Engineered Adaptability and Design Features Part 2

Back in the first part, we examined how organisms show that they were designed according to engineering principles by the Master Engineer. There is a correlation between various designs of humans and those of organisms, but any form of natural selection has no application.

Rocket engines image in background from Freeimages / Terry Eaton

Let's saddle up and ride this trail a bit further. Something can perform well and fulfill its designed purpose, but if its limits are exceeded, that is not the fault of the device, organism, or the engineer. In fact, some things are designed to break. Even the infamous Windows computers' Blue Screen of Death was designed to protect the computer, probably from software that was not properly designed or an excessive load on the computer.

All factors are not the same for all organisms. The mystical "selection pressures" that supposedly cause minerals-to-machinist evolution may affect you and I the same, but our Basement Cat might respond in a different way. This is because our Creator designed living things to utilize built-in responses and not go react by evolving into something else. You savvy?

Last month’s Engineered Adaptability article considered two examples of human-designed structures that were exposed to identical conditions but did not respond in the same way.

. . . 

All known creatures and human-engineered things have vulnerabilities. Since biological systems operate according to the same laws of chemistry and physics human engineers use to govern their designs, there should be a correlation to explain why even the most brilliant designs still have points of vulnerability.

To read the article as it was designed to be read, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure, Part 2".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tube Anemones Enemies of Evolution

More trouble at the Darwin Ranch. Scientists along with everyone else tend to reason from their presuppositions, but those should be questioned when they are so frequently refuted. Advocates of atoms-to-anemones evolution have to deal with unpleasant facts regarding tube anemones.

Researchers did some genome sequencing of mitochondrial DNA on tube anemones and had some big surprises. For one thing, the genomes of most organisms is circular. the mtDNA of the tube anemones studied is linear. Also, the mtDNA of one species was 81,000 base pairs long. Ours has 16,569. The hands at the Darwin Ranch might be sorry they examined the anemones, since this causes more problems for evolution but also affirms special creation. By the way, some people like to put them in their home aquariums.

Anemones come in a wide range of sizes, shapes, and colors. Members of phylum Cnidaria, anemones are most commonly associated with clownfish in popular culture. However, there is much more to anemones than that. In particular, one recent study sequenced the mitochondrial genome of several species of tube anemones and revealed some startling surprises that provide headaches for evolutionary classification.

To read the rest, click on "Anemone Complexity Confounds Evolutionary Classification".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

The Perplexing Pangolin

Before we get into the details, I want to share an opinion. We were created in the image of God and many critters seem to indicate that he has a sense of humor. Some creatures including the hoatzin, kangaroo, and the platypus almost seem like pranks our Creator made to fluster evolutionists. The same could apply the the pangolin.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / A. J. T. Johnsingh (CC by-SA 4.0)

If I took my glasses off, it might look like a miniature sauropod, being small at one end, much thicker in the middle, and small at the other end (according to a theory by Miss Anne Elk). It has scales, which are not found in mammals today, and the scales are unlike those of reptiles. This misnamed "scaly anteater" does the armadillo thing by curling up into a ball when threatened. It should do more of that, as vile humans are driving them to near extinction.

There is no sign of evolution; the pangolin remains a pangolin. The truth does not stop evolutionists from Making Things Up™ to explain the scales, even invoking guesses about DNA. As in so many other instances, we are given stories with an Adrian Monk approach, "Here's what happened".

via GIPHY

Except that Monk provided reason and evidence. Evolutionists are mighty keen on using "perhaps", "possibly", "maybe", and others. In addition, the magical mystery device of natural selection is invoked. Then Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ swoop over and use the speculation as evidence: "Take that, creatards!" You didn't give us anything to take there, Buttercup.

Classification has been a major problem as documented by many past failed attempts. They were once classified with various orders of ant-eating mammals, the Xenarthra, which includes true anteaters, sloths, and the armadillos which pangolins superficially resemble. Newer genetic evidence, however, points to their closest living relatives as the Carnivora with which forms the clade Ferae. Other evolutionists have classified the pangolins in the order Cimolesta, together with several extinct groups, though this idea has also fallen out of favor since cimolestids were not placental mammals.

A 2015 study found close affinities between pangolins and the extinct group called Creodonta. In short, pangolins have features of several diverse animals. This has stymied not only their classification, but also attempts to determine their evolution, a subject largely avoided due to almost no hint of transitional forms in the fossil record, although a number of extinct pangolins have been found.

To read the entire article including descriptions of its traits, click on "The Pangolin: The Strangest Animal Known to Man".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Intricate Feather Architecture

The next time you find a feather, you may want to pick it up and give it a good look-see. There are many fine and delicate elements that may cause you to wonder how even a large number of those can keep Chirpy in the air.

