Languages and the Dispersion at Babel

Plants can communicate after a fashion as well as animals. However, only humans have sophisticated systems of language to express ourselves in various ways; the existence of language testifies of the Creator. Darwinian dogma insists that language evolved from grunts to complex forms. There is no evidence of this, as some evolutionists admit.

Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1594

If you study on it a mite, languages are degenerating, possibly within your own lifetime. Read a novel or short stories from one or two hundred years ago and you can see that writing had a depth and richness that are often lacking today. Historians and archaeologists can show you intricate languages from long ago that are only partially decipherable — if at all.

Languages and their groupings can be traced back to a certain point where they suddenly diversified. What is seen is in keeping with the biblical timeline all the way back to the confusion of languages and dispersion at Babel.

The origin of languages poses a major problem for evolutionists—how did man come to be a verbalizing creature who can communicate meaningful information through language? Following the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, speculation on the subject became rife. . . .

Modern evolutionists seek answers in primitive ‘symbols’ whereby human language began in ape-like creatures with simple grunts and noises in response to various stimuli, e.g. threatening predators. From these came a sequence of symbols, in turn moving on to simple sentences, to ever higher and more complex arrangements of words, and ultimately to abstract concepts.
. . .

One prediction of the theory is that the further back one goes in the history of language in general, and of any language in particular, the simpler it should appear. On the contrary, it becomes more complex, with all manner of grammatical and semantic subtleties that are progressively lost in later language, quite opposite to evolutionary predictions.

To read this extremely interesting article in its entirety, click on "The languages of babel".

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

Rescuing Dinosaur Protein Preservation

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are trying to cook up another rescuing device to avoid the young earth implications of dinosaur soft tissues and proteins. Soft tissues in dinosaur bones have been a cause of consternation among believers in deep time. The toast idea was crummy from the get-go, but that does not stop determined evolutionists from tweaking it for dinosaur proteins, no siree!

Made at PhotoFunia with an image on Pixabay by Ralph

While Maillard reactions are just ducky when they put a crust on toast and do tasty things with food, the very nature of the effect requires somewhat high temperatures. (By the way, the L in Maillard is not pronounced.) Desperate evolutionists try to explain the preservation of proteins through this process, but thinking people are able to easily determine four reasons that this preservation explanation can be relegated to the fake news trash can. If secular scientists started from the fact that the world was created recently, they would be more likely to come up with believable science.

How could dinosaur proteins persist over 70 million years inside dinosaur bones? That’s one of the biggest questions that secular paleontologists have faced in the last two decades. Many of them reason that some unique but undiscovered set of conditions grant proteins power to defy all odds and somehow survive unimaginable time scales. They think someone, someday, will discover the protein’s secret to survival. A new model suggests those long-sought conditions have come forth. And the once-secret rescuing device has a name: Maillard reactions. Does this common chemistry really explain the issue like its champions suggest, or does it leave ancient organics just as frail as ever?

To crunch on the rest of the article, click on "Do Maillard Reactions Explain Dinosaur Proteins?"



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

Educating Village Atheists and Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Sometimes people do not understand concepts no matter how well things are explained to them. Add to that when sidewinders that are so consumed with hate, they are unable to think rationally. When the two conditions are combined, it only makes for angry chin music. Here are some examples.

Made at Kapwing

Let's start with lies. On a recent episode of the Chris Plante Show, a leftist tinhorn lied. The documentation proving that he was lying was present, and the facts were also explained to him. He lied about the same thing again anyway. In a similar manner, a vindictive anti-creationist calls everyone he disagrees with "liars", and he "proves" it by calling them liars again. It has been explained that he has not ever proven that his targets were dishonest, but only that he disagreed with them; disagreement or differences on the interpretations of facts are not lying. Also, he was using the fallacy of repeated assertion. In both cases here, people were unwilling to learn.

Here we have an example of the atheopaths that infest Twitter. This one used ad hominem ridicule, a link to a straw man video, and a veiled genetic fallacy (click for larger):

Not worth the trouble to educate these types, as their minds are already made up.

