Rescuing the Hijacked Rainbow?

Athests, evolutionists, and others blatantly misrepresent and lie outright about Christians and creationists. So do some religious pretenders. It is who they are and what they do. We are called to a higher standard, however, and must honor God with our minds as well as our hearts. For example, taking back the rainbow.

Credit: Unsplash / David Brooke Martin

Some Christians are on the prod about how the homosexuals have hijacked the rainbow, so we're taking it back. Well, God made it (specifically, the laws of physics that he upholds), so it cannot be taken away. People are upset about "the gay flag" and the number of colors.

I asked my friend Roy G. Biv what he thought about the seven-color rainbow, and how the other flag has a different number. He didn't care. In reality, the rainbow does not exist in the common representation of seven colors — that is a matter of convenience. The spectrum is much more involved. Take a gander at an actual rainbow, whether after a rainstorm, in a sprinkler system, waterfall, or whatever, and see if you can see definite places where the colors are marked. Nope, no solid border lines.

There are many popular myths about the "gay pride" flag, but well-meaning Christians are actually misrepresenting what those colors mean and why they have the numbers of colors. We are supposed to be ambassadors of Christ, and talebearing with "memes" and urban legends is far below our calling. By no means are we asking anyone to reject biblical convictions. Instead, we are saying to deal with the subject matter accurately.

Recently, the rainbow imagery has been used to remind people of another idea, but one that is from the mind of man and not the mind of God. Their rainbow meaning is different from the original.

The rainbow flag was first developed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker and used as a symbol of pride for the gay community.1 The flag originally included eight stripes, but the most common version today consists of six colors. However, there are many variations intended to include the ever-increasing identities of people who shun God’s Word and let their feelings guide their actions. This symbol is used around the world to indicate support for those promoting free expression and equality for everyone, regardless of their sexual identity. Homosexual activists expect everyone to toe the line of the sexual revolution; many Christian churches have actually done so, flying the flag in support of this movement.

To read the full article, click on "Rainbow Meaning: On Colors and Memes".

Those Surprising Striped Equines

A very recognizable animal is the zebra. If it did not have those characteristic stripes, they would probably be just another monochrome equine. Yes, they are of the biblical equine kind (Equidae family in secular taxonomy), and can breed with horses and other related animals. Those stripes sure are interesting.

Credit: Unsplash / Hannes Richter

Zebras gather in small harem groups with one male and several females, or they form associations with other critters. This is beneficial because the variety helps watch for predators. Evolutionists cannot adequately explain them. By the way, don't get a notion to saddle one of these bad boys up because they don't take kindly to domestication.

Not all are striped the same. Not only do zebras have individual stripe patterns, but they overall style of striping varies by the three main species. Some scientists try to earn their stripes (heh!) by determining the purpose for those exclusive equine markings, but most have failed. No, they don't hide zebras from lions and such, nor are they useful in socializing. There is one strong possibility, and you can read about that in the linked article.

Creationists generally believe that the artwork and cartoons of animals going on Noah's Ark that included modern zebras are incorrect. The original horse kind would have been loaded with genetic material that allowed for diversification.

More than just fashionable horses, these iconic African mammals have captivated—and mystified—humans for millennia. In ancient Rome, the hippotigris (‘horse tiger’) thrilled crowds at circuses. In the nineteenth century, humans attempted, not very successfully, to tame zebras for being ridden with saddles and for pulling carriages. And to this day, zebras continue to surprise the scientists who study them. Ironically, one of the most puzzling things about zebras is the very feature that makes them so outstanding—those unforgettable stripes.

I'm done horsing around. You can read the entire article by clicking on "Designer Stripes — Zebras and the truth of Genesis". Also, you may be interested in seeing untruths examined at "False Evidence for Horse Evolution".

Deep-Time Geology Losing its Impact

When it comes to geology, secular scientists are frequently revising the assigned ages of phenomena. Things are often "younger than previously thought", and the changes are often quite drastic. Although they deny the power of the Genesis Flood, secularists are forced to realize that they were underestimating the power of water.

Mars landslide run-out image credit: NASA /JPL / Arizona State University

Apparently, geologists still struggle with the origin of plate tectonics. Instead of considering creation science models, they invoke impacts from extraterrestrial objects. They like to use impacts to "explain" many things. Also, big landslides on Mars travel farther than expected, so odd speculation is involved. These things smack of desperation to cling to deep time and deny recent creation and the Flood.

Slow-and-gradual uniformitarian geology is so 1830. Get with the times: fast, rapid, dynamic forces and theory revisions.

Scientists have trouble learning about events in human history, let alone unobserved, unrecorded history. For instance, six researchers writing in PNAS say that previous estimates of death tolls from plagues in the time of Emperor Justinian (541 to 750 CE) are way off. The plague was nowhere near as catastrophic as most writers have long assumed. If this wrong about history with written records to draw from, how wrong could geologists be about events assumed to be hundreds of times as old with no eyewitnesses?

To keep reading, click on "Geology: A Science in Constant Revision".

Neanderthal Extinction Ideas Raise Questions

In bygone days, Neanderthals were considered to be an evolutionary link to modern humans. That nonsense has been fully discredited, evolutionists acknowledge that Neanderthals were fully human. By the way, the -th at the end is pronounced without the "h" sound, Neandertall is more correct. (Well, they were not all that tall, but never mind about that now.) So how did they become extinct?

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rawansari at English Wikipedia (CC by-SA 3.0)

Nobody knows why they went extinct. Maybe it was global warming. (This child wonders if they were assimilated instead of extinct.) Those folks traveled a great deal, and they were generous in sharing their DNA with other people groups — many people today have Neanderthal DNA and some of their features. (Another bit of wondering on my part: although the Neanderthal remains were first discovered in the Neander Valley. Was that their home base or just one of the stops on their journeys?) Speculations about their disappearance are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Things make far more sense using the biblical timeline and factoring in recent creation, the migration after the Genesis Flood, and the dispersion at Babel.

