Can Scientists Bring Back Dead Things?

In an earlier post, we examined the idea that if scientists were able to obtain adequate DNA, they could make living dinosaurs. While that idea is sensational, it is unrealistic on several levels. Some scientists think that they can toy with the idea of bringing back other things that have joined the choir invisible.

Background image credit: Pixabay / Ioulou Nash

After all, we are humans, the pinniacle of evolution; with science, we can fiddle about and do anything we want to! Materialists have a passel of hubris, don't they? Aside from the thrill of the challenge and possibilities of scientific progress, there are still some ethical questions to be answered. One that this child will throw out there is: Where will it end? After all, we've seen that many secularists are ethically challenged and use science as their justification to work materialist magick.


via GIPHY
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself because such questions could be addressed more fully down the trail. Even so, I reckon they should be kept on the back burner and stirred now and then in the meantime. The most important thing is that life comes from life, and ultimately, from our Creator. There was only one true Resurrection, and how we respond to that is the most important consideration for each of us.

The idea that science can solve any problem flows from humanism. This teaches that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and can create better futures and develop technologies to rescue us from all harm. Humanists seem to want the benefit of everlasting life without having to turn to God.

But science can’t solve every problem. Technologies can help improve health, but they fizzle when it’s time for an animal or a person to die. Scientists may measure brain waves, and doctors can perform incredible medical procedures, but they are powerless to reverse death. Science can’t bring animals or people back from the dead.

To read the rest, click on "Can Scientists Resurrect Extinct Species?"





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

Fossils Frequently Fluster Evolutionists

Years ago, I posted about fossils that are in the "wrong" place according to Darwinian beliefs. Angry atheists reacted with remarks that had the intellectual equivalent of, "Haw, haw! St00pid creatard thinks there are fossils out of place!" One offered to school me on the topic on his (now defunct) weblog. This was one of the earliest indications I saw that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© need schooling themselves, or that denial can be an ugly thing. Perhaps they should not listen to the claims of tinhorns like C. Richard Dawkins.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Cheung Chungtat (CC BY 2.5)

This is not an isolated case. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong order, and evolutionists have to ride herd on the evidence to keep it from wandering away and interfering with their stories. For example, Confuciusornis was a very modern-looking bird. The narrative of dinosaurs evolving into birds needed damage control when it was discovered that dinosaurs ate birds like Confuciusornis. Even in the reality that secularists espouse, you cannot be a contemporary of your alleged ancient ancestor.


via GIPHY

There are many examples of fossils that are recalcitrant to the evolutionary timeline. Biblical creationists believe that there is some sort of order to the so-called fossil record, but are not surprised or flustered when fossils are in different places. After all, the Genesis Flood was violent, and things were buried rapidly but not necessarily deposited in a strict sequence.

Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, “All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place.” Dawkins’s statement is emphatic and confident. It makes for a good quotation. However, Dawkins is wrong. Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.

To read the rest, click on "Disharmonious Fossils".


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

Disco Down with the Mirror Spider

If you ever get a notion to have a 1970s-themed party, you should consider inviting the Thwaitesia spider, because you will not need a mirror ball. It is the mirror ball. Well, sort of. There are patches on the abdomen that are like sequins or a series of mirrors. Scientists think they know what causes this effect.

Thwaitesia argentiopunctata image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Poyt448 Peter Woodard (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Although these spiders have not been studied extensively, scientists think it is likely that the same thing is happening here that has happened in other spiders. More specifically, a waste product called guanine is stored in special cells under the skin. It really does reflect light.



Also, the cells with the this material are not static, and the spider can make them almost disappear when it has the notion. They are not there by chance or at random. If you reflect on it, you can see that our Creator is exhibiting his design skill once again.

The eye-catching reflective patches on the abdomen of this Thwaitesia spider certainly make it one of the prettier arachnids. “Like a disco ball with lots of different mirrors” is how Queensland Museum spider expert Robert Whyte described it, speculating that the shimmery spots “scatter light and make it difficult for predators to see it.”

To read the rest of this short but fascinating article about that '70s spider, click on "Mirror spider 'like a disco ball'".




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

Another Problem for Planetary Formation Speculations

As we have discussed on this site and referred to others, solar system formation ideas simply do not succeed. Several have been proposed, but the nebular hypothesis (accretion) seems to be less worse than the others, so they prop that up. After all, admitting that the evidence supports recent creation instead of deep time and cosmic evolution is unthinkable to secular cosmologists.

