Still No Thumb Evolution

In their ongoing efforts to promote the naturalism narrative, disseminators of evoporn have conducted some very shoddy work. The false claim about the similarities between human and chimpanzee genomes is still proclaimed. Now some think a critter finger evolved into the human thumb.

Credit: Flickr / Will Keightley (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Like with the genome thing, secularists have conducted horrendously inferior research using poor samples and absurd logic. Somehow way back when, alleged evolutionary ancestors diverged, with humans getting the opposable thumb and all those apes were left holding the end of the stick and using their feet as hands. Or did they leave that part out?

Come on, evolutionists! Cowboy up and admit that this is more wishful thinking than science. Here's a thought: Do real science without kissing Darwin (and admit that the evidence actually supports recent creation), or get productive jobs.

The human thumb is a major example of the many anatomical designs that set us apart from apes. To evolutionists, who take it as a given that humans and chimps have a common ancestor, they simply ignore the genetic chasm in their efforts to find evidence that a chimp thumb evolved into a human thumb. . . .  

Anatomists recognize that “The human thumb is a marvel” of design, “allowing our ancestors to craft stone tools and radically expand their food choices.” The evolutionist proceeds with conviction of evolutionary ancestry into the chasm, looking for bits of fossil evidence. 

To read the entire article (maybe you'll be as insulted by this "science" as I am), swing on over to "Thumbs Down on Human-Ape Evolution".

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

Evolution and Genetic Information Proposal Failures

Proponents of particles-to-pianist evolution try to persuade the world that they have evidence for their views in many fields on science, including biology. Although Papa Darwin hijacked natural selection for his own purposes, that failed. Evolutionists appeal to genetics, but the problems are huge.

Credit: Pixabay / Marcelo C. Domingues

Although simple organisms are far from simple when their internal workings are considered, they are much simpler than humans. But naturalists attempt to use a combination of luck, time, natural selection, and other unseen and untestable processes to add complex genetic information. This would not be for a single instance or a few occurrences, but numerous times as our alleged evolution from simple to complex travailed; the human genome is astonishingly complex. If you study on it, such ideas are desperately absurd contrivances to avoid admitting that God is our Creator. But we've seen how it is: the narrative of naturalism supersedes science and reason.

Evolutionary scientists know they need to explain the origin of genetic information. However, instead of discussing new information, they tend to focus on new genes. These are sometimes known as de novo genes. In the literature, they have proposed different methods to create these “new genes” or new expressions of genes, but only four are well accepted, and we will discuss those below. Extensive research is underway in these areas, and hundreds of papers are published yearly on these topics. However, their methods are rarely empirical and are drawn largely from theory rather than evidence.

To read the rest, follow the link to "New Genetic Information Proposals Fail".

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

Failed Fish-to-Feet Transitional Forms

My prospector friend Stormie Waters was asking about Darwin's death of transitional forms, especially why he went forward with his theories without evidence — and why people call it science when it is taken by faith. From there, the conversation evolved to discussing missing fish feet.

Tiktaalik roseae image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Sure is mighty puzzling, isn't it? There should be a wagon train-full of undisputable transitional forms showing the many modifications for fish to develop legs and all the other changes needed for life on land. They see lobe-finned fish fossils and say, "Aha! Evolution!" Not hardly! Tiktaalik was trumpeted as a transitional form, but that got tangled in evolution's fishing net. These fins were made for swimming, not walking. Evolutionists brought other candidates out of the underwater corral, but those also fail to dethrone the Creator.

One of the alleged greatest transformations in vertebrate evolution is said to be the emergence of creatures that traded fins for feet and transitioned from water to land. In other words, fish somehow evolved the numerous anatomical and physiological systems found in four-legged amphibians and various land-based reptiles. Despite evolutionary propaganda surrounding unusual fishlike creatures discovered in the fossil record, the necessary evidence of such a monumental evolutionary leap is profoundly lacking. 

In 2012, Jennifer Clack, one of the most famous vertebrate paleontologists of the modern era, concluded, “The question of where tetrapods evolved is even more difficult to answer than that of when.” Echoing this frustration, a 2018 research paper stated, “The fish-to-tetrapod transition is one of the fundamental problems in evolutionary biology.”

To dig up the rest of this article, see "The Fossils Still Say No: The Fins-to-Feet Transition".

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

Shlooping — a New Word for Evolutionary Storytelling

Scientists are expected to conduct research and present evidence to support their findings. Darwin's handmaidens are often exempt from this, instead presenting conjectures as science and telling tales that elicit adoration from the secular science industry. One way of evosplaining is essentially, "Stuff happens".

A Winter's Tale by John Everett Millais

This is often wrapped in a sciencey club sandwich that includes millions of years, time, chance, luck, random processes, bad logic, natural selection, weasel words, "it evolved", and even the Stuff Happens Law. Sometimes it's served with a dill pickle. I like that part. No ethics though.

David Coppedge suggests a new word for evolutionary storytellers: Shlooping. There's a great deal of "oops-ing" in their efforts to deny the Creator his due. Add the abbreviation for the Stuff Happens Law. You get schlooping. Sounds kind of Yiddish, doesn't it? There are some similar words about unethical behavior that come to mind...

It’s the Stuff Happens Law plus Oops, throwing mud into the water of science, fouling understanding.