How did Neanderthals go extinct? Four researchers from the Netherlands recently published the results of their computer-modeled human populations in the journal PLOS ONE. The findings show that small Neanderthal population sizes would have caused them to become extinct in just 10,000 years. How did Neanderthals survive the 400,000 years they were supposedly on Earth?

Neanderthals were real people. Hundreds of recovered bones show big brow ridges, sloping foreheads, and thick upper arms. They buried their dead, made music, jewelry, used makeup, and built tools for hunting and even surgery.

To finish reading, meander on over to "Neanderthal Extinction Dilemma".

Evolution, Atheism, and Redefining Terms

When having discussions, it is very important to be certain that people are in agreement about how terms are defined. It can even be accomplished by stating which definition will be used. Otherwise, people can end up jawing about a whole lot of nothing and "talking past" one another.

Credit: Pixabay / Andrew Martin

There are many terms that can cause confusion in discussions about origins. It is extremely important that creationists know their own material, and to keep Darwin's disciples from pulling the ol' bait 'n' switch. That is, equivocating terms, such as discussing natural selection and variations, then they are asserting evolution occurred. Another trick from atheists is to insist on the redefinition of atheism to mean "lack of belief in God or gods", an intellectually and morally dishonest trick that works against them anyway. (I sincerely believe that they want to put us on the defensive, often through efforts at intimidation.) Keep atheists and evolutionists on the subject and don't change horses — I mean, definitions — on the way.

When wading into the waters of apologetics and the origins debate, it usually doesn’t take long before we hit problems defining terms. Many words commonly used in these debates have large ranges of meaning that often get conflated and confused with each other. If we are to have a meaningful dialogue, we must be careful to define our terms carefully so that everyone understands each other.

L.K. from the United States wrote:

I’d prefer a response, or whether it be to still contact me in this email so I have a larger character limit to choose from, or to direct me to a better area, as your Q&A section wasn’t that helpful.

But I’d like to let you know two simple things.

Atheism is not a religion, it is a word, it has one definition, regardless of how people use it, it will always mean what its defined as, a lack in belief of god, and just because people lack a belief in god does not mean a god doesn’t exist, nor that it DOES, just because something doesn’t exist mean it does, but I’ll get into that later.

And evolution, evolution simply means CHANGE OVER TIME, regardless of how you think it is, the animal doesn’t have a genetic coding for different types of beaks (well, in a birds case, id be surprised if a dog had a beak) for many types of beaks, it has one “Switch”, which tells the beak when to grow, and when to stop, and multiple other “Switches” telling the beak how to form, they don’t have a pelican beak in one switch, and a finch beak in the other.

Also, natural selection is the process evolution takes, saying natural selection is a thing, but evolution isn’t is just plain stupid.

Mutations are evolution in a less controlled sense, but most times if the mutation is detrimental it will not be passed on.

Just, this entire website is full of unscientific lies meant to spread christianity, from making your own definitions to words to using arguments already disproven.

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

Shaun had an excellent response. To read it, click on "Defining terms carefully — Why we need clarity when we debate evolution".

Social Darwinism and Racism in Korea

Despite attempts at redefining the word racism by American social "justice" leftists, the problem has existed for millennia among assorted population groups. The article linked below focuses on Pan-Asian countries, especially Korea. Existing problems of Asian-against-Asian racism were greatly exacerbated by social Darwinism.

Credit: NOAA NESDIS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Once Darwinism was introduced into Asia, the intellectual elite embraced the concept and each group felt superior to the others. (It is ironic that many Pan-Asians felt superior to the "white race", but drew the principles from white people.) Not all were in agreement on evolutionary concepts, but the intellectuals wanted "backward" Korea to leave behind the Confucian principles that they had embraced for so many years. These Darwinism concepts were manifest in several wars, especially in the 20th century. Biblical creationists point out that there are no races, but there are ethnic groups. All are humans descended from the same created man and woman.

A review of the effect of rejecting the traditional Confucian belief structure in Korea by certain social groups, and the acceptance of Darwinism, was completed. The process of the acceptance of Darwinism by specific Korean academics, writers, and others and its horrendous effects in terms of lives lost was documented.

To read the rest of this extremely interesting analysis of history, click on "Korea, Darwinism, Racism, and War".

False Claims of Beetle Evolution

Beetles. There are quite a few types. To use the expensive scientific term, bunches of them. Some folks get a mite creeped out by the things, but if you can don't let the subject bug you, it can be quite interesting. You see varieties of beetles in many places, even where they are not wanted. Evolutionists make false claims about their so-called evolution.

Credit: RGBStock / K Rayker

Creationists have no problems with speciation and adaptation; we use the concepts frequently to help explain the Creator's plan for diversity. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution, to be consistent with their paradigm, need to come up with valid examples of random processes so they can deny the work of the Creator of everything. Instead, they show variations and natural selection and falsely claim that they are examples of evolution.

Two recent papers attempt to account for the evolution of beetle diversity. Beetles (order Coleoptera, or “sheath-wing”) are considered by Darwinists to be one of the best examples of “adaptive radiation” and “evolutionary diversification” after their appearance in the Carboniferous (assuming the Darwin Years timeline). But is evolution the best explanation? After all, creationists allow for a great deal of “horizontal” diversification within genera and families, through sharing of pre-existing genetic information.  . . .  Can they do it without reference to miracles of emergence: i.e., the Stuff Happens Law?

To read the whole article, click on "Beetle Diversity Without Evolution".