Credit: Unsplash / Tevin Trinh

Birds make flying look easy, but their feathers deal with enormous stresses. They have to keep their owner airborne as well as protect them from the elements. Wind is a factor, yet the feathers were designed to keep from breaking.

Feathers are attached through the central shaft, and new research using an electron microscope provides us some insight. It is amazing that despite the obvious specified complexity, the main researcher still had to give homage to evolution even though there is no sign of bird or feather evolution in the fossil record. Want to know why there is no evidence for evolution? The evidence points to the fact that our Creator did all the work. He is the one who deserves the credit, not some vague force called evolution.

It has long been known that the feathers on birds are well engineered structures. They are strong, lightweight, aerodynamic, and even when ruffled, they can be preened back into shape readily. This comes from their intricate architecture: feathers have a long central shaft called a rachis, and from this come barbs, which in turn have barbules. In flight feathers, the barbules have hooks that link them to adjacent barbules. Evolutionists once taught that they came from reptilian scales, but this is discredited now, as one evolutionist has pointed out:

"'Microstructural architecture' of feathers makes them tough".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Flat Earth Beliefs and Special Knowledge

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In my years of writing, doing social media, having conversations, and simply observing people, I have come to the conclusion that many want to believe that they are better in some ways than other people. One means to this end is to have some kind of special knowledge.

Image credit: Pixabay / Vicki Nunn

Atheists rank near the top of the uppity scale, imagining that they own science and reason. They use these to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). Universal common ancestor evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and of anti-creation compromisers. Those of us who believe the truth of Scripture and the reality of biblical creation science are deemed inferior. This is primarily based on their arbitrary presuppositions that science must be rooted in naturalism. However, their presuppositions and assumptions are not supported by logic or evidence.

via GIPHY

Conversely, there are professing Christians who are full of pride about their salvation and use the Bible like a club. (Some proponents of certain Christian beliefs have inflated egos: other Christians are immature, unsaved, or in some other way inferior because they do not accept the doctrines of their particular group.) Cultists are often the same way because they belong to the One True Church™.

Some folks seem to have made the leftist politics of anthropogenic climate change into a religion. They accept polished-up "facts" while ignoring anything that does not support their belief system. Sometimes believers in this farcical misadventure are so wrapped up in the emotionalism of the moment, they forget the failed doomsday pronouncements of the past. Don't you know who they are? They have special knowledge. Bow down.

Recently, I posted an article refuting some of the dogmas of the anti-vaccination crowd. This loud minority chose to slap leather with me rather than consider the scientific evidence. After all, they saw videos on YouTube and obtained material from people who support their views, so anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. The respondents were haughty and condescending because they had knowledge and opinions that they considered superior. I was told by one that she did not want to deal with that material, then later contradicted herself by claiming she did deal with it. Some seem rational, but their emotional reactions clouded their logic. I think some of them are not quite right in the head, based on their intensity and emotionalism.

The flat-earthers really take the rag off the bush — especially those of a religious mindset. They not only seek out people and fake science that supports their views, but when challenged by outsiders, Katie bar the door! Flat-earthers are also into conspiracy theories, and are prone to accepting many other odd beliefs.

Mayhaps flat-earthers will prove everyone else wrong when they go on their cruise to the end of the earth.

The sad part is that some professing Christians believe that the earth is flat, and because of poor exegetical skills, rigidly hold to their opinions. Their superior "knowledge" helps them proudly pretending to be more spiritual than the rest of us. Ever hear of context, pilgrims? Not everything in the Bible is intended to be taken literally (Jesus is not an actual door, for instance); the context and the rest of Scripture are extremely important. Like the anti-vaxxers, flat-earth proponents have refused to deal with evidence presented. They get all het up to be evangelistic with their false views.

Bible verses have been taken out of context and twisted to support flat-earth beliefs, and then unbelievers also use these to not only mock the Bible but also flat-earthers. One of these is Matthew 4:8, which one sidewinder ripped out of context for the purpose of ridiculing the inerrancy of Scripture. (He had been shown a refutation, but he was infallibly speaking ex cathedra, so the rest of us mere mortals are wrong.) To see the refutations of this and other Bible verses that allegedly teach that Earth is flat, see "A flat earth, and other nonsense" and especially "Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?" If you want to find the discussion on that particular verse right away, use your browser search function and type in "4:8".

Bonus: In Luke 11:31, Jesus said that the queen of the South (that is Sheba, which may be near modern-day Yemen) came to Solomon "from the ends of the earth". No rational person would think that Arabian areas are the ends of the earth. It was clearly figurative.

Some people say that the "truth" of the flat-earth has led to their conversion to Christ and a deeper commitment. A sad fact is that when people realize that they have been lied to (especially former cultists like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the like), they tend to reject all truth about God and the Bible. How will flat-earthers react when confronted with the truth?

