Turkana Boy and the Darwin Disciples

The cloud of dust indicated two riders approaching my spread. As it turned out, Stormie Waters and her pal Ruby Slippers rode down from Deception Pass. They were all het up because personal combat was ensuing again at the Darwin Ranch, this time over how to interpret Turkana Boy.

Turkana at Kenya museum, image credit Wikimedia Commons / Akrasia25 (CC by-SA 4.0)

Whenever there are fossils, bones, and artifacts, evolutionary scientists commence to disagreeing. (Actually, that's a good thing in science.) Most fossils and such are sparse and scattered, so there is much to cuss and discuss. Even the more complete Turkana Boy sparks many areas of controversy, including things like his age, whether he is a he or she, the H. Erectus or H. ergaster, and if he or she was deformed. The secular science industry's fake news branch has not given this guy much coverage because the dating methods used rule him out for being an evolutionary ancestor of humans.

There is only one incomplete skeleton. To extrapolate that there was an entire "race" like this is seriously over-reaching, but they did that in the past with Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man. (If Marvel comics or someone does an action thing with Nebraska Man and Turkana Boy, I want royalties.) Also, since bones do not tell the full story of a person or creature, reconstructions are inferred and imagined by the artist. All the debating comes from faulty evolutionary presuppositions; we were created as one race with a great deal of diversity. Turkana is the opposite of helpful to Darwin's disciples.

The Turkana Boy or ‘Nariokotome Boy’ discovery was recently mentioned by Tomkins and a popular website that deals with human evolution. Called a “nearly complete” skeleton and well preserved (though missing most all of the hand and foot bones), it is actually only 40 percent complete based on the assumption that bones from one side of the body can accurately determine the traits of the bones on the other side. They thus can be used to construct some missing bones. Actually, aside from Lucy, Turkana Boy is the most complete evolutionary pre-human skeleton ever discovered. Most claimed early-man fossils consist of a few teeth, plus broken skull and other bone fragments. From these, entire species and populations are concocted by Darwinians.

To read and learn more, click on "Turkana Boy Hurts Evolutionary Narratives".

And now, ladies and gentlemen — Not Kanye West and not Jamie Foxx:


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

Underdetermination and Cosmology

People tend to use cosmology when they are really discussing cosmogony, but that is not surprising because the fields tend to overlap. Scientists riding for the cosmic evolution brand tend to get a mite pretentious and make proclamations about how the universe formed and operates, then get surprised when their beliefs turn out wrong.

Image credit: NASA, ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins Univ)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Secularists reject recent creation, and do not even consider the evidence for it. There are several materialistic models for the origin and development of the universe, but they are continually changing. The Big Bang is the best of the bad ideas, so secularists cling to it and continually patch it up.  Atheists and anti-creationists show their lack of knowledge regarding science and fields related to astronomy by insisting that the evidence requires certain conclusions. Not hardly! This is where underdetermination comes in.

Can we definitively know the global structure of spacetime? This is a good question. It is one that is actively discussed within the area of the philosophy of modern physics. . . .

However it is a question that highlights the fundamental weakness of cosmology and hence of cosmogony. (Cosmology is the study of the structure of the cosmos whereas cosmogony is the study of the origin of the universe.) That weakness is the inherent inability to accurately construct any global cosmological model, i.e. a model that accurately represents the structure of the universe at all times and locations. The reason for this is underdetermination.

. . . 

In the philosophy of science, underdetermination means that the available evidence is insufficient to be able to determine which belief one should hold about that evidence. That means that no matter what cosmological model one might conceive of, in an attempt to describe the structure of the universe, every model will be underdetermined. 

To read the entire article, be determined and click on "Cosmology’s fatal weakness—underdetermination". 

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

Grand Canyon Flood Origin and Observable Evidence

Geologists who presuppose deep time and that present processes explain the distant past reject the Genesis Flood. That is to be expected, even though the Flood explains many features of geology. Unfortunately, the narrative drives the evidence for secularists, and some are even deceptive in their dismissal of the catastrophic formation of the Grand Canyon.

NPS photo by Erin Whittaker

They will say that the Flood cannot happen and propose a model. Makes sense from a cursory glance: although the Grand Canyon is full of sedimentary rocks (deposited by water), the soft stuff deposited by the Flood would collapse. That is not what we see. However, their model is a false representation and is refuted by observable evidence. This is only one example of problems with their paradigm.

Old-earth geologists claim that observations contradict the Flood model origin for Grand Canyon. However, recently exposed sediments at Lake Mead refute their claims and instead fully support the Flood model.

To read the entire article, click on "Observations Support Grand Canyon Flood Origin".



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

The Fading Magnetic Field is Important

One of the numerous facts used by biblical creationists that indicates a young earth is the decay of the magnetic field. Secular owlhoots know that this has been happening, but they try to salvage their deep time beliefs with assorted and unprovable concepts. They also try to wave it off as unimportant.

Image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

After all, it's been there for billions of years, they think, and are apparatchiks for the Darwin Party. If the Bearded Buddha needs huge amounts of time, they'll find it for him, you betcha! Some are implying that it will be somewhat inconvenient, but ignore other important facts. Also, they have their uniformitarian paradigm (slow and gradual processes), assuming that the decay rate will not increase later. Our Creator put that magnetic field up there to take care of this here planet that we call home.

Earth’s magnetic field is vital for life, but it is decaying. To keep it going billions of years, evolutionists gloss over facts.