Artist's conception of the dust and gas surrounding a newly formed planetary system.
Image Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Even within the framework of the nebular hypothesis, you have the coherence of a goat rodeo. Not too long ago, secular scientists were claiming they had evidence that dust around stars will form into planets. (Strange how their presuppositions drive the narrative, and the possibility that dust around stars is a destructive process, and not from the formulation of planets.) On the other hand, the accretion concept is openly defying the laws of physics. To make matters worse for them, some of their own astronomers and physicists are also saying the nebular hypothesis won't work.

Excuses are freely made. Maybe the radio telescopes are incorrectly calibrated. No, wait! We know that accretion concept is absurd for our solar system, so maybe it works way out yonder! Yeah! (Reminds me of origin of life guesses. Since evolutionists cannot explain how life began here, then it happened elsewhere in the universe. C. Richard Dawkins believes that stuff, but the problem is still unsolved for secularists.) The way science is supposed to work is that when an idea cannot be supported, it gets put out to pasture. Not happening here, Zeke. I suspicion that they are too enamored of their materialistic philosophies to let it go and step into reality. It's nice here. And we have cookies.

Secular scientists claim that stars form “naturally” from enormous clouds of gas and dust. The newly-formed star is thought to be encircled by a thin, slowly-spinning disk of dusty material. Dust particles within the disk are thought to collide and stick together, through a hypothetical process called accretion, somehow forming more massive clumps of matter over vast amounts of time. These clumps become the cores of future planets, and supposedly, the gravitational pulls of these clumps attract still more dust and gas, eventually forming planets. Despite the fact that this nebular hypothesis has become textbook orthodoxy, it has serious problems. Secular astronomers have recently uncovered what may be the biggest problem yet: these dust disks simply don’t have enough material in them to develop into planets!

To read the rest, click on "Nebular Hypothesis Doesn't Hold Together". You may also like to see "Secular Miracles and the Origin of the Solar System".

 

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

Dizzying Evolutionary Spin on Soft Tissues

As many of us know, dinosaur soft tissues are extremely problematic for proponents of deep time and for particles-to-paleontologist evolution. But those are not the only soft tissues that are causing consternation for secularists. Reports of Dickinsonia having original molecules, including lipids and sterols, are being given serious spin. No real science, though.

Dickinsonia costata on Wikimedia Commons, credited to Verisimilus (CC BY 2.5)

Let me give an illustration that I learned from Dr. Jason Lisle.

A man insisted that he was dead. His friends and family kept trying to reason with him that he could not be walking around, talking, eating, and so forth. He said, "It could be involuntary reactions. I'm dead".

The family took him to a medical doctor, who also tried to reason with him but to no avail. Then the doctor got an inspiration. He asked the man, "Do dead men bleed?"

After the man thought about it for a spell. Everything stops internally, so he agreed that someone who is dead cannot bleed. Then the doctor took something sterile and pointy, and gave a cut on the man's finger.

With amazement in his eyes and voice, the man looked at his finger and said, "Well, whaddya know. Dead men do bleed!"

There are several points in that story that I'll let you work out yourselves, but something similar is happening now: original biological molecules cannot last for 65 million Darwin years, nor can those from Dickinsonia last 558 million of those years. Evolutionists deny science and say otherwise. Instead of dealing with the facts, they let evolutionary presuppositions win the day. With a few spins on the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring®, evolutionists are saying, "Whaddya know! The earth was not created recently despite the evidence, and Dickinsonia fat tissues, our ancestors, really can last 558 million years!" Oh, boy.

Original biomolecules 558 million years old? Surely this would break the bank (read about “reckless drafts on the bank of time,” 2 July 2007) and force Darwinians to give up on their beloved millions of years. There is absolutely no way any fossil would contain any original biological material that long, one would think, especially if the organism had been buried in marine sediments permeated with water. Most evolutionists themselves believed that until recently. Biological material decays over time, even when entombed in dry rock. Add to that the geological changes that should have occurred in 558 million years—continents rising and sinking, tectonic plates subducting, rocks alternately freezing and thawing, and subsequent life churning up the strata. The destructive processes on this dynamic planet should have accelerated the degradation of biological material in less than one million years, let alone 558 million! If dinosaur soft tissue rocked the Darwin boat, Ediacaran soft tissue should sink it. Right?