This next jasper was particularly egregious. His straw man was so blatant, it was an outright lie (again, click for larger):

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Dear Dean here essentially said that evolution is so slow, we can't see it. Is he so unaware of evolutionary science reports that "evolution" happened much more rapidly than expected (sturgeons and anole lizards are just two examples), or the fact-free concept of punctuated equilibrium?  He also said that "a CMI person" refers to a dinosaur giving birth to a chicken. That's ridiculous and irrelevant and I lack belief that CMI would allow such a foolish remark to be made in one of their articles — it certainly was not used in the article upon which he was commenting. The part about such a statement being "meant to invalidate the idea [of evolution] is an appeal to motive fallacy.

Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ get on the prod when we point out their errors and poor reasoning, often denying our observations and then distracting from them. On more than one occasion, I pointed out that someone was using the genetic fallacy, and was asked, "What does genetics have to do with this discussion?" Okay, go play in the shallow end of the pool and let grown-ups talk, Skippy. 

Elsewhere, someone had never heard of cosmic evolution and may have been unfamiliar with the utilization of search engines, so he laughed about the term. Another had similar problems with chemical evolution. Apparently, they figure that sneering at things they dislike proves that they have the intellectual high ground.


Then there's the jasper that said that Voyager passed through the nonexistent Oort cloud, showing he didn't even understand his own science fiction, as the cloud would not be reached for quite a while longer if it was real. 

Those of us who pay attention to biblical creation science have to learn about science and a passel of critical thinking. We show skeptics how we do know about evolution, and we're not just st00pid dumb creationist automatons playing with Bible verses and ignoring facts and reason. If you strip away materialistic and deep time assumptions, the evidence is on the side of the creationists, which reaffirms what the Bible has said all along. That puts burrs under their saddles.

In addition to learning science, logic, and evolutionary ideas, biblical creationists also learn theology and exegesis. Those of us who take the Bible seriously do not interpret Scripture according to the ever-changing whims of atheistic science views. Some professing Christians ride for the Darwin brand (often attempting to convert us to their way of thinking) and twist the Word of God for their own purposes. A proper understanding of the Bible and working knowledge of science helps refute their chicanery.

As I have said several times, it is a good time to be a creationist because we have an abundance of evidence supporting our worldview. However, it is not about evidence alone. (If it was, everyone would be a biblical creationist and Darwin would have been laughed out of science gatherings.) We can get into protracted discussions and try to out-evidence others. This seems to go on almost endlessly, with neither side backing down. We need to be unashamedly speaking the truth and offering materials and links, but we cannot use "neutral ground" and leave God's Word out of it. It's a slap in God's face to put him on trial and let the scoffer decide if he is worthy of belief and worship.  We presuppose the truth of Scripture, and they presuppose that materialistic philosophies have the answers. For more about this, you may want to read "Evidential or Presuppositional Apologetics?"

Biblical creationists have the truth and we have science to support our claims despite the negative opinions of mockers. Let's keep learning and growing so we can give credible responses and uphold what we have to say. We also can hope that evolutionists who are willing to step outside their intellectual and spiritual confinement and question evolution. Meanwhile, we can only explain something so much to those who are unwilling or unable to learn.




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

The Mysterious Moons of Mars

As you may recollect from school days, Ares was the ancient Greek god of war, later merged with the more personable Roman god known as Mars. While astronomers of yesteryear was finding and cataloging moons around Jupiter and Saturn, the moons of Mars were not discovered until the 19th century.

Credits: Mars and Moons from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Art gallery effect by PhotoFunia

The discoverer named the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos (basically, fear and terror) after two sons of Ares in a blending of mythologies. Then the speculations started. Why weren't the moons discovered until comparatively recently? Could be that people just weren't looking in the right place. Some thought that since Mars may be inhabited, the Martians built the moons and placed them there.

