Search This Blog

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".

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Climate Change Hysteria and Old Earth Beliefs

If you step up on the hill for a bigger picture, you can see that a great deal of the excitement over the next ice age/global warming/global climate change has old earth philosophies embedded in its foundation. In addition to this, they use a passel of circular reasoning.


Climate change alarmism has bad science and old Earth beliefs in its foundation. The truth is difficult for old earthers and climate change devotees to tolerate.
Modified from an image at Clker clipart
People who promote anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change tend to deny that we have a Creator who is in control and makes the rules. The world will indeed end, but on his terms, not ours. Don't be disunderstanding me! There is no reason to be cavalier about the environment because we are to be good stewards of it. But there is no reason to panic because atheists, old Earth religious folk, and leftists want to restrict our activities based on faulty science, you savvy?

Many climate change adherents appeal to consensus groupthink, and even punish those within their cult who disagree. Indeed the entire scientific process for this is contrary to real science, The narrative drives the research in climate change much the same as it does in fish-to-fool evolution. Contrary evidence is ignored or suppressed to keep the faulty climate science and leftist agendas going.

"Did you say cult, Cowboy Bob?"

You betcha. If you study on it and use the helpful links, you can see that many global climate change proponents appeal to emotion and manipulation, twist scientific facts, and have an overall cultic approach. Ever try to get a cultist to read a Christian tract? Same with these types, but religious cultists do not tend to get as overwrought as the climate folks.



It is dangerous to tamper with things that are not fully understood and to act on one aspect. For example, the The Great Chinese Famine was caused in part by Mao's insistence on killing millions of sparrows, and this had severe repercussions. Climate change activists want to change carbon dioxide. Plants need that so they can survive, and they gleefully give us oxygen. Climate is complicated, old son.

Old Earth believers and climate change people base their beliefs on several areas that include computer models that use insufficient information and the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. Evolutionists, cosmologists, and others prefer to keep their narratives going, so they rely on bad theories because they have nothing better to use. The Milankovitch theory and papers supporting it are poor science, using assumptions and circular reasoning; deep time is assumed and skewed data are used, so deep time results are achieved.
The real issue in the climate change debate is climate sensitivity. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double while everything else stayed the same, the increase in global average surface temperatures would be small, only about 1°C (less than 2°F).4
. . . 
Scientists worried about climate change tend to think climate sensitivity is very high. Those who are less concerned believe climate sensitivity is low. If we ignore questionable research, there are two main reasons some researchers think climate sensitivity is high.
To read the entire article, click on "Climate Alarmism and the Age of the Earth". You may also like this series of short articles on global warming from the Bible-Science Guy (note that the list is in reverse, the newest is at the top).

Sunday, April 07, 2019

Hachimoji DNA and Evolution

Scientists have been tinkering with the Creator's handiwork, but that is what a lot of them do; I think it is just part of human nature. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have been manipulating DNA as if it was a new bendable action figure.

Some scientists doubled the number of letters in synthetic DNA. Instead of supporting evolution, their work actually supports special creation.
Base pairings in hachimoji DNA (left, dR = deoxyribose) and hachimoji RNA (right, R = ribose).
The natural bases are in the upper row; the unnatural, synthetic bases are in the lower row.
Hydrogen bonds are dashed green lines, with acceptor atoms in red.
Caption credit: Wikipedia, image credit: Wikimedia Commons / WolfmanSF (CC by-SA 4.0)
Of course, when secularists ignore God, they make their own rules and come up with viperine philosophies like genetic determinism and eugenics, and so on. Indeed, naturalists make their own ethics regarding scientific advances that fit dystopian science fiction stories. They make chimeras through DNA tampering while ignoring not only ethical concerns, but the fact that DNA demonstrates the work of the Master Engineer: it contains information.

Researchers hatched up hachimoji DNA by doubling the letters of the real thing. Through logic that only works in the secularist mind, they are saying (with the help of the lapdog media in the secular science industry) that maybe life evolved somewhere with this configuration. There are a couple of problems.

Let me retell an old story to help emphasize a point:
A group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They elected one scientist to go and tell God that he was now irrelevant.
The scientist walked up to God the Son and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re can clone people and do many other things that seem miraculous, so why don’t you just go on and leave us alone?”
God listened patiently and then said, “All right, how about if we have a man-making contest?”
The scientist said, “Okay, we can do that!”
“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did when I made Adam.”
The scientist said, “You got it”, and bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt.
Jesus (Col. 1:16) looked at him and said, “Not so fast. Go get your own dirt.”
First, they are only proving that they can intelligently design something using existing materials and manipulating it with their knowledge and equipment — these tinhorns didn't get their own dirt. Second, the whole thing simply will not work with an eight-letter alphabet; it's not really good for anything. Ironically, they are actually supporting special creation!
A research group led by Dr Steven Benner at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution (FAME)5 in Alachua, Florida has created four extra DNA letters. They recently published a paper on their work in the prestigious journal Science6 and, as we have already seen, it caused a flurry of ‘tweets’ and re-postings. By tweaking the structure of the already-existing four bases, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T), they have expanded the DNA alphabet from four to eight letters. The two extra pairs of letters include ‘S’ and ‘B’, and ‘P’ and ‘Z’. The researchers have named the resulting eight-letter alphabet “hachimoji”, which is Japanese for “eight” and “letter”.
. . .
These four new nucleotides are interesting, but they are not truly innovative. How about a pair of bases with four hydrogen bonds? Or a base with a steroid structure, like that of progesterone or testosterone? No, they are not pursuing radical new structures like these, because humans are better at copying and modifying existing things than they are at inventing brand new things from scratch. In the end, all of their work testifies to how much thought must go into the designing of any new ‘thing’. Despite the headlines, this argues against naturalistic evolution.
To read the entire article, click on "Hachimoji DNA argues against evolution, despite recent claims".


Sunday, March 31, 2019

Software in the Brain

Materialists keep trying to find intangible things like the soul, mind, consciousness, free will and so on in the brain, which is logically fallacious. They do not realize that the Master Engineer has equipped the soul with software to operate the brain!
Materialists are a confused gang, insisting that everything is only matter and its motion, then contradicting themselves by searching for intangible things. Indeed, even logic itself is immaterial — you cannot write "Law of Identity" on a piece of paper, throw the paper away, and expect the law to cease to exist as well. Logic itself is impossible without God.

For that matter (heh!), numbers are also immaterial. You cannot eliminate the number five by erasing it off a board, for example. (Materialists have tried to save face by claiming that mathematics itself evolved.) Then they contradict their fundamentally flawed worldviews by using both math and logic; they are tacitly admitting that the biblical creationist worldview is correct by standing on it!

These are the same owlhoots who deny the existence of God and of the spirit nature of man, then try to find intangible concepts in the brain. (This is an example of the category error.) They try to locate free will to no avail, nor can they find the mind (because the mind and the brain are two separate things). What about consciousness itself? No, that cannot be explained through naturalistic assumptions either. Naturalists keep on trying to saddle up that metaphysics horse and expect it to take them where they want to go. Ain't happening.


via GIPHY

The soul is not material, but it does use the brain which comes pre-packaged with "apps" to help us function. There are other irreducibly complex actions that the soul uses that function in a manner similar to software. Clearly, we are the product of the Master Engineer, and neither materialism nor evolutionism can cogently explain them. We should be thanking our Creator for his mercy and benevolence. To read more about software in the brain, click on "Your Soul Comes With Automated Brain Software". For a related article dealing with a YouTube video on the origin of human consciousness, click on "Clueless about consciousness".



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’".