Search This Blog

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Learning about Flight — from FISH?

People have wondered, studied, tried to copy assorted critters like birds, bees, and whatever else that could fly. We get that because it makes sense. After flight had been accomplished, improvements have been made with the use of better science and technology. Biomimetics enters the picture again.


Biomimetics is the imitation of God's design in nature for our own purposes. Who would have thought there would be inspiration from fish?
Flying fish near Bermuda image credit:
NOAA  / Bermuda: Search for Deep Water Caves 2009 Exploration
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Biomimetics is the study of things in nature and imitating design for our use (usually without giving credit to the Creator). Sometimes the study is serendipitous. Haecheon Choi is a mechanical engineer who was reading a nature book to his children and then got himself an idea: study flying fish. Their flight is comparatively long and is extremely efficient, after all. Maybe Choi could snag one out of the air for a closer look.

Some bonuses for creationists include no sign of evolution in the fossil record, and they are clearly designed for what they do. At least we can credit the Master Engineer.
More than sixty species of fish can escape their watery world and glide through the air. This unusual skill enables them to escape underwater predators and cover vast distances quickly. Flight begins as these fish rapidly whip their tail back and forth and propel themselves directly out of the water. Once airborne, they can cover more than 1,300 feet (400 m), skipping across the surface at the incredible speed of 40 miles per hour (70 km/hr).
You can read this short article or download the audio by gliding over to "Flying Fish—Aquatic Flight Instructors".



Sunday, March 17, 2019

Fake Facts and Changing Views

We have all be told "facts" that "everybody knows" (or should know), and held to what we thought was true for a long time. We probably spread some of these truths around like butter. Remember butter? It is bad for you. No, that has been reversed, it is good for you. Not sure where the butter and margarine statuses are today. Seems there was something like that happening with eggs, too. There are other science "facts" that are simply legends.


Many things we considered scientific facts are actually legends. Some things were never true, others were refuted.
Credit: Pixabay/congerdesign
I disremember when I read it, but there was a list of refuted ideas circulating that included the old "People lose most of the heat from the tops of their heads" canard. Seems that the only reason it was true is because people were tested who did not wear hats in cold weather.



Back in the 1970s or so, it was an incontrovertible fact that an ice age was heading down the pass toward us, no stopping it. Then it became global warming. That became "climate change" so they could cover all their bases, and the anthropogenic global climate change cultists could select the "good" science that fits their views and ignore the facts that controvert their opinions.

How much that passes as science is accepted without question? Many things that were ironclad have been called into question, including health adviceFish-to-fool evolution packs a passel of problems because "facts" are constantly changing (such as the formerly stupid brute caveman ancestor known as Neanderthal Man). Some of the stuff that has been refuted or secular opinions changed is still in textbooks. May as well deceive through omission for the sake of denying the Creator, huh?

Here is a fun post that lists several of those truisms we should put on the shelf.
Have you ever unquestionably believed something that turned out to be a myth? Think about that time you swallowed some gum and worried all day because your mom said it would take seven years to digest. Why do so many common beliefs turn out to be false?
Sometimes correct information gets exaggerated or distorted in the retelling. Other times people innocently make wrong assumptions or don’t realize their information is incomplete. And let’s face it, sometimes malicious people intentionally spread misinformation.
To read the rest of this rather short article (or download the MP3), click on "The Truth, the Partial Truth, and Anything but the Truth".

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Activist Animals and Ecosystem Engineering


Charles Darwin used existing religious and tentative scientific views of evolution and hijacked the principle of natural selection for his own ends. He and most of his followers believe that outside forces ("external pressures") caused living things to adapt. However, organisms affect their environments — they were equipped for this by the Master Engineer.