To read the entire article, click on "Fat Chance: Evolutionists Push Date of Soft Tissue Back 558 Million Years". Also, secularists are playing anti-science games with mollusk shells, see "More Exceptional Preservation of Organic Material".



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

Proving Evolution with the Skull Game

In another post, we saw how Darwinists assume evolution to prove evolution, and people are unskilled at spotting the fallacies. Here, we shall see that evolutionists play a skull game by demonstrating human evolution by assuming it in the first place. Then, they commence to spinning on their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings® to give persuasive answers. Darwin's disciples learned some of his obfuscation tricks from the Beaded Buddha himself.

Generated at Image Chef

People think that scientists are interested in facts, but a study of the antics of evolutionists can disabuse them of that notion. If you find the hands of the Darwin Ranch in town on payday, you can find them at the saloon. Don't play cards with them. They don't want to play the hand they're dealt (that is scientific facts), deal from the bottom of the deck (redating fossils, redefining other bits of scientific evidence that don't suit their fancy), use non-evolution to preach evolution, and other shenanigans. Too bad for all of us that they can't be more circumspect instead of digging in their heels deeper so they can "scientifically" deny the Creator who gave them life.

Someone can look at a display of skulls and see right away that some are human, some are ape. There are also variations in each — which is something that creationists expect. The evolutionist will give a convincing story worthy of Rudyard Kipling, bur are actually based on assumptions based on assumptions and whatever else can be taken from the Ring. Step back, get a view from the hill (the bigger perspective), utilize some healthy skepticism, and think. This helps in many circumstances. Also, take a look at some creationary material, such as presented just below.

Today’s feedback is from David B. who wrote in to us about transitional forms and human evolution.

    I am now writing to find out more information regarding the creationist view regarding the alleged transitional forms of "early humans".

    I was so confident in defending the notion that, “there are no transitional forms, the fossils should be clearly be seen as either human or ape”.

    I also went on to describe the dog skull analogy. IE many different variations of dog skulls, but they're still the same species.

  . . .

    I am somewhat disturbed by this fossil:

    [link to the Hobbit fossil deleted, as per site rules]

    While it appears to be human in form, I couldn't help noticing the skull features.

    They do give a strong impression of being somewhere in between Ape and Human.

    While I am still confident in the YEC perspective (especially when it comes to the debate of genetics / chemical evolution), I do not know what to make of this / ended up making a complete fool of myself during our debate.

    Does anyone have any expertise on this matter, with which they can clarify further?

  
Joel Tay and Dr Robert Carter, CMI-US, respond:

To read the response, click on "Do these skulls prove common ancestry between apes and humans?"




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

Coral Reefs and the Young Earth

Perhaps you have been able to do some diving and visit giant coral reefs, but like me, you have seen them in movies and television. Some reefs are referred to in the singular, such at the Great Barrier Reef, but they are actually several reefs in one area. They provide homes for many kinds of critters, and are a food source for many others. The formation of reefs is used by secularists as an argument that the earth is old. Is that accurate, or are they just blowing smoke bubbles?

Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney

Corals build skeletons for themselves when they draw calcium out of the water, and these accumulate. They have specific needs to thrive, and different corals have different needs. Naturally, the reefs are built at different rates. Using uniformitarian views, the reefs are mighty slow to form. However, secularists are known to ignore inconvenient evidence, and there is evidence that reefs can form much more rapidly than they want to believe. The Genesis Flood would have devastated the existing reefs, but the corals didn't mind, they just built more.

What do you know about coral reefs? Most people would answer this question with some bit of information gathered from a documentary or animated film set in coral reefs. While few people have spent much time in coral reefs, many could identify them as places of exquisite beauty and diversity. A visit to any aquarium in the world will demonstrate this, as many exhibits are dedicated to these essential ecosystems.

Marine ecologists also recognize coral reefs as places with incredible diversity and sources of diversity for many other marine environments. In fact, almost 25% of the surveyed marine animal groups living in open oceans began in reefs and spread into other ecosystems. What is it about coral reefs that allow them to support so much life and generate diversity?

To read the rest of the article, click on "Giant Coral Reefs—Too Old for a Young Earth?" For a related item, you may like to see "Rapid Reef Growth? We Don't Mind Atoll".




