Brain Size does not Support Evolution

For quite some time, Darwinists have believed that cranial capacity indicates intelligence, even though that concept has been in disrepute. (Interesting that Neanderthals do not play nicely with evolution, since they had large brains, but after spreading their DNA around, pretty much disappeared except for artifacts, bones and suchlike.) Today, we have two related articles — a doubleheader.

Credit: Freeimages / Miranda Knox

First, a big study was one on volunteers. Researchers learned that, just like people and other parts, brain sizes vary greatly. Although they tried to find evolution by twirling their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings©, it still does not work. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to realize that some brilliant people have smaller skulls, and there are less-than-average individuals that have large heads. Biblical creationists realize that God made us with variety, but arbitrary classifications by scientists do not make anyone less human.

We’re all human, but some of us have brains twice the size of others. And areas inside the brain can vary, too. What does this mean?

P. K. Reardon and a team of neuroscientists, publishing new research in Science, studied the brains of 3,000 individuals and found a lot of variation. To evolutionists, this should be surprising, because we’re all members of the same species, Homo sapiens, and all humans are interfertile. We can all learn to eat the same food, we can learn each other’s languages, and we can make children. The same variability we see in body shapes and sizes, hair types, eye color, skin color and other outward traits extend inside our brains as well. Reardon’s team tried to bring evolution into the picture, but how successful are they?

To read the rest of this first article, click on "Human Brain Size Varies Twofold". Don't forget to come back for the other part.

via GIPHY

I'm sure you've heard of child prodigies. One of the most famous was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was mastering instruments and making compositions at an early age. Other child prodigies, whether in music, science, mathematics, and so forth, have been observed through history.

I suspicion that what some biblical creationists have said is correct: people with outstanding skills are distant, poor reflections of the genius of our first parents, Adam and Eve. Regular readers have seen how ancient people demonstrated knowledge that defied the stupid brute expectations of Darwinists, which is a kind of biological racism; secular scientists have no business assigning value to humans based on evolutionary assumptions.

While we do not know the cranial capacities of ancient people, we can use our own gray matter to cogitate on something very basic but possibly startling. Don't be fretting so much, I'll tell you. Ready? Children have smaller brains than adults! After you've settled your heart rates, think on it a spell. A child prodigy shows brilliance with less material to work with than adults. He or she is not less human, but is exhibiting God-given abilities. The idea that larger brain sizes are examples of both evolution and intelligence is downright stupid.

It’s not the size; it’s the wiring. Don’t we know that for electronics? Why are evolutionists still obsessed with brain size?

Measuring skull capacity as a proxy for intelligence has a long history. In his book The Mismeasure of Man (1981), Stephen Jay Gould recounted how Victorian evolutionists were obsessed with skull measurements (craniometry) in their determination to prove Europeans were superior to other races. As he shows, their a priori bias influenced what they “saw” in their measurements as they preferred only the measurements that supported their expectations.

To read the rest, click on "Child Prodigies Disprove Brain Size as Intelligence Driver". Below is a video of Alma Deutscher playing a section of one of the pieces she wrote. This is when she was nine years old.







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

DNA Research Supports Creation Timeline

Creationists have said many times that there is no such thing as Darwinist evidence and our evidence. Facts are facts, and the fretting commences with the nterpretation of said evidence. Some researchers wrote a paper on mitochondrial DNA, and excitement ensued in the evolutionary ranks because the results flew in the face of Darwinian dogma.

Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

Some years ago, scientists realized that classifications of organisms would be streamlined with the use of DNA barcoding. (I like it, as it makes purchases faster at the DNA superstore when they can scan each item and give you a total...maybe I'm thinking of something else.) Several objections to DNA barcoding were raised, which turned out to be unfounded.


via GIPHY

Although written with an evolutionary framework in mind, the researchers found that most species originated about the time that humans appeared on the scene. Interesting how that fits creationary models. Taking the research to the next logical conclusion is strong evidence for recent creation.

Interestingly, the owlhoots at Biologos tried to defend evolutionism against evolutionists. Not only did they fail miserably, but apparently did not read (or understand) the material they were criticizing. Must be tough putting a saddle stamped "Christian" on atheistic philosophies and expecting to be able to ride.

A recent review paper proposed a controversial claim—that the vast majority of animal species arose contemporary with modern humans. Not surprisingly, this claim was met with backlash from the evolutionary community. On what basis did the authors make this wide-reaching claim? Is their assertion true? Furthermore, what ramifications do their data have for the creationist explanation of the origin of species from the originally created min or “kinds”?