While Darwinists believe that environment causes living things to change, some are realizing that creatures influence their environments. This is part of the Master Engineer's plan.
Cumberland Gap National Historic Park Davis Branch beaver dam
Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some evolutionists are realizing that critters and such influence their environments, but researchers seem to be limiting their discussions to Darwinian ideas. The impact that living things have on their ecosystems is more far-reaching than this, and evolutionists who discuss ecosystem engineering do not go far enough. If they dropped the materialistic presuppositions and conducted more thorough research, they might see that this influence is according to the Creator's design.
Because Darwinists assume that inanimate environments are actively shaping and sculpting organisms on Earth, they imagine organisms as primarily passive life forms. But organisms are quite active in pioneering and dealing with their habitats—sometimes aggressively so. . . .
Some examples are too conspicuous to ignore, such as dam-building beavers or reef-forming mollusks. But the habitat modifications produced by other creatures have often gone unnoticed because they occurred underground, or underwater, or were otherwise “hidden in plain sight.” Eventually, the activist traits of many animals were recognized by open-minded ecosystem investigators.
To read the entire article, click on "Ecosystem Engineering Explanations Miss the Mark".


Sunday, March 03, 2019

Sea Pens and other Living Fossils Embarrass Evolutionists

Organisms that appear in the fossil record and then reappear later are called living fossils. They have embarrassed evolutionists since Darwin — and no, this is not a term creationists made to be obstreperous. Evolutionary thinking maintains that there should be multitudes of changes over alleged millions of years, but living fossils give lie to that idea. Sea pens are a  prime example.


Living fossils have been an embarrassment to evolutionists since Darwin's time. Sea pens are a prime example.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Nick Hobgood (CC by-SA 3.0)
Strange name, I'll allow. Maybe Aquaman uses them to write his memoirs. They come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors, and are considered a type of "soft coral". Like other living fossils, they show no appreciable change. Darwin's disciples evosplain it with the unscientific term "stasis", which is absurd even on the surface. Clearly, there is no evidence for deep time, and life was created recently.
The story of evolution asserts that one ‘kind’ of creature can change into another ‘kind’—and that this happened countless times, over hundreds of millions of years. In this story, fossils, which are the remains of once-living organisms, are said to record these changes of one kind into another. However:
1. The transitional forms, or in-between kinds, are notable for their scarcity in the fossil record, whereas they should be abundant. Prominent evolutionary fossil specialists have admitted this.1 To resolve this inconsistency, some have imagined that creatures could change from one to another so rapidly as to leave no fossil evidence of such change. Is this the paleontologists’ version of ‘the dog ate my homework’?
2. The fossils persistently show lack of change. Many of today’s organisms can be found as almost identical fossil forms throughout the rock layers—‘living fossils’. In fact, virtually every kind of organism alive today is a ‘living fossil’.
To read the rest, click on "Sea Pens — ‘Extreme’ living fossils shout ‘after their kind’"



Sunday, February 24, 2019

Kangaroo Fossil Gets Evolutionists Hopping

While it is normal and even expected for scientists to work from their paradigms and see if evidence supports their conjectures, it is quite another thing when they spin yarns based entirely on assumptions. Such storytelling without evidence is nothing more than evoporn — it makes true believers in Darwinism feel good, has a passing resemblance to doing something real, but is a counterfeit of actual science. These fakers were recently exposed by kangaroo fossils.


Evolutionists had a story about how the kangaroo learned to hop that was ridiculous even on the surface. That has been wrecked by new fossil evidence.
Credit: CSIRO/John Coppi (CC by 3.0)
Evolutionists built their stories by layering conjectures and speculations, then when evidence is found that contradicts the stories, they have to rewrite segments of an evolutionary timeline. They will 'roo the day when they found a fossil that appears in the wrong place and wrecked the "How the Kangaroo Became a Hopper" story — which was contradictory, self-refuting, and downright ridiculous even at a surface level. They do not accept defeat with quiet dignity and grace.


via GIPHY

Clearly, evolutionists cannot bring themselves to admit that these critters were created recently and not the products of deep time, evolution, and fantasy fiction.
Evolutionary stories work best in a vacuum. Fossils have a way of forcing Darwinians to face unexpected realities.
Once upon a time, five million Darwin Years ago, Australia evolved from a forested land to a grassland. The ancestors of kangaroos, unable to see over the grass, evolved to stand upright. Finding it difficult to get around through the grass, they evolved to hop over it. And that, children, is how the kangaroo learned to hop.
That old story just got jumped on. A fossil “kangaroo cousin” four times older in Darwin Years than the hero of How the Kangaroo Learned to Hop, was already hopping long before the grass arrived, back when Australia was a forest. That’s just part of the problem Darwinians have to deal with now that fossils have been re-analyzed by Swedish scientists.
You can read the rest at "Kangaroo Fossil Leaps Over Darwinian Storytellers". You may also like "Kangaroos Give a Mob of Evidence for Creation".