Let's ride on this fun side trail for a spell. Percival Lowell was convinced (as were others) that Mars had canals, which had to be built by intelligent beings. In the late 1890s, Herbert G. Wells wrote his famous Martian invasion novel, The War of the Worlds. E.R. Burroughs began his Barsoom (the name the inhabitants gave to Mars) novels in the early 20th century, with Thuria (Phobos) and Cluros (Deimos) having inhabitants of their own. Clive Staples Lewis wrote Out of the Silent Planet in 1938. It was a mix of theology and science fiction, and Mars was called Malacandra. I think mayhaps the discovery of the Martian moons helped fuel the pop culture of those years.

Secular scientists are still trying to find and justify the existence of life on Mars (millions of dollars wasted to support evolution and deep time that could have been better spend right here). For that matter, the Phobos 2 probe of 1989 was thought by UFO enthusiasts to have encountered something alien, possibly leading to the probe's demise.

Phobos and Deimos are just rocks orbiting Mars. They are "mysterious" because of secular presuppositions and the numerous failed models for the origin of the solar system. Indeed, these and other celestial bodies give silent testimony for recent creation and against cosmic evolution, pilgrim.

It wasn’t until 1877 that the two moons of Mars were discovered.

American astronomer Asaph Hall, acting on suspicions that Mars had at least one moon, had conducted a night-by-night methodical search using the telescope facility at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. Frustrated at not finding anything, he was about to give up but his wife Angelina urged him to continue. The following night, 12 August, he discovered Deimos, closer in to the red planet than anyone had thought of looking before, orbiting just 23,000 km away.

(By way of comparison, our Moon is about 384,000 km from Earth.) Six nights later, Hall discovered Phobos, even closer in—only about 9,000 km from Mars.

. . .

Over the next century, as more information came to light about the two Martian moons, there was much to fascinate astronomers. Phobos is about 22 km in diameter, while potato-shaped Deimos is even smaller, being about 12 km across at most. While our Moon takes a leisurely month to orbit the Earth, Deimos takes about 30 hours to go around Mars, in a nearly perfectly circular orbit around its equator. Meanwhile the remarkable Phobos goes around Mars in only eight hours, i.e. about three times per Martian day. Being faster than the red planet’s rotation, Phobos would appear to an observer on Mars to rise in the west and set in the east, with that moon passing through all its phases in a few hours.

The biggest puzzle in the minds of many cosmologists, however, concerns theories about the formation of the moons.

To read the entire article,  click on "Mars moons mystery — How did Phobos and Deimos get to where they are?"



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

Secular Researchers Inadvertently Support Creation Model

At first glance, this may look like a repeat of the recent post on research at Harvard supporting an Institute for Creation Research model of environmental adaptation. Actually, this is new information involving living cells. An interesting study on yeast cells was conducted to see if they had built-in mechanisms for gene expression.

Credit: Pixabay / ractapopulous

Engineers design things to respond to changes. This includes sensors and logic involving feedback to trigger responses. Darwin believed that organisms change because of their environments, but the ICR model states (and demonstrates) that the opposite is true: organisms were designed by their Creator to sense and respond to environmental changes. Yeast cells displayed "control theory" that engineers use, further confirming the creation science model.

New research goes a long way in explaining how creatures actively sense their environment and adapt to it. One mechanism enables some organisms to track the changing levels of nutrients, hormones, or stress they are exposed to, and then make appropriate responses if and when needed. Andrew Capaldi’s lab at the University of Arizona is responsible for these remarkable findings published in Nature Communications. His results can also be added to an increasing body of evidence to support ICR’s theoretical assumption that biological functions are best explained by engineering principles.

Although a bit technical, lay people as well as those with science backgrounds can gain some insight and appreciation of what is going on. To read the rest of the excerpted article, click on "Cells and Designers Both Use Control Theory".



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

Learning to Understand Darwinese

There is a song that says words sometimes have two meanings, but that is an understatement. We can be led the wrong way by erroneous assumptions about word definitions. Creation science ministries try to encourage people to learn how to think, in stark contrast to secularists who try to tell people what to think. With a bit of study, we can learn how to understand the malarkey of Darwinese. There are two posts featured here to emphasize the point.

Modified from an image at FreeDigitalPhotos.net by Stuart Miles

Although the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ is useful if you can find one (the version with the whistle in it is a very expensive collectable), we really need to put our hearts and minds into interpreting Darwinese. 