The main focus of Stoeckle and Thaler’s paper is genetics. Specifically, they focus on a subset of DNA in human and animal cells, termed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Their analysis of mtDNA is clear, straightforward, and carefully justified—so much so that I will summarize their arguments by liberally quoting from their paper.

To read the rest, click on "Hundreds of Thousands of Species in a Few Thousand Years?"







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

Missing Time in Geological Strata

While the title of this here post may sound like a UFO abductee story, it is actually about uniformitarian geology. Many times, there are features and observations that cannot be explained by slow and gradual "the present is the key to the past" processes, but they have to keep the storyline going because the alternative is unthinkable to them. There is missing time in the sedimentary erosion according to geologists.

Credit: Morguefile / MichaelKirsh

In the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup, Margaret Dumont saw an imposter of Rufus T. Firefly leave a room. Then she saw another imposter (Chico Marx), and insisted that he left. "I saw you with my own eyes!" Chico said, "Well, who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Secular geologists deny the sensible explanation for what they see with their own eyes — the Genesis Flood — because that means the world was created recently, their views are loaded with errors, and Darwin's schemes did not have time to develop, even if they were true in the first place.

For many years, Ager pointed out that there was an enormous amount of time missing from the strata relative to the long geological time assigned to the strata by geological dating methods. In other words, there are many more gaps than record. Sadler agrees that the time gaps in the rocks are ubiquitous. Interestingly, in spite of all these apparent gaps, Ager admitted the sedimentation appears to be continuous:

    … we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous.

Roth has demonstrated the continuous nature of sedimentary layers by showing there is little or no erosion between layers, which he calls ‘flat gaps’. There should be physical evidence of extreme erosion, if these time gaps were real.

To finish reading, click on "Much supposed geological time missing from strata".






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

Humans Causing Extinction

The observation that humans cause animals to go extinct is not exactly startling news. For believers in atoms-to-atomic engineer evolution, I will ask again: why should anyone care that some animals are endangered, and will even become extinct? Biblical creationists have an answer, but evolutionists are inconsistent because we are the dominant life form and can do what we want. 

But we do care and try to keep various animals alive despite the naturalistic worldview. (By the way, ever notice that people don't care so much about the survival of ugly critters? Someone shared that, and it stuck with me.) Y'all might be surprised that despite my provocative and seemingly callous questions above, I'm actually angry while writing this.

Elk photo credit: Unsplash / Abben S

I'm not against hunting per se, (if people eat what they kill), but I get mighty riled when tinhorns want to kill critically endangered animals for photos and bragging rights. Also, "traditional" oriental "medicine" uses animal parts in remedies (tiger penis soup for your virility, for instance). The stories of people in the West shooting buffaloes from moving trains just for fun are true, and those poor brutes almost became extinct as well. Sheep would be found dead, so there would be a rampage to kill every wolf that could be found. 

I don't have time to go into how animals can push other animals toward extinction.

Going way back, evolutionists believe there have been several "great extinctions" in the geological record, but their explanations do not make sense. Instead of answering questions, more questions are raised. Speculations about the Permian Extinction are weak, and the story of the Chicxulub asteroid impact that supposedly killed off the dinosaurs is in disrepute.

Let's keep on working in this direction. We see that secular extinction ideas about the past are impuissant, so let's look at the creationary view of dinosaur extinction. It has to do with the Genesis Flood, hunting survivors that became pesky or dangerous, and more. But I've said enough now, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Coppedge.

The human impact on animals is well known today and is becoming apparent in history, too. Implications for ancient history are considered.

The white rhino is nearly extinct in our own time. We know the cause: poaching. The majority of humans respect these magnificent animals (see scientists desperately trying to preserve an embryo of the last northern white rhino on Science Daily). It only took a few bad humans, though, to wipe them out. Sometimes humans drive an animal extinct out of superstition, as in the case of the rhinoceros. “Even though these spikes are just made of keratin—what makes up our nails—many Asian markets deem it a viable treatment for low libido, among other things,” Emma Bryce wrote in 2014. “This has made rhino horn enormously popular, and poachers supply traffickers with horns that get sent across the globe.” Sometimes greed endangers animals, as in the case of the demand for elephant ivory. Sometimes vanity drives extinction, as in the case of a hummingbird threatened by ladies of a bygone era who thought them beautiful on their corsages. We know about how beaver narrowly escaped extinction in the fur trade era, all because European men found beaver hats fashionable for awhile. In Roman times, emperors would gather exotic animals for gladiators to fight in the arena.

To read the rest and get to the dinosaur explanation, click on "Humans Can Selectively Wipe Out Certain Animals".
 



