Evolutionists Further Embarrassed by Coelacanth Fossil

Owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand have made numerous assertions about the distant past based on their naturalistic presuppositions, but are frequently surprised when evidence contradicts their views. While everyone has and argues from their beliefs, secularists should have learned a bit of humility over the years.

Coelacanth replica / Wikimedia Commons / Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0

For a spell, the lobed-finned coelacanth was an icon of evolution because by pure imagination, it was thought to have used its fins to walk up on land and commence to evolving. When they were discovered after that yarn was spun, the supposed early legs were used for the fish's own purposes and had nothing to do with evolution. It was also essentially the same as it was all those Darwin years ago.

A fossil discovery reveals that the coelacanth grew to be much larger long ago. Many things were larger back then. However, the fossil became an ichthyoid elephant in the room: where are all the fossils between its last assigned date in the record and now, with none in recent layers? If secularists would admit that the observed evidence better supports creation science Genesis Flood models, they would not be embarrassed by facts.

One of the most famous living fossils is back in the news. The coelacanth is an endangered deep-sea fish. Its fins fit to unique, wrist-like bones, and unique bony plates envelop what scientists call its lung, which is like the swim bladder that controls buoyancy in other fishes. A new coelacanth fossil find measures more than double the size of live specimens while calling attention to outdated ideas about fossils.

This fossil’s story of discovery began when a private fossil collector asked University of Portsmouth paleontologist David Martill to identify what he hoped was a pterosaur. The mystery fossil came entombed with pterosaur wing bones from Morocco’s famous Cretaceous phosphate beds. According to University of Portsmouth news, Martill identified this strange fossil as the “bony lung” of a fish, a revelation that disappointed the collector but intrigued the scientist for its great size.

You can read the rest by clicking on "Big Fish Fossil Recalls Big Flop".

Children, Reading, and Failed Evolutionary Paradigms

Evolutionary assumptions carry a great deal of baggage, and most of it fails under scrutiny. Misotheists assert that "children are born atheist", which is absolutely unscientific and has been refuted — and evidence indicates the opposite. In a similar way, children are born with the capacity for language.

Credit: slightly edited image from Unsplash / Iana Dmytrenko

Indeed, since secularists know that children have an inborn knowledge of the Creator, they want to get that nasty ol' theism indoctrinated out of them and replaced with evolutionism. Children are not blank slates, old son, but were given many capabilities by their Creator.

A spell back, we saw that children are born "wired" for reading. This subject needs to be examined further, as it causes a Gordian knot for atoms-to-anthropologist thinking. There is no scientific evidence that something as complex as language (including recognition of shapes) evolved from stupid early humans making grunting sounds. This may also indicate why it is easier for youngsters to learn additional languages in addition to that of their countries of residence.

Also, theistic evolutionists are stumped because Adam was able to give names to animals from the beginning. This means that they cannot believe that they Bible says what it means in Genesis and later passages.

“Humans are born with brains ‘prewired’ to see words.”1 So said a news item on a science website. But this would hardly be news to any mother reading a book to a child sitting on her knee. She sees that her child quickly develops the ability to recognize the shape of letters and to associate names with the shapes. Her child can soon recognize whole words at a glance.

The study concluded that a part of the human brain from infancy “is more connected functionally to the language network of the brain than it is to other areas”. One of the researchers speculated, “It’s interesting to think about how and why our brains develop functional modules that are sensitive to specific things like faces, objects, and words.”

To read the rest of this very interesting article, visit "Prewired language processing — an evolutionary ‘Catch 22’". The relevant part of the video below is supposed to start at 6 minutes, 26 seconds.

More on Getting the Universe from Nothing

Здравствуйте on Cosmonautics Day! Can you believe that is has only been sixty years since Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space? I was just a small buckaroo then. Anyway, this seems like a good day to consider further follies by naturalists to get everything from nothing.

Image derived from a NASA illustration
(Usage of original does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Some misotheists will lie, saying that nobody believes that everything came from nothing, and when lassoed with the truth, they conveniently redefine nothing as...something else. I've been ridiculed for this, and the laughing emoji was hypocritically used on my proof by someone who owns the Krauss book, A Universe from Nothing. It's who they are and what they do. As we have seen many times, the narrative is more important to many than actually attempting science and learning the truth.

There's never a sheriff around when you need one because these owlhoots are breaking the law. Specifically, the first law of thermodynamics. Also, speculations are used in a circular reasoning daisy chain to support the real nothing: there is no science involved in their cosmology. Such reasoning also breaks laws of logic, old son. Quite a bit of work, education, and wasted money goes into denying the truth of the Creator with unscientific cosmic evolution. Then materialists congratulate each other over nothing accomplished — a job very well not done. 

