grinding (evolutionists cannot account for the origin of teeth, either), and their head shapes are very distinct. Although admitting the evidence points to recent creation, these owlhoots are using fact-free conjecture on "evolutionary bursts" about hadrosaur heads.
The duck-billed dinosaurs (order Ornithischia, family Hadrosauridae) were a diverse group that allegedly lived 90 million years ago, with hundreds of specimens unearthed by paleontologists in China and North America. Hadrosaurs are noted, of course, for their expanded duck-like bills, solid crests, and fleshy combs (a projection of fleshy material above the head). Much has been learned about hadrosaurs due to the discovery of several mummified individuals with some of their internal portions and skin surprisingly well preserved. It’s as if they were catastrophically buried in a massive flood just several thousands of years ago. Hmmm…
To read the rest, click on "'Fast Evolution'" in the Duck-Billed Hadrosaur".

Sunday, June 02, 2019

A Heap of Dinosaur Tracks in Australia

If you get a notion for some travel in Queensland, Australia, you might navigate yourself toward the middle. From there, get to Winton, then head west into the nothingmuch for about an hour and a half. Hopefully, you obtained permission to be on Mike Elliot's spread out there near Karoola Station. There's some activity on it.

Dinosaur footprints around the world have several things in common, especially that they are evidence of the Genesis Flood. Newly discovered tracks in Australia add support.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Thomas Ihle (CC by-SA 3.0)
Although Mr. Elliot is a dinosaur enthusiast, he didn't have a notion that all those marks on his land were from several of those critters making haste. Paleontologists and the Australian Age of Dinosaur Museum found out about them and realized that there are many excellent specimens. In fact, they are being excavated and put in the museum. It's not something that can be done in a hurry.

Like the "Dinosaur Highway" tracks that extend from Texas into Canada, these are showing panic. No meandering here. More importantly, these defy uniformitarian geological explanations and affirm the Genesis Flood.
In September 2018, a 20-strong team of palaeontologists and volunteers gathered near Karoola homestead in Central West Queensland to rescue a slew of dinosaur footprints. Over 20 days, they excavated endangered tracks from a dry creek bed and moved them some 100 km to the Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum near Winton, founded by Executive Chairman, David Elliott. Australian vertebrate palaeontologist Dr Stephen Poropat of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne is leading the research work.
The tracks were first exposed 20 years before when floods altered the course of the creek. Although landowners often passed the impressions, they did not recognise their significance. However, a couple of years ago, a visitor suggested the features were dinosaur footprints, an opinion later supported by palaeontologists.
To read the rest, run on over to "Dramatic dinosaur footprints at Karoola station, Australia — Fleeing the rising waters of Noah’s Flood".


Sunday, May 26, 2019

The Biblical Timeline and Asian Languages

Fish-to-farmer evolutionists have long portrayed ancient people as stupid, unable to do serious thinking or planning. Creationists will tell you that ancient people were intelligent, and evolutionists reluctantly agree that the Neanderthals were fully human. Ancient people had to use languages.

Evolutionists cannot determine the origin of languages. What is worse for them is that their own studies date them within the biblical timeline, including the Tower of Babel.
Credit: Pixabay / Kerrynow
Secularists insist on their materialistic evolutionary presuppositions, so it is not surprising that they really have no idea where languages originated. The study of language involves many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, history, literature, and so forth. Evolutionists assign ages to languages and rely on circular reasoning-laden radiometric dating methods. Even so, their methods work against them. If you want to know the truth about the origin of languages and the dispersal of people groups, check out the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel.

Even with secular methods, the oldest language in India fits the biblical timeline. Similarly, some recalculations were used regarding Asian languages. Even according to their methods, the new results fit with the biblical timeline. Again.
Origin of the Sino-Tibetan language family about 5,900 years ago? Yeah, that’s about right, within error.
If you are an evolutionist, with no regard for Old Testament chronologies, how old would you estimate languages are? According to the evolutionary timeline, Homo erectus, Neanderthal Man, Denisovans and other “archaic humans” were migrating around Africa, Europe and Asia for many hundreds of thousands of years. Even modern humans looked pretty much like us as far back as 350,000 years ago, according to a recent find in Morocco. Whether any of these people groups had language is impossible to know without written records, but can be inferred. They certainly had art earlier than 40,000 years ago, indicating cognitive sophistication at least by then. And when it comes to brain size, there was no shortage of capacity there for complex communication. Hunting, tool making and controlled use of fire go even further back in the evolutionary scenario.
. . .
A new study by 4 Asian linguists, published in Nature, concludes a shockingly young date. Old estimates put the particular language family called “Sino-Tibetan” (mother tongue of Tibetan, Chinese and other Asian languages) at 9,000 years or older. In the same issue of Nature, Randy J. LaPolla writes a “News & Views” piece about “The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family.”
To read the entire article, click on "Asian Languages Approach Biblical Timeline".