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

DNA Emergency Services

Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) started the science of genetics, researchers have been lassoing a lot of fascinating information. Especially in recent years. Advances in science and technology, research in creation science, and other factors have contributed to amazing information regarding DNA. Proponents of universal common descent have been embarrassed by their previous weak research in the human genome and their labeling of things they do not understand as "junk" DNA. Now we learn that some of that so-called junk is a part of a kind of EMS — emergency medical service.

Credit: RGBStock / Robert Linder

Seems that there are some good Samaritans in each cell that deal with the extreme amount of damage incurred by DNA. "You don't look so good, old son. Let me get you to a place that will fix you up." This is going on in each cell, and we have trillions of cells. And evolutionists called it junk, but they should be realizing that the Master Engineer puts things in place for a reason.

Neither Mendel nor Charles Darwin knew anything about the incredible molecule of life, DNA. Today, papers are published daily in science journals describing new discoveries of DNA’s role as a regulator and repairman.

Scientists have known for decades that DNA can be damaged by too much sun (UV radiation) or exposure to harmful chemicals and carcinogens. Upon examination of damaged DNA, the researchers discovered that whole families of submicroscopic repair enzymes (tiny machines) were constantly restoring the damaged DNA. It has been estimated that as many as one million individual molecular lesions (trauma) of DNA occur per cell per day that need repair.

To read the entire article, click on "DNA Paramedics Repair Chromosomes". You may also want to read about problem-solvers in our blood at "Lymphocytes on Patrol".







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

Do Animals Really Act Like Humans?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Basement Cat gives me a strange look when I am moving around, getting ready for work in the morning. My wife and I give it a meaning, such as, "I know what you did". There are times when we know she is happy, annoyed, affectionate, or whatever, because many animals do show emotions. Giving verbal captions and putting words in our mouth is just us assigning traits on the cat for our own convenience. 

Original image credit before modification: Pixabay / cojessmom

There was a news report about a killer whale that gave birth to a calf, but sadly, it died a few minutes later. The mother was clearly showing signs of grief, and even going beyond that of other orcas. 

Some people tend to "see" human traits in animals. When a dog is coached to make a sound like, "I love you", sorry, pilgrim, it is not a true expression of love. Other critters can display reactions that have the appearance of advanced emotions, and can appear to act in ways that are similar to humans.

I'll allow that some animals do show emotions (the orca was clearly grieving) and traits that humans also have. But those are very limited, and Basement Cat is not going to write a song about what she thinks of me (fortunately). It is interesting that people will use some of these similarities in their quest to give animals rights and "non-human person" status. This is based on the fundamentally flawed view that we all evolved from a common ancestor. These people are being inconsistent with their evolutionism, because while animals can kill each other, somehow we are bad for celebrating our climb to the top of the evolutionary ladder.

The fact is that humans were created separately, and in God's image. We have responsibilities regarding the rest of his creation, but they are not based on misguided sentiment based on naturalism; our view is actually much higher.

This article was based on an episode of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler. He develops what I wrote about above, and has some interesting additional material on Buddhist, karma, and the lack of categorical difference between humans and animals. I'd be much obliged if you'd listen to (free to download) or read the transcript of the episode for Friday, Aug 17, 2018.

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

Manta Rays and Biomimetics

You probably know that there are some mighty strange things living in the oceans, and we have not even explored all of them yet. An odd flat fish thing that is somewhat familiar is the manta ray. Rays are related to sharks, but without the bad attitude. Sharks, dolphins, and so on move from side to side, but mantas have that interesting motion that (to me) looks a bit like it's flying underwater. One endangered species has the unfortunate moniker of "devil fish" or "giant devil ray" because some folks thought it looked creepy. Scientists wanted to study the motion of mantas for biomimetics uses. The sting ray was not mentioned in the report that I saw.

Credit: flikr / jon hanson (CC BY-SA 2.0)

If you recollect that biomimetics is the way scientists study organisms in nature so they can imitate them for our use, then you recollect rightly. Someone got the notion that mantas have a way of moving that, if successfully imitated (although without credit to the Master Engineer who designed them, Darwin forbid!), scientific equipment might be moved around in very deep waters. Then we could find some more of those odd things that live way down yonder.

“Mantas are everything one could want in an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV)” wrote a commentator in Science journal, describing it as “the envy of engineers”. Consider the manta’s manoeuvrability, for example—currently the best robotic submarines have a turning radius of about 0.7 body lengths but the manta’s is just 0.27 body lengths. And while other marine organisms have already inspired significant advances in AUV design, the powerful-yet-smooth ‘ride’ of the manta is now recognized as a particularly desirable target for robotic mimicry.

To finish reading the other 3/4 of this short article, click on "Manta motion marvel".