The cover story of the latest issue of Science Focus announced in bold letters they had the  answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe. The lead article that caught my attention asked, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This is a “bedrock question” in science. The article was adapted from the author’s best-selling book, What a Wonderful World: One Man’s Attempt to Explain the Big Stuff (2013). Marcus Chown also has a YouTube video on his idea that the universe came from nothing, explaining how nothing created everything.

The only empirical evidence that the universe came from nothing is the well-documented finding that the universe is expanding. If the expansion event is reversed, it brings us back to the primordial egg that started it all. The conundrum then is, where did the primordial egg come from? The solution accepted by many leading cosmologists is, it came from nothing. Thus the reasoning is that nothing ultimately created everything.

The rest of the article is really something. To read it, blast off to "How to Get Everything from Nothing". Ну тогда до свидания!

Natural Selection and Building a Better Mouse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

You have probably heard the expression, "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door", which is wrongly attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson (even though sites like Brainy Quote spread the error). Another saying is, "If you build a better mousetrap, nature will build a better mouse". Really?

Credits: Original from RGBStock / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski,
modified with cat, frame, etc. at PhotoFunia

Purveyors of molecules-to-mouse evolution have been known to personify evolution, natural selection, and nature (or "mother nature') as intelligent beings (which is reification). Sometimes those beings make choices on evolution. Because they are invoking teleology, this is a direct contradiction of the random purposeless evolution that Darwin proposed.

An article on irreducible complexity by Dr. Jason Lisle has images of a mousetrap at the beginning. Mousetraps have been used as illustrations for this principle for a while. Even before the term irreducible complexity was first used, biblical creationists have been pointing out that mousetraps, components of living cells, and other things must have everything in place at the same time or nothing works. This by itself refutes machinations of the Bearded Buddha and his disciples, and points to the Master Engineer.

Natural selection (developed by creationist Edward Blyth long before it was hijacked by Charles Darwin) is not a creative force. It can be more accurately consider to be a culling force, removing the unfit from surviving and passing along their genes to later generations. Natural selection is not evolution.

Let's venture into the wonderful world of evolutionary imagination for a spell. Miriam Mouse saw other mice (including her husband Sebastian) die in traditional tried 'n' true mousetraps. She saw the mechanism work and heard the snap. Miriam was smarter and faster, so she absconded with the bait. When she saw the young buck Marvin Mouse also succeed, she happily remarried. Many of their pups avoided traps.

Evolutionists falsely claim that pesticide and antibiotic resistances are evidence of evolution, but no genetic information is added. It is essentially human-imposed natural selection; organisms without resistance were eliminated while those that already had resistance built into their genes survived and reproduced.

This is similar to the "better mouse" idea. A form of natural selection culled those that could not avoid the trap, but the fittest survived and passed along their genes. Imagine that! No evolution would have occurred, no new genetic information that is required for vertical evolution could be given. Indeed, mice and microorganisms were using what was built into them by our Creator from the get-go.

Secular Religious Indoctrination: Two Standards, No Waiting

When people who believe in creation want to teach their children, secularists chant in Vox Robotica, "That is indoctrination. We educate. Believe". Of course, secular institutions of alleged learning have children many hours a day, days a week, weeks a year. They indoctrinate in the atheistic state religion.

School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668

Secular humanism is a worldview that exalts humanity above all else, and its foundation is philosophical naturalism. Essentially, it is the religion of atheism in a masque.

"But Cowboy Bob, there are religious people that have signed the Humanist Manifesto things!"

Yes there are. There are also those who mounted up and rode with Michael Zimmerman's anti-creationist "Clergy Letter Project", and some groups for the separation of church and state (the kind where anything Christian is to be kept out of public life). However, you are unlikely to find Bible-believing Christians among the groups. Also, these inhuman humanists have published many atheistic, anti-Christian, and anti-creationist items, but objections to those from alleged theists are conspicuously absent.

Atheists are famous for their efforts to silence anyone who speaks (or even thinks) against fish-to-fool evolutionism (see "Evolutionists Stoking the Fires of Censorship Again"). It seems reasonable that humanists would support free speech and free thought for the sake of science and reason, but these things are not happening. There are numerous instances where creationists as well as Intelligent Design proponents have lost their jobs because of their views, one example is "Cancel Culture in Science".

This kind of thing is not just in the formerly United States, nor is it confined to the public sector. They are not concerned with "religion" so much as they are pushing their religious views. The hypocrisy of these so-called humanists is stunning. Let's take a look-see at the religious principles that secularists are using to indoctrinate children.