We hereby introduce the descriptive term SHLooping, which means using the Stuff Happens Law (SHL i.e., chance) as a primary means of scientific explanation, and being careless about it (“oops”). The Stuff Happens Law is, of course, the antithesis of science. Scientists should be attempting to explain the world, not explain it away by saying “stuff happens.” And yet SHLooping is exactly what Darwinians do every time they say, “It evolved,” or otherwise appeal to blind, unguided processes as a means to explain things. They say their findings “shed light” on evolution. They say any and every conceivable trait “emerged” by some kind of rhetorical magic. This is deceptive, vapid and self-refuting. It’s also a bit loopy.

To read the rest, slide on over to "SHLooping Undermines Scientific Understanding".

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

Pseudoscience — Back at You!

I disremember what movie it was, but one scene had an inept deputy sheriff pointing a pistol at the main character. He was annoyed and said, "Give me that!", taking away the gun. The deputy immediately put his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!"

Original image: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler

There are some religious owlhoots who ride for the Darwin brand that say that biblical creation science is really just pseudoscience. Ironically, evolution has many qualifications of being a pseudoscience itself. With logic and scrutiny, it can be turned around on them. Watch for the double standards of criticizing biblical creationists of believing in the Creator, yet they presuppose naturalism, then present speculations and unfounded opinions as science. Someone hold up a mirror for these jaspers.

The organization BioLogos, which advocates that Christians accept secular evolutionary claims, recently published an online essay entitled “How to Spot Fake Science.”1 The not-too-subtle implication of the article is that Christians skeptical of ‘consensus science’ claims are being duped by pseudoscience. Based on their published material, BioLogos clearly thinks that criticisms of evolutionary theory fall into this category. Ironically, however, a number of the stated characteristics of pseudoscience apply to evolutionary claims.

To read the rest, take the journey to "Is Evolution ‘Fake Science’?" You may also be interested in "The Real Pseudoscience", which links to some more in-depth material.

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

The Work Ethic Begins in Genesis

Many of us reluctantly get up and go to the workplace, then take satisfaction in a job well done. These days, some people have an entitlement mentality where they expect money for doing little or nothing at all. We were designed to do work.

Credit: Unsplash / Fran Hogan

The work ethic is important in Western civilization. It was emphasized by the Protestant Reformers who noticed that it is a strong aspect of Christianity. Indeed, the value of work is all through the Bible and goes back to Genesis. Someone can be a construction worker, CEO, musician, ranch hand, stay-at-home mom, working with the developmentally disabled, author, or any of a myriad of professions. There's honor in that, especially when the worker seeks to glorify God.

Paul urges Christians, “to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (1 Thessalonians 4:11). But the biblical mandate for work goes far deeper and further back than these instructions. God worked on His creation masterpiece for six days and “on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done” (Genesis 2:2). Created in God’s image, there is a divine element to mankind’s labours, whether hard toil, creativity, or invention. We embrace our ‘God likeness’ in work, whether manual, creative, or intellectual. Many work activities combine all three.

To read the entire article, work your way over to "The work ethic — forged in Genesis". You may be interested in a follow-up feedback article from someone who objected to things that were not even said. For that, see "Why should a Christian ‘labour and toil’?"

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

Evolutionists Celebrating Darwinian Racism

It is bad enough that Darwin's votaries pretend that they are driven by science and not by faith in naturalism, but they celebrate the Bearded Buddha with religious fervor. It happened on the 150th anniversary of the Marxist-adored Origin of Species, and now this.

Some professing atheists think evolution makes them "intellectually fulfilled"

Celebrations are planned for the 150th anniversary of The Descent of Man, and by the time this is published, there will undoubtedly be more. (This may include dancing around the maypole.) Interestingly, there are no significant calls by the cancel culture gang to deplatform Darwin. Falsehoods abound about this owlhoot's "wonderful discovery" and how he was a "great scientist", but he only hijacked natural selection and retooled existing evolutionary views for his own purposes. Also, Darwin had no formal scientific training.

It is about worldviews. Evolutionism is naturalism and is opposed to special creation — especially God's creation of man as special and in his image. They reduce us to just another animal. Although we have documented many times that Darwin was a hardcore racist and evolution was amplified, atheists and evolutionists wave off its racism or say that Darwin was a "product of his times" (something that cancel culture doesn't do for others). There are many ways that evolution has been harmful to society, religion, medical science and more, Darwin is revered. While it may seem petty on the surface to criticize Chuckie, it is important to know his worldview because it influenced the philosophies he advocated.

Ok, a test for you. Is the following fact or fiction?

An edict banned church services and ordered the destruction of Scripture and churches. There was strong persecution for failure to obey. Later edicts commanded that pastors be arrested. Beheadings and burnings were the common punishments for disobeying the edict, but that depended on the creativity and cruelty of the particular governor of the region.

Well, the above is fact! The first Roman edict for this situation was issued on February 24, 303. While the edict was issued by Diocletian, his subordinate Caesar Galerius bears much of the responsibility for it. Galerius was a hardened pagan and wanted to use paganism to unify the empire, much like Constantine would use Christianity a few decades later. Edicts were issued for the entire empire to sacrifice to the pagan gods. The edict against Christianity lasted a mere seven years before Galerius repealed it, openly admitting it was a failure.

In a way, it does have some similarities with what happened when Nebuchadnezzar issued an edict that people had to bow down to his image or be burned in a fiery furnace. And for some reason, it even reminded me of certain events over the past year.

To read the rest, visit "Darwin’s Racist Descent of Man Turns 150".

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