Sunday, February 17, 2019

Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use

The subject of abortion generates a great deal of anger on both sides, and abortion is a de facto sacrament of those on the political left. In fact, it is used as a kind of litmus test by leftists, which can be seen in hearings for United States judges and justices. Pro-abortion people have arguments to justify their position, but those are actually very weak. 


One of the most intense areas of controversy today is abortion. Its advocates have many arguments, but they can be dismantled biblical through the Bible, medical science and biology, and philosophically.
Mother Rose Nursing Her Child/Mary Cassat, 1900
Indeed, some of their arguments are irritating and offensive to people who understand reason and value human life. "A woman's got a right to choose!" "A woman can decide what to do with her own body!" "You're a man and you can't tell us...!" Those are trite talking points based on emotion that have no basis in reason.

When attempting to appear rational, some abortionists appeal to bad "medical" science and to evolution. Saying that the unborn child is nothing but a "clump of cells" or is not human yet is dishonest. An objection could be raised that "ontology recapitulates ontology", where the fetus goes through our evolutionary past, so go ahead and kill it while it's in the fish stage. They have Haeckel's drawings to back up their claim — but Haecke's drawings are fake and they know it. Someone even used the viperine response, "Yes, they're fake, but the principle is true". Using a lie to defend another lie.

Abortion is used as birth control, and there are women who know full well that they are murdering a child but simply do not care. I knew of someone who had an abortion because she would not fit into a bridesmaid dress for an upcoming wedding! There are also serious matters to consider regarding the subject, other than the convenience of roundheels. The depraved New York abortion law that was recently enacted adds to my shame to live in this state, and Virginia is no better. "Progressive" means, in this case, progressing into outright infanticide.

Bible-believing Christians know that man is made in God's image, and absurd arguments cannot change that fact. (By the way, have you noticed that people who support abortion are also in favor of other practices that God hates?) A few atheists oppose abortion and have conservative leanings, but there are not many of them. Some tinhorns are so full of hate for God's Word and those of us who believe the Bible that they cannot admit agreement with us on anything, including the value of unborn children! Unfortunately, there are professing Christians who accept social agendas and also promote abortion.

What follows is a detailed research paper that responds to abortion arguments using the Bible, medical and biological sciences, and also some of the philosophical arguments used to justify abortion. Some of the "what if" and "yeah, but" arguments can be given responses by showing the inconsistencies and even "what if" in kind. This very difficult subject has It is a very serious research paper, and it is also lengthy. You can expect almost 2-1/2 hours on it, but the article has a PDF download button that should be helpful. Also, there is a site that I use to send items to my ebook reader. Although "Kindle" is in the title, there are options for directly downloading MOBI and EPUB formats. I hope these help. 
According to the newest report issued by the Guttmacher Institute, 926,200 abortions were performed in the US in 2014. A holistic approach which accounts for biblical, biological, and philosophical truths must conclude that these unborn represent human beings with full personhood. Biblically, God the Almighty Creator establishes the worth and value of humanity by making all people in His own image (Genesis 1:26–27). From Scripture, a progression can be given which traces this image from adults, to the unborn, to conception. Biologically, it is an undisputed fact that a new, complete, genetically-distinct, individual human being is present at conception. Although attempts to redefine conception have been made, embryologists have consistently defined conception as the moment of fertilization for over 100 years. Abortion also cannot be justified philosophically. Some of the most common philosophical arguments for abortion are evaluated and discussed: (1) embryos lack consciousness, (2) abortion prevents children from being born into poverty, (3) monozygotic twinning proves personhood cannot begin at conception, (4) rape justifies abortion, (5) incest warrants abortion, and (6) abortion is often necessary to save the life of the mother.
To finish reading and possibly begin downloading it as an ebook, click on "Abortion: A Biblical, Biological, and Philosophical Refutation".