Sunday, May 19, 2019

Jacob and the Flocks of Laban

There is a section of Genesis that is baffling to many people, myself included. Although Jacob's name means supplanter and he lived up to it, he was the one having his rights taken away by Laban. Jacob devised an arrangement to obtain his wages through breeding Laban's flocks.

The sections in Genesis regarding Jacob's sheep breeding is baffling to many people. Upon closer inspection, not only do we see the hand of God in action, but some principles of genetics.
Jacob with the Flock of Laban by Jusepe de Ribera, 1632
Laban gets the plain ones, Jacob keeps those with spots and speckles. But what was happening with the almond and other sticks in the water trough? Mockers point to this section of Genesis to claim that Jacob was using some kind of folk magic, so the Bible is false. Not only is this a hasty generalization and a straw man (claiming the Bible says something that is not there), but they take the passage out of context. They are also showing their ignorance of the medicinal properties of the branches.


Long before the science of genetics was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), we see genetic traits being used here. I'll allow that the hand of God was involved to give Jacob success, but there is also some science to be learned here.
Chapters 30–31 of Genesis have often come under attack and touted as being an example of folklore, superstition, and primitive veterinary understanding. But when recognizing that divine providence was at work, coupled with astute botanical knowledge, the picture rapidly changes. Research into botanical and herbal remedies over the past few decades has exonerated the methodologies which Jacob used with Laban’s flocks. Indeed, some of the same botanical specimens Jacob utilized are now being used to supplement livestock feed and are used as veterinary treatments on several diseases and conditions.
To finish reading, click on "Jacob’s Odd “Breeding Program” of Genesis 30".

Sunday, May 12, 2019

Montana and Mongolia Share Fossil Similarities

People who pay attention to paleontology often hear about dinosaur fossils being discovered in the Hell Creek Formation down Montana way and the surrounding area. We also hear about many fossils being discovered in China (but scientists need to weed out the fakes), and Inner Mongolia has the Iren Dabasu Formation that yields a passel of dinosaur fossils as well. There are startling similarities in the formations


There are startling similarities in Montana and Mongolia formations where many dinosaur fossils are found. Despite secularist storytelling, these testify of the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Flickr / Kabacchi (CC by 2.0)
Members of the dust-to-dinosaur cabal tell stories to keep their deep time anti-creation worldview going, tending to gloss over or even omit important details. In all of these places, fossils are a mixture of marine and land animals. Uniformitarian geologists will allow that water was involved, but they refuse to admit that such large scale global activity is best explained by the Genesis Flood.
I recently completed an online college course on Cretaceous dinosaurs from China, centering on fossils from the Erlian Formation. These rock layers lie in a big basin near the Mongolian border. Clues from the Erlian reminded me of Cretaceous layers of the western United States. . . .
The Erlian Basin occupies a surface area of 50,000 square miles. Mountains border its vast, landlocked sediments, and other basins surround those mountains. Its name comes from a nearby town that lies 480 miles from the nearest ocean. My course instructor said that a system of ancient rivers deposited the Erlian Formation’s Cretaceous layers. He referred to the formation as an ecosystem. As the course progressed, however, details emerged that contradicted his teachings.
To read this rather short but informative article in its entirety, click on "Mongolia, Montana, and My Bible". You may also like, "Fossil Disorder at the Hell Creek Formation".

Sunday, May 05, 2019

Evolutionary Rescuing Devices Need Rescuing

Imagine my surprise when I encountered Drs. Jeff Tomkins and Jerry Bergman walking along the shore collecting genetic driftwood. We commenced discussing how proponents of muck-to-milliner evolution who patrol the internet seem to have a passel of enthusiasm but lack knowledge. The fundamentally flawed paradigm of evolution constantly needs rescuing.

Since neo-Darwinism does not work, other models have been proposed. These are also fundamentally flawed.

In our last exciting episode, we saw that the Big Bang receives continual rescuing. (Indeed, Eric Lerner wrote The Big Bang Never Happened and advocated the unscientific plasma cosmology instead.) This post is more down to earth (heh!) as we see problems in biological evolution keeps running into trouble. The acolytes in Darwin's cult of death seem unaware that scientists are unable to fix their significant problems.

Traditional Darwinism was dragged out to Boot Hill and put in a shallow grave, but it was brought back through some rearrangements and additions. This was called neo-Darwinism, or the neo-Darwin Synthesis. (Many folks still keep it short by referring to it as Darwinism because we expect them to understand that we are still talking about universal common ancestor evolution.) Even with all of this argle-bargle, some scientists realized that evolutionary concepts simply do not work.

Various alternatives were proposed, such as Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" (short form: a bird laid an egg and something else hatched), which was revised by Stephen Jay Gould as punctuated equilibrium. Since Darwinism had no evidence, they proposed other ideas that had no evidence. This is called logic. See how secular science works?