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

Disappearing Atmosphere on Mars

Seems like a nice place, but it could do with a little atmosphere... Actually, Mars is not such a nice place, what with being so cold, huge dust storms, static electricity, mostly desert, a possible "lake" which would have poison water, and all. The atmosphere is 100 times thinner than ours, so heat does not have much incentive to linger. Scientists have known for a long time that its atmosphere was thin. Now they've learned that what little it has is going away.

Mars having a dust storm, and its two moons are also in the picture
Credit: NASA, ESA, and STScI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

The atmosphere depletion is a cause for concern among deep time proponents. Using their lower limits, scientists have a passel of problems keeping Mars old. Rescuing devices for cosmic evolution cause more problems than they solve. Simply put, Mars and the rest of the solar system are young — all were created recently, as we keep seeing from the evidence time and time again.

Measurements of Martian atmospheric loss rates imply incredible changes over the assumed billions of years of Mars’ history.

Either Mars is younger than thought, or its atmosphere was unbelievable billions of years ago. The MAVEN spacecraft (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution), launched in 2013, has taken atmospheric escape measurements for an entire Martian year. A Mars year is 687 Earth-days. How fast is gas being lost from the atmosphere? Quick answer is 1 to 2 kilograms per second. A report in Icarus does the math for moyboy assumptions that Mars formed 4.5 billion years ago.

To continue reading, click on "Mars Is Losing Its Atmosphere Fast".
 



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

Volcanoes, Hawaii, and the Genesis Flood

Biblical creationists freely admit that the Genesis Flood was a miraculous event, but we still want to know not only the theology, but the science involved. Like their secular counterparts, creationary scientists have disagreements and put forward various models of the events. (An early idea that creationists promoted was the Canopy Theory. I taught this in the early 1990s. It has been largely abandoned by most creationists today.) Even so, the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii had itself an eruption in 2018, and the result fits creationary ideas.

Volcanic plume at the summit of Kilauea on May 13, 2018
Image Credit: NASA astronaut Drew Feustel from the space station
(usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Creationists have examined the effects of volcanic activity on the air and water, since there was a tremendous amount of volcanic activity during the Flood. Water heats up, steam rises, and rain is produced. Extrapolate this to the global catastrophic event of the Flood.

It is often difficult to wrap our minds around the catastrophism of a flood covering the whole earth. The scale of such a flood is vastly beyond any human experience, compared to observing a river or flash flood or being caught in a downpour from a thunderstorm. But sometimes nature gives us a glimpse at the possibilities during the flood. Such a glimpse was provided by a recent ice storm on the mountains of Hawaii (Reardon, 2018; Sounds, 2018).

The Mechanism of the Flood

The biblical mechanisms of the flood were “the fountains of the great deep” that burst open and the “windows of the heavens” opening (Genesis 7:11). The precise meaning of these two mechanisms has been controversial (Boyd and Snelling 2014; Morris 1976). Either the “windows of heaven” refer to the 40 days and nights of heavy rain, or the rain is the result of the two mechanisms combined. Regardless, the “fountains of the great deep” busting open implies the earth’s crust opening in some way. When this happens, one would expect a huge amount of volcanism.

To read the rest, click on "Very Rare June Ice Storm on Hawaiian Mountains Provides Insight into the Flood". For additional information, you may want to see "Volcanoes and the Genesis Flood".







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

Engineered Adaptability and Biblical Clarity

While biblical creationists may disagree on models on origins, models of the Genesis Flood, and so on, we agree on the truth and clarity of the Bible. We are not going to all this work to be contentious and put burrs under the saddles of evolutionists. Instead, we strive to point people to the gospel message. Creationists use scientific evidence in a biblical framework.

Credit: Unsplash / Aaron Burden

Darwinists tend to presuppose materialism, and biblical creationists presuppose the foundational truth of Scripture. We have been examining articles by the Institute for Creation Research and others about engineered adaptability. The short definition is that Darwin and his followers believe in intangible external forces or "pressures" that cause organisms to adapt and change, but scientific evidence shows that the better explanation is that they were engineered and equipped to adapt.

The Bible is clear that people know that God exists, and his attributes are seen in nature. Also, the Bible can be understood without an advanced degree; it can be learned rather easily, but people can learn and grow from its truths for the rest of their lives. Some owlhoots use a Gnostic approach, saying that God did not mean what he said, so we need special knowledge (usually from atheistic interpretations of science) to understand it. That is horribly wrong, old son. Engineered adaptability and the continuous environmental tracking (CET) framework are scientific approaches founded in biblical truth and clarity.

Can an average person without a Ph.D. in science or theology acquire a correct understanding of what the Bible means just by reading an accurate translation on their own? Did God communicate clearly what He wants to say to people at any time and in any culture? The answers matter.