Sunday, February 10, 2019

More on Archaeopteryx and Evolution

With Question Evolution Day almost here again, it is useful to focus on another example of the way proponents of bits-to-bird evolution think. Arguments and alleged transitional forms that have been relegated to the scrapyard of science history are picked up, dusted off, and presented again. One of these is Archaeopteryx.


Although Archaeopteryx has been designated as a true bird, new technology was used to try to prove evolution by assuming evolution. That is neither logical not scientific.

Archie had been touted as a link between dinosaurs and birds, and also as an example of bird evolution. Even evolutionists admit what creationists already said: Archaeopteryx is a true bird. It also has some startling similarities to a living bird, the hoatzin. New research with more advanced technology was used to study one of the few good fossils Archie was good enough to leave us, and evolutionists have decided by fallaciously assuming evolution to prove evolution that there is evidence of bird evolution, which would mean there is no need for the Creator. Oh, please!

Evolutionary scientists have long described Archaeopteryx as a bird. The research team wrote, “The [Daiting] character suite has clear parallels in modern flying birds.” In the big picture, this just means it was a bird. We already knew that. Why would the news again call an extinct bird a “missing link?”
Paleontologist and study coauthor Dr. John Nudds said in a University of Manchester news release, “In a nutshell we have discovered what Archaeopteryx lithographica evolved into – i.e. a more advanced bird, better adapted to flying.”
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Does Archaeopteryx Show Bird Evolution?"

Question Evolution Day is annually on February 12. You can be a part of it.
Question Evolution Day is annually on February 12. You can be a part of it.

Sunday, February 03, 2019

Evolutionary Fitness and Genetic Entropy

In serious discussions, having the proper definitions is extremely important. This is especially true in discussions of origins. We can be lassoing a discussion and find out that we are understanding key words differently, thereby talking past each other and not communicating. Proponents of goo-to-grammarian evolution befog the issues with vague definitions and even nonsensical words.


Evolutionists befog origins issues with nonsensical and vague terms. One reason for this is to dodge the evolution-refuting, creation-affirming concept of genetic entropy.
Illustration showing influenza virus attaching to cell membrane via the surface protein haemagglutinin.
Credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition / (CC by 3.0) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Evolutionists frequently refer to "natural selection", a fake science term which implies that some entity in their pantheistic worldview exists to do the selecting. Related to that is "survival of the fittest". If you study on that one, you'll see that the fit ones survive. It has been pointed out that this term means "survival of the survivors" because only the fit survive, so it is nonsense.


They will also "see" evolution even when it is not actually happening, such as in "reductive evolution". This is where organisms adapted to an environment but lost certain traits (evolution worked backward) and they would not be "fit" in other environments. For that matter, "fitness" is a subjective term that is determined by scientists and especially by the evolutionary narrative. Using weasel words is a convenient way to dodge the evolution-refuting, creation-affirming concept of genetic entropy.
Most people, including most influential evolutionists, talk about survival, as if the length of life is important. An organism can be perfectly successful if it dies during a single reproductive episode (e.g. salmon) or if it survives to reproduce throughout a very long lifetime (e.g. oak trees). Thus, “survival” is irrelevant. It is not “survival” of the fittest, but “propagation” of the fittest that they are talking about. This is Darwin’s fault, initially, but evolutionists have been muddying the water ever since. We will show you several examples of how they do this below.
To read this extremely interesting article in its entirety, click on "Fitness and ‘Reductive Evolution’".

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Fake Science in Natural Selection Claims

Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I was convinced that knowledgeable evolutionary scientists and informed laypeople had discarded the concept of natural selection as relevant to evolution. After all, it looked like materialists had moved on to new and improved mythologies. The hands at the Darwin Ranch never got the telegram. Or mayhaps they prefer to keep it going, with some even going as far as saying, "Natural selection is evolution!"