Watch for maybe, scientists believe, earlier than we thought, perhaps, and other words that the secular establishments pass of as "science" instead of earning their pay. Another big help is learning to spot basic logical fallacies. Once you get a handle on translation, you can start asking questions that make evolutionists downright uncomfortable: How do you know? Were you there? How do those other people you rely on know? Actually, there is someone who does know and was there, and that is our Creator who told us all about it in the Bible, beginning in Genesis.

Translating Darwinese primarily involves taking out the assumptions and assertions and seeing if anything is left.

If, like the late Phillip Johnson argued, Darwinian evolution is naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science, then it follows that Darwinian ‘science’ is fake science. It may include some tangible objects, like fossils or genes, but it will be wrapped in rhetoric intended to promote naturalism. Consequently, a perceptive reader needs to learn how to translate Darwinese. The mystical language of Darwinese makes it seem as if observational data supports evolution, when it’s really the other way around; naturalism colors the data. A successful Darwinese translator is always focusing on the actual evidence. One must filter out the assumptions and assertions to see what the data are actually indicating. Here we teach by example.

I'd take it right kindly of you if you would finish reading "The Art of Translating Darwinese". A kind of follow-up post follows that really helps bring the point home.

As some of us involved in creation science ministries have pointed out, sometimes it seems like researchers turn in papers that have interesting and even useful research but they taint it with evolution. It's like they sanctify it by slapping on a Darwinese-type "Hail Darwin, blessed be!" remark to sanctify it as "science" when it was fine before it was polluted with nonsense. Researchers often distract from their research or even ruin it by throwing in worthless (or even harmful) evolutionary posturing.

If an objective English teacher read a typical science paper, she would cross out the Darwinese as deadwood that adds nothing.

Darwin. Who needs him? He keeps popping up uninvited, cluttering science papers and articles with his BAD ideas (see definition of BAD in the Darwin Dictionary). Science writing would be much cleaner and understandable without him. Like Sergeant Friday of Dragnet used to say, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Dear scientist, tell the public what the question was, the hypothesis that was tested, the methods and materials, the findings, and the conclusions. You can also brag about the value of the findings. But cross out the Darwinese. Like deadwood in bad writing, it just adds clutter. Here are some recent examples of news articles that would be cleaner and leaner without evolutionary storytelling, and tastier without Darwin Fudge on top.

To read the rest and get the full impact of both posts, click on "Junk Darwinism Clutters Science".

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

Perhaps a Camarasaurus in China

Although Darwin's disciples insist that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, long before humans evolved and set up camp, there is evidence to the contrary. There are historical records and artifacts that have rather accurate descriptions and representations of dinosaurs, such as St. Davids dragon that we examined a spell back. There are many more, including what looks like a Camarasaurus from China.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dmitry Bogdanov

Creationists accept historical evidence (including the Bible) of dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously. Nowadays, we only know what some of them looked like from fossils and such, but people long ago did not have (or know about) fossils underfoot. They still had some surprisingly accurate illustrations and artwork of what were called dragons prior to Richard Owen coming up with the word dinosaur.

An artifact from China dating from the third century BC had detailed depictions of what appears to be a Camarasaurus. It is interesting that hundreds of years later, Marco Polo described what appeared to be dinosaurs in China. This older bronze work has details, with a bit of fanciful artwork on the tail. The truth is that dinosaurs, humans, and everything else were created recently, not the product of blind chance evolution.

A late Eastern Zhou (3rd century BC) wine vessel excavated in 1975 from a tomb in Sanmenxia, Henan Province, China, demonstrates this beautifully. Cast in bronze with much of its gold inlay still preserved, the stunning artistry is clear. Looking distinctly dinosaurian are four animals, one featured on each side of the wine vessel, easily recognizable as sauropod dinosaurs. Due to the particularly rounded head at the end of the long thin neck peering over the edge it may very well be depicting a Camarasaurus. The thick muscular legs come down from the body and the tail extends out, suspended in the air, not touching the sides of the vessel.

To read the entire article, click on "A Chinese Camarasaurus?"




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