We began this Engineered Adaptability series of articles with an exposition of Romans 1:18-25 to establish a basic premise—that certain attributes of God are clearly seen through the workmanship we observe in living things.1 But to reach that conclusion, we first had to presuppose that God plainly communicates His thoughts to us through the Bible’s words regardless of whether we are a religious cleric or a hotel clerk. That understanding is known as the doctrine of biblical clarity.

To finish reading, click on "Engineered Adaptability: The Need for Biblical Clarity".







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

Beneficial Beavers

Most people have some familiarity with beavers, whether in person or seeing them on television. Some folks consider them pests. After all, they gnaw down trees, build dams, and interfere with the flow of water. This can get out of hand without predators to keep them in check. However, these (mostly) Northern Hemisphere rodents are actually good for the soil.

Assembled from images at Open Clipart

Pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus get trapped into the ponds that were the result of beaver dams. Also, other critters benefit from the ponds, and help deter soil loss. If you read up on beavers, you'll see that the Master Engineer designed them for what they do so well. Of course, Darwinists will lasso the "EvolutionDidIt" non-explanation by rote, but that nonsense only contaminates the good soil of actual science. 

Without beaver dams, loss of nutrients from soil would increase, and pollutants from upstream erosion would afflict waterways.

Scientists at the University of Exeter looked into the beneficial functions that beaver dams perform for soil and rivers. Look how much one family of beavers can do:

To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Beavers Clean the Soil". There is also a very good video below. Keep an ear out for the long ages stuff, secularists are compulsive that way. I think the host has an amazing resemblance to Barrett Foa.







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

The Perception of Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While doing data entry, I listen to podcasts, sermons, articles, and audiobooks. I decided to listen to a slightly older audio book: Robinson Crusoe, from 1719. It was not as cumbersome as I expected, and interesting to see changes in the English language. (By the way, the closing theme of Gilligan's Island had it wrong. They sang "...like Robinson Caruso", with an extra syllable. The Italian tenor Errico Caruso had nothing to do with uncharted desert isles.) Robinson was marooned on an island and spent many years fending for himself and improving his situation until he befriended a man he named Friday. Fast forward a bit. Crusoe and Friday saved some people from mutineers, but the rest of the bad guys were coming back.

Upon this Will Atkins cried out, “For God’s sake, captain, give me quarter; what have I done?  They have all been as bad as I:” which, by the way, was not true; for it seems this Will Atkins was the first man that laid hold of the captain when they first mutinied, and used him barbarously in tying his hands and giving him injurious language.  However, the captain told him he must lay down his arms at discretion, and trust to the governor’s mercy: by which he meant me, for they all called me governor.  In a word, they all laid down their arms and begged their lives; and I sent the man that had parleyed with them, and two more, who bound them all; and then my great army of fifty men, which, with those three, were in all but eight, came up and seized upon them, and upon their boat; only that I kept myself and one more out of sight for reasons of state.

Using stealth and various tactics, Crusoe and his people were able to convince the mutineers that they were up against fifty men. In reality, there were only eight, but the subterfuge was perpetrated effectively. The outlaws perceived a false reality.

It now occurred to me that the time of our deliverance was come, and that it would be a most easy thing to bring these fellows in to be hearty in getting possession of the ship; so I retired in the dark from them, that they might not see what kind of a governor they had, and called the captain to me; when I called, at a good distance, one of the men was ordered to speak again, and say to the captain, “Captain, the commander calls for you;” and presently the captain replied, “Tell his excellency I am just coming.”  This more perfectly amazed them, and they all believed that the commander was just by, with his fifty men.

The false reality was continued until it was no longer necessary. If you want to read this classic book, you can read online or download it here, or maybe click here for a free audiobook.

Credit: Pixabay / beate bachmann

A very interesting bit of history was the "Ghost Army" (tactical deception) of the Allies that deceived Hitler's forces. Rubber convoys, inflatable tanks, loud audio, troops that appeared as more numerous and high-ranking than in actuality — all this gave the German army worries while the important activities were happening elsewhere. The Allies created a false reality that the German army believed. You can read this fascinating bit of history here, and in the short video below:


Several years ago, I awakened in the night terrified. My life was in danger, and I've never before seen a tracking device on a rifle that had a green laser (?) that was almost a tube of light. Eventually (and it felt like it took quite a while), I realized that it was a dream spilling over into wakefulness. It was real to me for a while.

