NASA and Wernher von Braun

It seemed fitting to post this on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing. A few years ago, I posted a quote from Dr. Wernher von Braun in a forum about God. An atheist disparaged his remarks by calling him a Nazi. Aside from the obvious genetic and ad hominem fallacies, this attack was illustrated the disinformation that has been carried out by secularists for many years about him.

Dr. Wernher von Braun image credit: NASA / Marshall Space Flight Center
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

This rocket scientist worked under duress for the Nazis, desiring only the peaceful exploration of space. He and his team sought out the Americans after the war and willingly surrendered to them. Eventually, he became an important and respected figure at NASA and worked on the Apollo program. At that time, he became a Christian and a creationist, rejecting the one-sided teaching of evolution in schools.

Naturally, atheists and evolutionists seek to put him in a bad light, even using works of fiction in their portrayal. That is akin to the way some owlhoots use Inherit the Wind as a documentary of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The article featured below also has a link to his biography (or you can use duplicate), which is also quite interesting.

Revisionist historians who weren’t with this man keep trying to disparage his past. We set the record straight.

The 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing takes place this month, and numerous celebrations are taking place around the country. The mission control center at Johnson Space Center in Houston has been refurbished like new, space museums are hosting week-long special events, and a new CNN documentary features long-lost Apollo memorabilia. Unfortunately, in spite of the spirit of happiness for one of the country’s finest moments, certain journalists who feel obsessed to cast America in a bad light are digging for dirt. A particularly heinous rumor has arisen again.

To read the rest, blast off to "Defending America’s Apollo Rocket Scientist".



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

Devastation from Secular Environmentalist Ethics

Utilitarian philosophies are rooted in rebellion against the Creator, claiming to have a noble purpose for the good of the many. Essentially, for the pleasure and what is good for the majority. Secular views are inherently self-refuting and contradictory. Climate change and other environmental initiatives are often utilitarian.

Background image credit: Pixabay / icheinfach

Individuals are often required to sacrifice their freedoms for the good of the majority. In the movie Minority Report, three people with precognitive abilities were essentially imprisoned so they could provide information for the Premurder division of the police. While the results gained from their skills were considered helpful for society, nobody questioned the fact that they were essentially slaves — in a tank of water, no less. The purpose was utilitarian, to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many.

via GIPHY

We know that most environmentalists have good intentions, wanting nature and humanity to live together in harmony. As we read in "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans", some sidewinders have the notion that to save Earth, the human populations should be radically reduced or even eliminated! So...this is for the good of the many? Not hardly!

Evolutionary thinking is contradictory here. If we have climbed to the top of the food chain by our own efforts, should't we reap the benefits? We should be doing whatever it takes to help us survive and thrive, including our own pleasure. But no, there are secularists who see us as predators on the earth.

Similarly, global climate change extremists use leftist policies supposedly for the good of the many to save the world. These are actually restricting freedoms and a means to power for elitists, and enthusiastic people fall for the bad science that is rooted in evolutionary thinking.

Bible-believing Christians know (or should know) that we are stewards of the world that our Creator has given us and are accountable to him. Conversely, secularists who deny God make up their own rules and are answerable to others who deny God. I for one do not want their version of "ethics" for the making of policies. It is far better to trust in God's Word.

Normally, when someone goes to college, we can assume they are competent in their specialization. But when someone claims to be an ethicist, what comes out of their mouth is so predictably absurd and satanic that it’s not even interesting anymore. So when philosopher and author of Secular Ethics in a Materialist Age Todd May wrote a New York Times piece entitled ‘Would human extinction be a tragedy?’, one hardly needs to read it to know that May thinks, on balance, it could be quite a good thing for the earth if humans were no longer on it. However, he is wrong in several key areas.

To read the rest of this rather disturbing article, click on "The horrifying calculations of utilitarian ethics".





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

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!