Following reports of government action against a Jewish private school in the UK, Stephen Evans, chief executive of the UK’s National Secular Society (NSS), was quoted as saying, “Schools that teach creationism as science are prioritising religious indoctrination above the educational rights of the children they teach.”

Following is an open letter to Mr Evans.

Dear Mr Evans,

To read the rest of this extremely informative article/letter, see "Indoctrinating children — Can’t teach creationism because it is ‘religious indoctrination’? Then stop teaching the big bang and evolution for the same reason!"

Fake News for T. Rex Feathered Babies

Those fun-loving folks purveying evoporn persist in promoting the majority beliefs that not only did dinosaurs evolve into birds, but they had feathers as well. T. Rex young'uns allegedly sported them as well. Some of us demand evidence, not just inferences or just-so stories.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart

We have examined claims that fossils show evidence of feathers (one post is "More On Dinosaur Feather Fake News"), but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Not that it matters, really, because God may have chosen to make some with feathers. It is not a threat to biblical creation science (but perhaps a threat to real science and logic when Darwin's disciples illogically extrapolate that into proof they evolved into birds). However, there is still no real evidence for feathered dinosaurs. Some interesting paleontology was tainted by non-science when feathers on young ones was claimed.

The recent discovery of a tiny tyrannosaur jaw bone fragment and a claw has some scientists again pushing dinosaurs as birds. But is there any evidence that T. rex had feathers, as so often is portrayed, let alone as young hatchlings?

A group of paleontologists, led by Gregory Funston from the University of Edinburgh, have identified the first embryonic bones from a tyrannosaur, a tiny jaw fragment and a claw. The science team wrote:

You can finish the article at "No Evidence T. rex Hatchlings Had Feathers".

Secularists Moving DNA Goalposts

When the numbers are not working out the way the Party desires, change them. It is known that DNA is a fragile molecule and cannot last indefinitely. When the Darwin Party's deep-time dogma was challenged by DNA in a mammoth tusk, they changed the numbers.

Credit: Flickr / Andrew Wilkinson (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Naturalists protect their storyline. We have seen many other instances where they ignored data, tampered with the evidence, and lied outright. Not content to play the cards they're dealt, they deal from the bottom of the deck — or even print their own cards to stash in their sleeves to play as needed. We have two articles showing how these Darwinoids are acting in an extremely unscientific manner to deny recent creation and the Genesis Flood. That stinks, Sebastian.

There is an upper limit on how long DNA can last. That number was adjusted because Darwin needs mega years to make his magick. Since the DNA in a mammoth's tusk was in permafrost, that changed things. Sure, cold might slow the decay rate of DNA, but their claims are based on deep-time presuppositions. It is faith and assumptions, not observable evidence. Further, the claims of "sequencing the genome" are suspicious, since all they obtained were fragments.

Also, since there were varieties of mammoths, these sidewinders did the sneaky bait-and-switch word trick by referring to varieties and variations as evolution, which is intended to imply that Papa Darwin was right. But none of that evolution is present. They're trying to pull the wool over our eyes again by imposing their beliefs on the evidence.

Any DNA found older than this upper limit will cause huge problems for the evolutionary dating scheme.

Researchers have extracted and reconstructed DNA from a mammoth tusk they say is 1.2 million Darwin Years old. This is a new record, they say. It was possible only because the tusk was buried in permafrost. Their conclusions should be remembered if DNA much older is ever found.

You can read the amazing report at "Scientists Set Maximum Lifetime for Ancient DNA". Be sure to come back for the second item.

Our next part obviously has a bit of overlap, but there are several things discussed that relate to the age of the earth and biblical creation science. What is really the oldest DNA actually discovered? How could these furry critters survive such exceptionally low, harsh temperatures and conditions for so many years in the Ice Age? Take a look a creation science Flood models, and things make a great deal more sense.

Although it may be possible for cold temperatures to preserve segments of DNA for one million years, mammoths defy long-age expectations in other ways. A great mystery of Earth history is how millions of woolly mammoths thrived in Siberia during the Ice Age. Siberian winters are brutally cold, with typical lows of 40 degrees below zero, but annual mammoth migrations to warmer latitudes would have been impractical. How could the mammoth—even with its wooly insulation—have guarded against such brutally cold temperatures?

The Genesis Flood provides an indirect but responsible answer that starts by explaining the Ice Age in general. Rapid seafloor spreading greatly warmed the world’s oceans, including the northern Pacific and Arctic oceans. This dramatically increased evaporation, putting enormous amounts of moisture into the atmosphere. This moisture fell as ice and snow at higher latitudes and elevations, triggering the Ice Age.

To read the article, see "Mammoth DNA: The Oldest Ever Found?"