Darwin and his followers have arbitrarily defined reality as the bad dream of naturalism. Materialistic views presented as science are presented as true, but they are an illusion of reality. They saddle up and ride that tiger, but dare not dismount because of the consequences: reality is not what they perceive and purvey, and biblical creation science shows repeatedly that evolution is illusory. The perception of reality can seem more important than reality itself.

Ultimate reality is found in God's Word. Some have learned the truth and come into the light, while others put the spurs to the tiger and hang on because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Those of us who know the truth must continue to expose their bad science and show people where to find reality.





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

Whopper Sand and the Genesis Flood

Whopper Sand does not refer to what happens to your burger at the beach, but instead, it is a large area of sediment in the Gulf of Mexico. Uniformitarian geologists were not too keen on looking in that area, and when it was finally investigated, oil reserves were discovered. But they do not know how all that sand and other inexplicable materials got there.

Credit: RGBStock / Roger Kirby

Secular geologists kind of waved off the deposits with inadequate explanations. Now the puzzle is getting worse, what with oil companies making discoveries and all. The deposits are much larger than believed, and how far they go has yet to be determined. Once again, secular geology is weak at adequately interpreting what has been found, but creation science Genesis Flood models have a far more satisfying explanation. Unfortunately for secularists, the Flood also indicates a young earth.

In the U.S. Gulf Coast region, the Upper Jurassic Norphlet Sandstone rests right on top of thousands of feet of Middle Jurassic salt, known as the Louann Salt. Secular geologists believe this sandstone layer was deposited by the windblown accumulation of sand in an arid environment. These kinds of deposits are commonly called aeolian deposits.

Secular scientists never address or explain exactly how this claimed desert deposit supposedly formed across much of the offshore Gulf of Mexico region and came to lie directly on top of thick salt beds. And recent discoveries in deep water make this interpretation even more improbable as the sand layer is far more extensive than originally thought.

To read the rest, click on "More Whopper Sand Evidence of Global Flood". ADDENDUM: I saw this more in-depth article related to this subject after this was posted, and would like to recommend it: "Receding Floodwaters Buried Deep-Sea Oil".





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

Evolutionary Thinking Yields Burning Hatred

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who pay attention to the origins debate are likely to have noticed that Darwinism advocates, especially on the web, are exceptionally passionate. Many of these folks really get on the prod if someone dares to write, speak, or even whisper words of doubt about evolution. This is hypocritical, as the same people often claim that they want "tolerance" and "discourse", but have no tolerance of those who reject any or all of materialistic evolution; so-called "freethinkers" often oppose people who think in a manner for which they disapprove.

Credit: Freeimages / hamidreza ahmadi

For that matter, Charles Darwin said in Origin, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done". However, he apparently did not have any intention of discourse with people who doubted his conjectures. Instead, it was apparently meant for fellow believers to make adjustments. That makes sense, since his friends formed the X Club (no, not the thing with Charles Xavier). This was allegedly a group of friends, but they had an agenda for evolutionism.

Elsewhere in the same book, he said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree". Creationists are fond of that quote, where he admits that his idea is fragile. However, Darwin later on commences to say that he'll believe it anyway. His followers do the same, choosing evolution despite its multitudinous flaws. As some atheists have said, the alternative (special creation) is unthinkable to them.

If you dare to venture into the comments area of unmoderated YouTube channels refuting evolution and affirming creation, you will see that nullifidians and evolutionists set the barn ablaze with furious attacks. Twitter is not much better, and I had to block some attackers because they recruited so many to join in, I could not tell if I was a part of something or just a "reply to all" thing. Also, many evolutionists vociferously oppugn biblical creationists on weblog comment areas and from the shelter of forums.

The first line of attack is often through ridicule. This often takes the form of name-calling (which I consider a form of labeling, which is used in an effort to control the speech of others). The article featured below has a section on name-calling. The kind use by evolutionists when railing against those who doubt Darwin are not only labels, but generalizations (pigeon-holing), and abusive. 

Sometimes I use name-calling, especially in a Western or Southern US vernacular. An owlhoot refers to an outlaw, therefore, he or she has left the straight-and-narrow for ungodly pursuits. Also, a sidewinder is a kind of rattlesnake that is both stealthy and venomous. A tinhorn is someone who considers himself important and wants to impress others. There are others, but you get the idea. Oh, and there are a few criminal cyberstalkers that have received their own "pet names".

I also use some terms to be provocative and with the hope that I can spark thinking in some people.


via GIPHY

Regular readers may have noticed that I have posted screenshots where I have blurred the strong profanities. I'll allow that it gets mighty difficult to avoid responding just like those who have no consistent moral standard, which would dishonor the Lord. Christians have no business doing that, and need to repent of those as well as other forms of abuse. 

