Posts

Western Australia and the Genesis Flood

Image
Critics of Genesis Flood geology base their complaints on uniformitarian processes, and most seem unwilling to consider what creationary scientists have to present. I have even seen some owlhoots that claim that there are no models for Flood geology, while at the same time refusing to examine models that have been presented. Essentially, biblical creationists are wrong because evolution. After all, Darwin's philosophies require deep time, and scoffers don't cotton to evidence for the recent creation and the global Flood. They just "know" that biblical creationists are wrong. No logic nor education needed. Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) I reckon the best way to test a model is to see if it can deal with observed data. Australia is, according to Ray Comfort, an island off the coast of New Zealand. (Well, I  think that's funny.) Although an island, it is the smallest continent, "small" being relative, because it'

Wisdom Teeth are not Evidence of Evolution

Image
There are several things that are considered vestigial structures (or organs ) ,  which are essentially remnants of our alleged molecules-to-man evolutionary past. Part of this is because secular scientists presume Darwinism, and do not consider that the Master Engineer created organisms, and the parts therein, for specific purposes. Instead, they assume that if they cannot determine a purpose, then it must be leftover junk. Not hardly! Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap Evolutionists have embarrassed themselves and misled the public about the appendix , tonsils were routinely removed, parts of the genome that were not understood were called "junk" DNA , and so on. Also, wisdom teeth. Those have been removed many times, but it is often an unnecessary surgery. via GIPHY There can be complications, but I'll allow they are seldom life-threatening. But still, unnecessary surgeries are unethical — albeit profitable. As far as their putative evolutionary past — hang on, t

Sneaky Eugenics Conference

Image
Back in the early 20th century, social Darwinism had a branch of "science" called eugenics. People wanted to be all sciency and stuff, so they accepted this method of evolutionary thinking. Essentially, the "unfit" were forcibly sterilized, or at least strongly discouraged from reproducing. Racist Maggie Sanger started Planned Parenthood to help eliminate black people through eugenics. Eventually, Hitler took eugenics to its logical conclusion, which caused folks to shy away from that pseudoscience for a while. Colorized version of the International Eugenics Conference logo But since evil Darwinian thinking persists, eugenics never completely went away. Some owlhoots try to deny social Darwinism, and even make up their own "facts":   This is the opposite of the truth. Liar? Uninformed? Anxious to contradict the st00pid creationist? My vote is the first and third: lying, and desiring to contradict. Especially since he deleted the Tweet after I

Secularists Still Confounded over Moon Origins

Image
Know why adherents of long ages have so many speculations about the origins of the moon? Because none of them work. An idea gets the limelight for a while, gets shot down, someone dreams up a new lunar origin story and leads a cavalry charge to promote it, then that fizzles as well. After the scenario happens a few times, secular scientists try to prop up the best of the hypotheses that failed previously. Silvery Moonlight , John Atkinson Grimshaw, 1882 The most popular view is that our moon was formed by an impact in the thrilling days of yesteryear, according to Darwinist time and assumptions. Even though water was found in lunar rocks , the impact concept was still embraced. The whole thing requires a bit of dealing from the bottom of the deck , but the impact thing still fails. Any cosmic evolution idea fails because none of them deal with the facts. Truth is, the solar system was created relatively recently, and the evidence is a far better fit for the facts. Science buil

Origin of the Terms "Operational" and "Historical" Science

Image
Seems that some advocates of universal common ancestor evolution get on the prod and feel the urge to contradict almost anything a biblical creationists or Intelligent Design proponent has to say. Some, although uneducated, will even argue with evolutionary scientists who agree with creationists (such as the owlhoot who refuses reasons that neither side of the origins controversy expects dinosaur fossils in the Grand Canyon. Interesting that the demoniac who continually attacks creationists on that matter does not challenge evolutionists). They must contradict and attack, it's who they are and what they do. Gotta protect that Darwinian death cult, don'tcha know. Similarly, if you disagree with an atheist's arbitrary assertions and definitions of "reality" (long ages, no God, evolution, etc.), expect to be ridiculed. Not only your intelligence, but your morality as well: you are lying to distort reality. They can't defend their positions further than "

Mice Exhibit Gene Control Design

Image
We have been seeing how Darwin and his followers have been using externalism , saying that external forces cause change in living things. They have it wrong. Taking the perspective that organisms are designed to change by the Master Engineer all the way down to genetics and epigenetics . Additional support for this view comes from analysis of the way mice digest food.  Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry Some detailed research on the squeaky little critters' innards was conducted and led to some interesting results. "Epigenetic markers" work outside the genetic code, and show that these switches operate even with environmental changes. This adds to our knowledge that creatures were designed to adapt to continue to live in a changing world. Darwin proposed that evolution happens externally, that the environment shapes organisms. But a growing amount of evidence suggests the opposite: Most changes happen because the organisms themselves sense, and react to, the environm

"Junk" DNA Similar to Computer Memory?

Image
One trait that atheists and evolutionists have when encountering information regarding intelligent design (especially from biblical creationists) is to ignore it and attack. For example, a recent post about the follies of secular astronomical predictions was ignored by an uneducated tinhorn who wanted to be smarter than everyone else in the room — he wanted to talk about an asteroid instead. Similarly, we get challenged at The Question Evolution Project by atheopaths who ignore the content of the posts, change the subject and (wait for it...) attack. It's who they are and what they do. As we shall see, this kind of thing happens in professional circles as well as from social media nitwits. The book Contested Bones dealt with, well, bones. Three pages of it involved other failures of evolution. What's a fundamentalist Darwinoid to do except ignore the majority of the text and attack those three pages? Sure, that's how scientific discourse works in the secular world n