Evolutionary Escapades in Luzon

As we discussed before, Darwinists are unsuccessful with their claims when they find a few bone and tool fragments. This has lead to evolutionary dead ends. The seven-chambered Callao Cave in the Philippines (locals made a chapel in the main part) is in the  Peñablanca Protected Landscape and Seascape area. Some bones and tools were discovered there.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / © Ervin Malicdem, 2013 (CC by-SA 4.0)

While the secular media were excited about the discoveries, there are also several problems with their status as evolutionary links. Let's assume that the bones belonged to people who actually lived there. Evidence of intelligent tool use was found, and other problems with the evolutionary timeline come into play. Also, they indicate a relationship to other humans. (No surprise to creationists, since humans were created recently.) The original possessors of the bones could have had pathological deformities. It's mighty hard to tell with so little evidence.

From time to time the media is abuzz with news of yet another human fossil discovery. Each time researchers hope for more clues with which to try to piece together the alleged evolutionary picture of our origins. This time, the fossils come from a part of the world far removed from the usual sites of human fossil research in eastern and southern Africa.

Researchers have found 13 bones, recovered between 2007 and 2015, which are claimed to belong to a new species of hominin, called Homo luzonensis. The species was named after the island of Luzon in the Philippines where it was discovered.

To learn more, click on "What is Homo luzonensis?"




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

Creation Science Stratigraphy Supports the Genesis Flood

Over at the Darwin Ranch, folks are a superstitious lot. It is considered bad luck to honestly search for and report on evidence that supports creation science, as it is bad for old earth beliefs and evolution — and their grant money. Especially regarding things related to geology.

You know the cliché: "We have the fossils, we win", then folks link to atheistic and evolutionary sources to confirm their biases. Add to this the common lie that creationist scientists are not really scientists, and the Big Lie propaganda tactic is in full gear.

Then the disciples of evolution light their prayer candles and chant to their pagan pseudoscience gods that people forget how to think and use search engines. When people do look up the credentials of creationists and the facts on the Flood, then every day is Friday the 13th at the Darwin Ranch. Meanwhile, secular scientists who want to simply go on about their jobs look at the antics of the Darwin death cult and go on with their activities.

"What are you on the prod about, Cowboy Bob?"

Well, yeah, I was a bit off the trail there. So anyway. Secularists, whether the fanatics or run-of-the-mill evolutionary scientists, have decided that creation science is nonexistent and are locked into their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions. Creationist have to saddle up, stash their accreditation in their possibles bags, and do their own research. Unfortunately, they are not well-heeled like their secular counterparts, but creationists still manage to cause problems for naturalistic beliefs.

Despite the myth of the unbiased, dispassionate seeker of knowledge, scientists have their biases, assumptions, and presuppositions. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research used the premise that if there was a Global Flood, there would be observable evidence for it. Since secularists rejected this idea out of hand, they had to do it their ownselves. ICR scientists collected a huge amount of data from several parts of the world and plugged them into biblical creation presuppositions. We have seen how fossils do not support deep time or evolution, but how about geology itself supporting the Flood and recent creation?

CR’s Column Project team recently finished work on the European continent, including Turkey and the area surrounding the Caspian Sea. We have now compiled stratigraphic data across four entire continents: North and South America, Africa—including the Middle East—and Europe.
. . .

The stratigraphic patterns across the first three continents were also found across Europe with slight differences. The Flood across Europe began in a limited extent in the Sauk, peaked in the Absaroka, and finally receded in the Tejas, the final megasequence. This is strong evidence for a global flood. All four continents we have studied share the same general pattern and timing of limited early flooding, followed by peak flooding, and then receding.

To read the full article, click on "European Stratigraphy Supports a Global Flood".

The book of Genesis describes a catastrophic worldwide Flood. Is there any evidence that floodwaters covered the entire Earth?

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

So Many Large Galaxies, So Little Evolutionary Time

Secular astronomers and cosmologists are finding more problems with their deep time paradigm, so once again they have to trot out rescuing devices. Their own assumptions are working against them. According to expectations from the current Big Bang model, huge galaxies should not exist. But there they are.

Derivative from The Passion of Creation by Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Once again, the secular version of the history of the universe has to be rewritten. Sure, the rescuing devices look like they may work, but circular reasoning is involved; these "explanations" refute themselves. Muy grande galaxies exist before stars had time to form, explode, and seed the universe with stuff to make the universe (and ultimately, you and me) exist. All varieties of evolutionists, whether cosmic, biological, or geological, essentially believe in luck in the cosmic throws of the dice. When science is misused used to defy recent creation, the problems keep on piling up. This is God's creation, not Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, Atlantic City, or somesuch.

Nearly a century ago, Edwin Hubble found that there is a linear relationship between redshifts and distances of galaxies. We now call this the Hubble relation, or the Hubble law. The most straightforward interpretation is that the universe is expanding, but keep in mind that this is an interpretation of the Hubble law. The dominant cosmological model today, the big bang, is based upon an expanding universe. Within the big bang model, it is believed that most galaxies formed approximately the same time early in the universe, about 13 billion years ago. If the speed of light is finite, then there is a look-back time with increasing distance. That is, we will see the most distant galaxies (the ones with the greatest redshift) as they appeared in their youth. However, we will see nearby galaxies (the ones with the lowest redshift) much closer to their current age. Hence, the study of very distant, high redshift galaxies will lead to a greater understanding of how galaxies and stars formed. This is very important in modern cosmology because astronomers have developed elaborate theories of how the first stars and galaxies must have formed within the big bang model. A key part of this is the belief that in the early universe there must have been intense star formation, with stars forming at a much higher rate than they form today.

To read the entire article, click on over to "Massive Galaxies in the Early Universe — Lighting the Way to Dusty Death for Evolutionary Theories?" 

They're singing this song at the Darwin Ranch at times like these:



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

More Human Evolution Dead Ends

Out yonder past Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are frantically attempting to find evidence for evolution. One owlhoot named Lee Berger has had several discoveries that have been interesting in and of themselves. Unfortunately for evolutionists, he keeps giving them dead-end candidates.

Image before text: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler

Naturally, the media for the secular science industry got the bit in their teeth and ran with the latest story that human evolution's tree would be "shaken up". We've heard that song and dance before. While I detest the genetic fallacy (where something is rejected simply because of the source), there are times when someone's track record can give someone reasons to hesitate in accepting information. Berger (as is common with evolutionists) seems to neglect that some of the variations bones and fossils can be the results of fragment mixing, diseases or conditions, devolution, and other factors that can falsely confirm a biased view. Even other evolutionists are skeptical of Berger's pronouncements. This keeps happening because naturalists suppress the truth about the Creator.

Evolutionists and creationists know that the human genome is deteriorating. Using their own methods, creationists show that humans should have already gone extinct. This genetic deterioration shows up in the fossils that are discovered. It also reveals the truth of what God said back in Genesis 3.

Based on past trends, more discoveries have generally not added to anthropologists’ conceptions of human evolution. Instead, they have have muddied the waters and created new challenges to the original human evolution narrative. This has been true from the time when Darwin proposed details of his own theory of human evolution, twelve years after his 1859 book On the Origin of Species was published. He proposed his theory in his 1871 treatise titled The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. The word “descent” turned out to be accurate, but was not what Darwin intended to say.

 To read the entire article, ride on over to "Lee Berger’s New Hominid Is a Non-Starter".




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

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!