Natural selection is not evolution, and forcing it into scientific research is actually harmful. Some scientists show that natural selection and evolution can be ignored, providing real science.
Credit: RGBstock / Wendy Cox
Edward Blyth, a Christian who originally postulated the concept of natural selection was bushwhacked by Papa Darwin, who gave it his own special meaning. Today, Darwinoids still use that meaning. What is worse is that they see natural selection even where it does not exist, which makes for bad science. They also make natural selection as a kind of pagan entity — a substitute for the real Creator. Here are links to three articles for your consideration.
Can anyone name any real, true thing that Darwin’s phrase “natural selection” has done to further understanding of nature?
Brace yourself. We’re going to say that natural selection is useless for science. Secular scientists will scream. Even some creationists will harrumph. But you need look no further than scientific journals and science news sites to see that it is true. Natural selection is a storytelling plot that contributes nothing to real, useful knowledge about nature. It’s like colorful frosting, but not the cake.  It’s like graffiti on a wall that does nothing to hold the building up. It’s like a gaudy pattern on a hot-air balloon, but not the heat engine that lifts it.
If scientists ditched the phrase natural selection entirely, science would go on just fine. In fact, it would go on better without all the distractions offered by this empty, useless phrase that Darwin invented. Here’s our challenge: can you name any one, true, real thing that “natural selection” has added to our understanding of the world? While we wait for a response, it’s time to back up our audacious claim with specific examples from the science news.
To finish reading this first one, click on "Natural Selection Is Useless in Science".

You may be reeling from the last one, but cowboy up for the next article.

Continuing our discussion of whether natural selection has any value in science, we present more cases in the media.
Natural selection is useless in science, we alleged last week (4 Jan 2019). Because many will consider this an outlandish claim that can arouse accusations that it is anti-science and against common sense, some clarifications are in order before we provide more evidence. The biological literature is full of natural selection (hereafter NS) lingo and its derivatives. Evolutionists speak of positive selection, negative selection, purifying selection, group selection, kin selection, selective pressure, selective bottlenecks, and a host of other concepts. Surely the abundance of words cannot be about nothing, can it? Even many creationists bow before NS theory as a fact of nature. Some creationist speakers adorn their lectures with intuitively-obvious examples of NS in dogs, horses, and even human racial traits. Some even arrogantly attack other creationists who deny NS. How can we possibly contradict the obvious? Well, prepare to think. Prepare to see.
To read the second of the three articles, click on "Natural Selection Is Useless, II: More Evidence".

Our final entry is a bit startling: real science can be done without any consideration of natural selection or evolution. Biblical creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that not only is evolutionary thinking irrelevant, but it actually impedes scientific progress — which is clearly seen in medical science. Take a look at reports of Darwin-free scientific research.

Excellent biological research that produces understanding and application can ignore natural selection completely.
If natural selection is useless in science, as we have argued recently [links provided above], then the flip side should also be true: scientists should be able to do useful work by ignoring natural selection entirely. They should be able to discover, analyze, explain, and apply biological discoveries without it. This contradicts Dobzhansky’s frequently quoted mythoid, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Here are some examples in the news.
To finish reading, click on "Good Biology Without Natural Selection". Also, the video below with Dr. Georgia Purdom explains why natural selection is different from evolution.


Monday, January 21, 2019

Races and Families

Centuries ago, I made a comment at the workplace that was something like, "Adoptive parents are important and should not be disparaged because they are not the natural parents. They care for the kids they adopt". Something like that. The manager was right there and stared at me for a moment. Then he said, "I'm glad to hear you say that because I'm adopted". Wow, I unintentionally said something encouraging! What about people who adopt children of other races?


Many people have the belief that if other look different, they belong to another race. Imagine adopting children of another ethnic background. Biblically, we are all of one race, which is opposite to the "scientific racism" of evolutionism.
Credit: OpenClipArt
In reality, there are no races. At least, not according to our Creator. The word race is often used as a convenience by people who mean ethnicities or people groups. I'll allow that the word racist is more convenient than calling someone an "ethnicitist" or something equally awkward and puzzling. Unfortunately, accusations of racism are being redefined by leftists as an emotive deflection, such as accusing someone who disagrees with a politician's remarks or policies as "racist" when ethnicity has nothing to do with said politician's dreadful beliefs. Such frequent claims of "racist" and "racism" cheapen genuine instances of those things.