Here is one example from a stalker who hates biblical creationists in general, is on a constant secular jihad against us, and insists on inflicting his fallacy-laden opinions on those he hates (click for larger):

Not only do we receive abusive ad homimem attacks from Darwin supporters, but bifurcation, arbitrary assertions, more labeling, shaming, misrepresentation, and more. F'rinstance, this stalker denies God and the Bible, yet pretends to be knowledgeable on Genesis when he discusses it and assails creationists (like he does here), and makes false claims about creationary understanding of created kinds. Also, this further attack shows his defense of Wikipedia propaganda.

Earlier, I said that I had to to block people on Twitter because of the confusion about "conversations". Atheists and evolutionists like to recruit others to join in their piranha attacks on Darwin doubters. 

While composing this article, an old earth advocate shows his hatred of Dr. Jason Lisle. Many fallacies and bigotry while he calls Dr. Lisle a liar and asserts his own superiority. Later, he refused to write to Dr. Lisle and show him why he is "wrong". So far, he has not tried recruiting....nope, after I told him that I was using one of his Tweets, he blocked me. As before, click for larger:

Once again, before this article "went to press", another angry atheist sought me out, not bothering to read anything he attacked (again, click for larger):

Here is another example from an atheist who has to contradict and ridicule almost everything that Eric Hovind says (yet again, click for larger):

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
The "Top Fan" badge is a setting on Fazebook to stroke egos of people who frequently comment

Darwin's acolytes (yep, name-calling, in a way) do not exhibit knowledge of what Christians, biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents actually believe and teach. If you put on your duster, chaps, jacket, and boots for protection from the spines and go a-hiking in where they leave their comments, you'll see that they don't have much use for actually reading the material they attack. Nor do they care about the people, either. Ever see an atheist say, "Stop that, it's uncool and not logical"? I think I saw one, once.

I've noticed that many like to play to their base. There are some YouTube heroes among atheists and evolutionists who fight for their faith, but they, too, play to their base. They sneer, engage in abuse, change definitions of words, and misrepresent Darwin doubters. 

Atheists and evolutionists on the web cheer for them. Most of the internet Darwinists seem to be ignored by thinking people. What really takes the rag off the bush is when creationists have to correct these folks on what they claim to understand about science, evolution, and logic! Note that their demonization of Darwin deniers actually advances evolutionary arguments in the slightest.

There are evolutionists who want to go about their day-to-day business, including those who work in the secular science industry. I believe that many of them promote evolution because they do not realize that their belief system is fraught with bad logic, and that there is strong evidence that not only refutes Darwin, but supports special creation. That is one reason why Question Evolution Day is important. I suspicion that those people are bewildered by all the passion displayed by their advocates online.

Why do you suppose there is so much hatred and anger toward those who doubt Darwin, and especially toward people who present information that they dislike? "Free speech" goes out yonder window, and inflammatory evolutionists try to silence the opposition, even if it is simply through defamation and shouting us down (so to speak). I maintain that there are a couple of reasons for this. One is that they simply cannot compete with those of us who reject evolution on scientific, logical, and philosophical grounds. More importantly, God told us about them. Romans 1:18-22 tells us that they know he exists, but they suppress the truth. Their consciences are pricked, so they try even harder to deny the truth of God's Word, beginning from Genesis 1:1. Evolution is a foundation for materialism, and they are at tantivy in their rebellion against God. In short, the problem is sin.

How to start a mud volcano: say something that hints at some disagreement with Darwinian evolution.

There’s a puzzling sociological phenomenon going on in the world today. These are supposed to be days of tolerance. If you dare to say something derogatory about any politically-correct protected class, you can be hounded out of your job and lose your reputation, even if you said it decades ago. . . .

There is one group that remains unprotected from the most blatant hate speech found anywhere. That group is Darwin doubters, or Darwin skeptics. It includes creationists and advocates of intelligent design (ID), but is broad enough to include anyone who is not 100% convinced that Darwinian evolution is absolute fact. Darwin skeptics are not necessarily theists or members of any creation group or advocates of intelligent design. If they voice any disagreement with pure materialistic evolution, here is the kind of treatment they can expect.

I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article. To do that, click on "Darwinism Breeds Bigotry, Arrogance, and Hate".








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

Consider the Moon

Studying the solar system is fascinating, and not just the planets, but the moons themselves. Well, Mars has a couple of unimpressive rocks, but the gas giants start racking up bigger numbers. As far as we know, Jupiter jumps in with 67, Saturn rings up 62, Uranus has 27, Neptune isn't trying very hard with only 14. Even the former planet Pluto has 5 moons. The bonus excitement for biblical creationists is that these celestial objects continually startle secular astronomers with their proclamations of youth, and that includes the moons.

