Search This Blog

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Altruism, Creation, and Evolution

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Vestiges of Bad Design Claims

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Rebellions at the Darwin Ranch

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 09, 2019

Had It with Hadrosaur Evolution?

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 02, 2019

A Heap of Dinosaur Tracks in Australia

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

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

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