When a husband and wife adopt one or more children from a different ethnic background, other people may wonder if they can deal with someone from "another race". After all, those kids look mighty different. But those genetic differences are fewer in number than you might imagine. We are all of the same race, all in the same human family. Notice that there are variations within ethnic groups. Hey, white guy! Hold up your hand against a sheet of printer paper or something. Not so white now, is it. And your black friend...not really black after all. There are variations within the same family bloodlines as well. Evolution has been used to justify "scientific racism", which fails in the light of biblical creation.
When I write or talk on the issue of race, it’s always a deeply personal experience for me. My husband, Chris, and I decided to adopt a child from China 13 years ago. We knew this was God’s will for us, but I was haunted by this question: Could I raise a child of another race? I never would have called myself a racist in those days, but in reality I was. My opinions and beliefs about those who looked different from me did not reflect the biblical truth that we are all one race.
To read the rest or download the audio version, click on "All in the Family".

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Definitions and Speciation

Getting the proper definition is important in many discussions, which seems to be even more important regarding origins. People can be using the same word but have entirely different meanings in mind, which can lead to a passel of confusion. Sometimes we need to reign in and clarify terms.

Confusion is caused by not only unclear definitions on words like species and speciation, but also by critters ignoring human rules.
Credit: Pixabay / succo
Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution tend to get a mite sneaky with evolution with variation, saying that some small change is evolution and equivocating with evolution in the Darwinian sense. Another area that causes confusion is the use of species and speciation. Sometimes scientists disagree on how to define species, and creationists agree that speciation happens. It doesn't help matters when critters don't pay attention to the rules and breed across the boundaries while still refusing to change overmuch. They were created by the Master Engineer to fill niches, you know.
When investigating true-vs.-false controversies, words are very important. Yet Christians sometimes unintentionally perpetuate false teachings by using misleading terms that accommodate evolutionary assumptions. This is what law courts call confusion of issues, a truth-interference problem so serious that trial judges, invoking Evidence Rule 403, ban such confusing terminology when admitting trial evidence.
For example, the origin of species is a confusing topic. What exactly is a species? How can we properly analyze and discuss our origins if the words we use mean different things to different people? Consider this approach by Wikipedia, the multi-anonymous online encyclopedia that institutionally assumes evolution is scientific:
To read the rest, click on "Norway's Redchat Defies Evolutionary Speciation".

Sunday, January 06, 2019

Explosion in the Cambrian

Universal common ancestor evolutionary conjectures require purposeless, gradual progressions from simple to complex life forms. Since this supposedly takes millions or billions of Darwin years, there should be a wagon-trainload of transitional fossils so y'all can trace the development of organisms. Not happening, old son.


The Cambrian Explosion is troubling to secular scientists because organisms are fully formed, not simple or transitional.
Branching archaeocyath fossil image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Killamator (CC by-SA 4.0)
One of the most troubling areas for secular geologists is a little thing called the Cambrian Explosion. Most of the major phyla appeared in this low layer, and they were fully formed. (One owlhoot tried to wave off the Cambrian Explosion as a bunch of simple aquatic lifeforms. The overwhelming majority of fossils are sea organisms, and they are not simple at all.) More than diversity of life forms, we see disparity. This is not predicted by evolution, but refutes it and supports special creation. Worse for uniformitarian deep time beliefs, the Cambrian Explosion supports the global Genesis Flood. (If some tinhorn tells you that the Flood is fiction, he's lying, and that's a natural fact.) Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Many have been told that the fossil record provided Darwin with overwhelming evidence for his theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth! In his book, On the Origin of Species, he admitted that the absence of fossil transitional forms was a major problem, and one that was “undoubtedly of the gravest nature”.
Such was the overwhelming and conspicuous absence of transitional fossils, many leading 19th century naturalists had concluded that species were fixed in their form and couldn’t change. Darwin himself wrote that “all the most eminent palaeontologists [people who study fossils], namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c. … have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability [i.e. unchangeable nature or ‘fixity’] of species.”
To read the rest, click on "The Cambrian explosion — The fossils point to creation, not evolution".