On Live Science, Stephanie Pappas asks, “What if Earth’s magnetic field disappeared?” Our planetary shield is “important for life,” she admits, and it is decaying in strength, she confesses. But she downplays its protective function. One reason is that evolutionists need their billions of years for the Stuff Happens Law to have time to mold humans out of bacteria. But they can’t have their precious billions of years, because the magnetic field is measurably decaying by 5% per century. It could not have lasted billions of years, and will be long gone before a billion more years could transpire.

To read the rest of this attractive article, click on "Why Magnetic Field Decay Matters".



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

The Amazing Gift of Vision

In the early days of printers and the internet, ASCII code was tediously used to draw pictures, such as these cats. Our brains take the visual stimulation and recognize what pictures mean. This is called skeletal recognition, probably because of the "bare bones" approach. It is different from shape recognition.

Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Renjith Krishnan

We see a shape or have a glimpse of something and often recognize it, just as with the examples mentioned previously. It helps if we have reference points, such as having seen animals or objects so we can make the association. (Mayhaps that is why people are afraid when they see something completely alien to them.) We also make these connections exceptionally fast. Researchers praise Darwin, blessed be! But the intricacies of human vision testify of the work of the Master Engineer, not foolish faith in random chance processes.

Human vision is incredible. The human eye and brain are adept at recognizing objects, often even when they are not fully visible or oriented at different angles than usual. For example, by seeing just a silhouette of a cat, even small children can identify what the animal is. Making out the faintest trace of a streetlamp in fog, our eyes instantly relay to our brains the identity of the object. Seeing a bird in the sky with wings on the downstroke or upstroke does not confuse us; we can clearly recognize the shape as a bird. On average, the time it takes for this process of perception and recognition is within 70 milliseconds, or about half the time of an eye blink. Although we often think of our eyes as what we see with, we really “see” with our brains. Except for the lens and cornea, the rest of the eye is really part of the brain.

To read the rest, click on "Human Vision: Amazing Uniqueness of Human Eyesight".

 For the lyrics to this 1984 song by Prodigal, click on "Electric Eye".

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

The Beginning of Dogs

It may be interesting to know that there are certain things that microbes-to-mutt evolutionists and biblical creationists are in agreement. Then we diverge. Dogs originally came from a wolf-like ancestor, and humans managed to domesticate them. The when, where, and how of this has no agreement. But that is to be expected.

Credit: PIXNIO / bicanski

Materialists fallaciously assert that the varieties of dogs are examples of evolution, even though most arrived on the scene in the last 200 years or so through artificial selection. Such changes have definite limitations. No, breeds are not separate species; they are all in the same subspecies. The evolutionary model for dog origins is ineffective and evolutionists are in disagreement — they should be in disagreement, since they have no transitional forms to support their speculations. They are also in disagreement on the origin of the domestication of the critters, basically evosplained with doggerel.

Creationists are working on their own models. We believe that dogs are all a part of the same created kind, and when secular presuppositions are stripped from the science, dog diversification and domestication are compatible with the post-Flood biblical timeline. A creation science perspective with biblical history cannot be dogmatic —

"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"

Okay. Creationists admit that the model for the dog timeline is speculative, it also makes a great deal of sense.

Much work has been done by evolutionary scientists attempting to trace the origins of Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dogs). While many insights from this research are helpful, there are good scientific reasons to reject the proposed timeframe for the domestication of wolves (Canis lupus), the proposed phylogenetic relatedness of the Canidae family to other families in the evolutionary tree, and the use of variation within domestic dogs as evidence for the evolution of canids from the same common ancestor as all other living things. In contrast, inferences from the historical biblical texts provide a better model for the biological variation observed within domestic dogs and other canids, as well as for potential timeframes and geographical locales of initial (post-Flood) domestication of wolves into dogs. In light of biblical chronogenealogies used in dating the Flood and Babel events, initial post-Flood domestication would have taken place c. 2521–2200 BC. Possible narrower date ranges as well as geographical locales of initial domestication are given in light of different sets of assumptions concerning the chronology of biblical events and interpretations of the current scientific data.

To read the article, click on "Creationist modelling of the origins of Canis lupus familiaris—ancestry, timing, and biogeography". They have several related articles ad the end of that one. While I'm at it, you may also like some of their relatives: "Coyotes Have Gone to the Dogs" and "Post-Flood Dispersion and the Red Fox".




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

Monkeys, Neuroscience, and Music

While searching for a video, I came across several blocks of music that were assembled to relax various animals as well as one for pets in general. I reckon that this is based on assumption and wishful thinking (and marketing, since music for critters CDs are being sold by pet suppliers). They may not be sophisticated music connoisseurs. Monkeys seem to consider music nothing but noise.

The Monkey who had Seen the World by Edwin Henry Landseer

Some assets of the Darwin Party worked from the presupposition that since monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor, our brains must work alike. Therefore, why not find out what music appeals to macaques and humans, because evolution. The monkeys were not interested. We're wired differently.

Evolutionists began to marvel again about the mysteries of the human brain, stroked their beards, and fired of some sciencey-sounding nonsense. Well, of course they should marvel! After all, they are the creation, and we have a Master Engineer who designed our brains. However, they choose to suppress the truth that we were created in God's image, so no wonder they seem surprised that we are different from animals.

Experiments show that monkeys prefer noise over music, even though they have brain similarities with humans.

A neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health wondered if monkeys could relate to music like humans do. After all, their eyes probably see like ours; do their ears hear like ours? Katarina Zimmer at The Scientist tells the story of experiments that Bevil Conway undertook to try to answer the question. In short, as the title of the article states, “When Humans Hear Music, Monkeys May Hear Noise.”

Using functional MRI machines (fMRI), Conway and colleagues watched what brain areas lit up when humans and macaques listened to musical tones and then to noise.

To go bananas and read the rest, click on "Music Is Noise to Monkeys".




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