Search This Blog

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.


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’".