Riding a more traditional trail, some mavericks still admitted lack of evidence and proposed the Third Way. Another effort was the Neutral Model. One thing the sudden appearance conjecture and those other two models have in common is that they are attempts to deny the Creator his due. They also ignore the fact that evidence supports recent creation, not any form of something evolving into something else entirely.
Because of grievous deficiencies in the standard neo-Darwinian Model of evolution, which is largely selection driven, scientists proposed an alternative postulate called the ‘Neutral Model’ in the late 1960s. The Neutral Model is also mutation driven, but selection is deemed to be an insignificant force of change. Instead, random genetic drift is alleged to be the main driver. Since its inception, the Neutral Model has come to be incorporated in many theoretical evolutionary scenarios at some level. However, due to numerous discoveries in genomics and genome function, the Neutral Model has also become deficient, prompting a new move in science called the ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’ or ‘The Third Way’, which takes a position of blissful ignorance and offers nothing tangible to extend or support evolutionary theory. While Third Way proponents recognize the deficiency of all popular evolutionary models, they maintain that more research is needed to elucidate unknown evolutionary mechanisms and processes despite the fact that the progress of scientific discovery is revealing nothing but unimaginable complexity.
To read the rest of this rather technical article by Drs. Tomkins and Bergman, click on "Neutral Model, genetic drift and the Third Way—a synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm".


Sunday, April 28, 2019

Cosmologists Searching for Dark Matter Ghosts

The Big Bang is a secular myth of origins that is held together with thread, bailing wire, and a whole heap of wishful thinking. Since its inception, it has been Frankensteined with new parts and has become unrecognizable. Because the Big Bang is metaphysics masquerading as real science, it is not surprising that physicists are chasing after ghosts of something that only exists on paper.


Rescuing devices for the Big Bang include searching for nonexistent particles. May as well be the physics equivalent of ghosts.
Credit: Freeimages / Ward Meremans
New discoveries are very unhelpful. While the world was amazed at the first photo of a supergiant black hole, some scientists were uneasy because it does not fit the standard model; it should not be where it is, as large as it is, so soon. See "First Ever Photo of a Black Hole" for more about that threat to the Big Bang.

Instead of admitting that God created the universe just as he said and throwing the Big Bang in the trash, science continue with the procedure known as Making Things Up™. The Big Bang (also called the standard model) has holes big enough to fly a starship through, so scientists conjure up rescuing devices. Strangely, scientists are cheering for their failures. (This is a vexation to one astrophysicist, which shows that not everyone is devoted to consensus thinking and deception). The standard model needs help, so secularists invented a theoretical something called dark matter. That ghost cannot be found, so they commenced to searching for axions. No dice.
Dark matter is still a no-show. What will it take for cosmologists to give up on a fruitless quest?
Chalk up another failure; one of the candidates for dark matter, the axion, did not turn up in the latest sensitive search. For years, most hunts have focused on WIMPs or MACHOs, but those continually failed. Phys.org reports, “Dark matter experiment finds no evidence of axions.”
To read the rest, click on "The Dark Side of Dark Matter Hunts".

Sunday, April 21, 2019

The Accomplishment of the Cross

Today, many Christians are observing what is commonly called Good Friday. Jesus suffered an agonizing death on the cross for our sins and he fulfilled prophecies. Not a good day for him, physically, but good for us. His bodily Resurrection demonstrated that he had defeated death (Rom. 1:4, 2 Tim. 1:10, Isaiah 25:8). But despite some foolish songs and claims of enthusiastic new Christians, we do not get our tickets punched for a life of physical happiness on Earth. 


Jesus defeated death, but more has to be done before death is gone forever and things are restored
Credit: Unsplash / Aaron Burden
We still suffer, even though we are adopted as children of God (Rom. 8:23). Many people suffer because they are Christians, some even experience torture and death. But if the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus defeated death, what is happening? We are still waiting for promises to be fulfilled.

Some people give up on God because they expect him to be a cosmic wish-granting djinn, giving them what they want, when they want it. Doesn't work that way. Jesus is God the Son, the Creator (Col 1:16, John 1:1-3). We are living in a fallen world since shortly after creation. Sin and death entered the world when Adam sinned (Rom. 3:12 Gen. 3:19). God's plan is to restore all things to where they were at creation. That means no pain and death. Let me turn you over to an article to explain it better than I can.
At the end of his creative acts, God declared his completed creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31). He gave the animals and humans plants to eat (Genesis 1:29–30). The Creator promised Adam that if he disobeyed the command to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would surely die (Genesis 2:15–17). This, indeed, happened after Adam disobeyed; Adam and Eve would now return to the dust from which they were formed (Genesis 3:19). In an act of mercy, God sent them from the Garden of Eden so that they would not live forever in their sinful state (Genesis 3:22–23) in the now-corrupted creation (Genesis 3, Romans 8:18–22).
To finish reading, click on "What Does Jesus’ Death Accomplish?" For a similar article with additional information, I recommend "Life in light of the resurrection".