Like evolutionism, these views and others where people to have special or superior knowledge smacks of Gnosticism. Unfortunately, if people understood basic logic and used critical thinking, they would be less susceptible to fake news and outright deception. Indeed, there are atheists who pretend to be creationists and are in effect agents provocateurs. 

Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and others are prone to react in a very unchristian manner.

Dr. Danny Faulkner wrote an article than inspired my own missive here. He points out that flat-earth creationists are inadvertently supporting atheistic ridicule of creation science. It's not a short read, but I really believe that it's worth your time.

I have been studying the flat-earth movement for nearly three and a half years. In this time, I’ve published more than a dozen web articles or blogs on the flat-earth movement, and I’ve written a book on the subject that will soon be published. As I’ve studied this movement, I’ve become fascinated with its sociology. I’m very curious as to what motivates flat-earthers, how they became convinced that the earth is flat, and what their thought processes are. In early May, I attended the premiere of the documentary Faith on the Edge: Exploring the Biblical and Scientific Case Against Flat Earth at Calvary University in Kansas City. There I joined a panel discussion with “The Creation Guys,” Kyle Justice and Pat Roy, the producers of the video, as well as Hebraist Steve Boyd, who, along with me, appeared in the documentary. In preparation for this event, I gathered my thoughts on the sociology of the flat-earth movement into 20 bulleted points, and we discussed these over dinner before the premiere. Though I’m no sociologist, I’ve fleshed most of the 20 points into a narrative, which I share here.

To finish reading, click this link to "Reflections on the Flat-Earth Movement". You may also be interested in the links at "The Bible and the Flat Earth".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

A Stupid Dinosaur Bat Evolution Trick

Reading this report got me on the prod because I found it insulting. Sometimes I think that proponents of molecules-to-mammal evolution think that we are unable to see through their just-so stories, but then I see anti-creationists gobbling them up and pretending to believe "science". The latest instance is of a fossil that is laden with silliness.

Credit: Pixabay / Andrew Martin

A fossil was found that strongly resembles a bat, and Darwin's disciples evosplain with not only circular reasoning (assuming evolution to prove evolution), but are making evolution into a decision-making entity. Here, evolution experimented on the development of dinosaur flight with a bat, a story that belongs in comic books. They're calling it a dinosaur because evolution.

There are many bats in the world, pilgrim, like there were in bygone days. What they found was just another bat. Further, evolutionists have no means of showing any sign of bat evolution, nor can they explain the origin of flight. It's really quite simple: evolution didn't happen. Instead, living things were created recently, which is the logical conclusion.

A new fossil discovered in northeastern China recently was described by Reuters as a “feathered dinosaur a bit bigger than a blue jay that possessed bat-like wings [which] represents a remarkable but short-lived detour in the evolution of flight and the advent of birds.” A 3-D reconstruction, completed at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, China on May 8, 2019 shows it flew with bat-like membranous wings. The Jurassic Period dinosaur Ambopteryx, (meaning “both wings”) longibrachium (meaning “long arm”) looks nothing like a dinosaur, so why call it a dinosaur?

To read the rest, click on "Can a Dinosaur Have Bat-Like Wings?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Water and Wind Gaps Plus Poor Secular Logic

Secular geologists have a great deal of trouble explaining landforms according to their uniformitarian (slow processes over long periods of time) belief systems, and they even attempt to use very unscientific and illogical explanations for what is observed.

Delaware water gap image credit: Freeimages / Tom S

Wind and water gaps are found in mountains. To use the technical term, there's a bunch of 'em. Secular storytellers cannot adequately explain their existence and especially their formation, even resorting to explanations that defy basic physics and gravity. The explanation for the Lake Missoula Flood of the Ice Age was fought for many years, as secularists wanted to cling to their outdated ideas.  There is a far better explanation for landforms, including water and wind gaps.

That would be the Genesis Flood. There are people who reject this out of hand, refusing to consider the evidence from geology. However, uniformitarian geologists (as I indicated before) do not have rational explanations or models.

Water and wind gaps, two amazing landforms on the earth’s surface, cut through mountains and ridges. They are exciting evidence for the global Flood., According to the Glossary of Geology, a water gap is defined as: “A deep pass in a mountain ridge, through which a stream flows; esp. a narrow gorge or ravine cut through resistant rocks by an antecedent or superposed stream.” In other words, a water gap is a perpendicular cut through a mountain range, ridge, or other rock barrier. It is a gorge that a river or stream flows through. It is highly unlikely these gorges were cut by the river that now runs through. Wind gaps are like water gaps but are not deep enough for water to flow through. Only wind passes through, which is why they are called wind gaps.

To read the rest, click on "Water and wind gaps carved during channelized Flood runoff".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!