Credit: Unsplash / Ganapathy Kumar

Take a look up yonder at our own moon. We only have one, but it's ours, and we like it. Secularists tried to explain how the moon originated using long age presuppositions and bad science, but never really succeeded. (The rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts didn't help secular theories, either.) Our moon is important for tidal action, and it has just the right fit for a total eclipse.



Its orbit is also unlike the moons orbiting other planets, and it even helps Earth maintain its tilt so that seasons are possible. To believe in chance and cosmic evolution, and that that the Master Engineer did not design the moon and its benefits requires the suspension of basis thinking skills.

Nearly every night a truly remarkable object greets us—the moon. It presents the same face, yet changes subtly on its monthly orbit around our planet. Because the moon’s journey is so regular and repetitious, we easily take it for granted. But it’s truly a wonder. The more we learn about other satellites, the more unique it appears to be.

We know from Scripture that God gave the moon a special place in his plan for the universe. He ordained the moon and other heavenly bodies to help us keep time (Genesis 1:14). Did you know that our monthly calendar, which we order our lives by, came from the moon’s orbit (not the sun’s)?

To read the rest or hear the audio version from my favorite reader, click on "No Ordinary Moon".







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

Specified Complexities in Bird Songs

One source of entertainment for us is hearing the birdies chirp. Actually, chirp is an understatement in many cases (except for sparrows, seems they do not have much of a repertoire), as some have rather intricate songs for certain purposes or time of the day. Something quite startling to me is the variety used by the mockingbird.

"The price is right, too. Cheep!"

And you give me grief for bad jokes. Moving on...

Happy wren image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Veronesi (CC BY-SA 2.0)

To further the amazement factor, some birds sing elaborate songs with partners, and they have specified complexity. Birds use their grass seed-sized brains to respond at the right time with others, and sometimes they sing in perfect unison. Also, they demonstrate the greater thinking abilities than apes (our "close relatives"). Evolutionists are surprised — this happens frequently — because of their worldviews. That is, time, chance, random processes, materialism, and so on. Might be less surprise and more appreciation happening if they realized that our Creator designed them to do what they do, you savvy?

The Psalmist wrote that the birds of the air “sing among the branches” (Psalm 104:12). Just how well they can sing is becoming increasingly apparent to researchers.

In various bird species, pairs (a male and a female) are able to not only sing in tightly synchronized unison but also in antiphonal duets. In songs sung antiphonally, the male and female sing alternating song phrases, frequently in rapid succession and with such precise timing and coordination that people have often mistaken them to be a single bird singing.

Note the second bird to sing in an antiphonal duet must correctly and quickly recognize which song in their musical repertoire the first bird has initiated, in order to correctly contribute the next phrase of the song. Otherwise the duet would end prematurely.

To read the rest of this short article, click on "Birdsong isn’t for ‘birdbrains’".

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

Insect Fossils Fluster Evolutionists

To hear particles-to-praying mantis evolutionists tell it, their naturalistic view of origins is a done deal. Maybe some minor disagreements among evolutionary scientists, but they are certain that common descent occurred. When someone that's been reading up on it presses them for the details, evolutionists reluctantly admit that there are several major problems in dating, lineages, actual evidence, and so on. There are serious problems with the story of insect evolution.

Unidentified insect fossil image credit: US National Park Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

As you know, the most fossils are marine organisms. There are also (to use the technical term) bunches of insects. Problem is, evolutionists have an insect fossil, and then — nothing. After that, insects suddenly burst into the fossil record, fully formed. This missing space is called the hexapod gap (not to be confused with Deception Pass, that's where the Darwin Ranch is located). Rather than admit they have no explanation other than the logical conclusion of the Genesis Flood and recent creation, evolutionists use the complex scientific method known as Making Things Up™. "Lack of oxygen in the early atmosphere, that's what done it, you betcha! Insects were restrained!" Got any evidence? Nope. In fact, the evidence is against the lack of oxygen concept.

Insects first appear about 385 million years ago, according to evolutionary dating. The earliest known insect, which appeared suddenly without any insect precursors, was a wingless creature that looked much like a modern silverfish. But after this initial appearance, there was allegedly an absence of insects in the sedimentary rocks for the next 60 million years. There was no sign of a single roach, grasshopper, or dragonfly. This huge evolutionary gap between 385 million and 325 million years ago is known among paleontologists as the hexapod gap.

At the end of this gap, an enormous diversity of insects, including many kinds of flying insects, appears suddenly in the rock record with no ancestors. One evolutionary researcher recently stated:

To find out more, click on "Evolutionists Can't Fill the Hexapod Gap".

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