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

One Flood, Many Rock Layers

This child lives an hour north of New York City, at the foothills of the Catskills. Even here, we have road cuts where you can see the rock layers. Take a look around, you can see layers all around the world, whether from construction work or natural formations. It is a fair question to ask how the Genesis Flood could form so many layers, especially when we are bombarded with uniformitarian (deep time) views from the secular science industry.

Credit: Unsplash / Gordon Williams

From the perspective of biblical creationists, the Genesis Flood was exceptionally turbulent and had a heap of activity. Water did not just stand in place and maybe slosh around a bit. The global flood formed layers, and creationists draw from Genesis, geology, and logic.

How did the layers get there? Most people believe that many layers require many years. They imagine ancient worlds that gave each layer unique colors, grain types, and fossils.

In truth, you don’t need much time to make rock layers if you have plenty of water. Some floods move more sediment in mere hours than regular rain moves over centuries. How about a world-destroying flood? That would cause more erosion and deposition than most people can even imagine. No wonder those who view Genesis as history see Noah’s Flood behind the many varied, thick, and continent-covering rock layers across the world.

To read the entire article, click on "Could One Flood Form Many Rock Layers?"





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

Tales from the Darwin Zone

Everywhere we go, fish-to-philatelist evolution is assumed to be a proven fact. It is in advertising, children's entertainment, documentaries, fiction, general conversation, theology, and numerous other places. Especially in secular indoctrination centers (schools). Purveyors of evolution use it as a starting point for research, and even slap evolution like a bumper sticker on explanations to make them more sciency so they seem credible. The totalitarian two-bit tinhorns controlling secular science go to great lengths to exclude any concept of the Master Engineer.

If evolution were a fact, such behavior might be more acceptable. But such things are a vexation to thinking people, plain and simple. Part of the problem is that people have an adoration for science and scientists, as if they were the unbiased priests of truth. Scientists are biased and have clouded thinking just like everyone else, and that's a natural fact. 

Another problem is that people are not taught critical thinking, so they accept things spoken with authority as if they were established facts. Even a small amount of questioning, even to yourself, can make you less susceptible to being hoodwinked. Even better if you get yourself educated about the flaws in evolution and deep time, and learn about the work of our Creator. Sites like this one, and those that are linked in posts and article, are here to help in that regard.

Someone presented a question about body hair to local newspaper, and a contributor began with the presupposition of evolution. Then he commenced his "science" storytelling. It's mighty easy to prove evolution by assuming evolution (begging the question), but his answers should have been laughed away.

Everywhere you go, you get Darwin Just-So Stories. You can’t travel or read the newspaper without them.

The BBBB (Big Brother Bearded Buddha) is the totalitarian dictator of science. His doctrine is never questioned. Whatever you observe in nature, “it evolved” according to the Stuff Happens Law (i.e., natural selection). No alternative explanations are ever given a hearing, because they have all been expelled. When society’s doctors, teachers, park rangers and tour guides have all been steeped in the teachings of Charlie & Charlie (i.e., Lyell & Darwin) since their youth, that’s all they know. They have also been trained to mock ‘creationists’ and Darwin doubters vehemently in knee-jerk fashion. . .

Few are the reporters who can look at a Darwin just-so story logically, and show that it is just silly.

Here’s a recent example from a local Sunday paper (30 Sept 2018). A reader asks a question, and a local Darwin priest (in this case, Keith Roach, M.D., a contributing editor to the paper) is ready with his storybook. There is always one answer: Whatever exists, it evolved. Even in the case of private parts, no intelligent design can be claimed.

To read the rest, click on "How Darwin Storytelling Permeates Society". Also see "Science Fails its Ideals".

 For lyrics to Bloodgood's Black Snake, click here

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

Darwin Distorted Engineered Adaptability

The engineered adaptability series and the development of the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model from the Institute for Creation Research is getting stronger, and I have been looking forward to new installments in their series. Indeed, we have seen several examples from other creationist organizations that also fit the model. Now we are going to see some of the background of Charles anti-design approach.

Unlike many of Darwin's disciples, Chuck made an effort to understand the opposition. He was extremely familiar with the work Natural Theology by creationist William Paley, who used design as a teleological argument for the existence of God. Darwin commenced to distorting design arguments. He taught that organisms changed because of outside "pressures", and used a kind of mysticism to his version of evolution.

The opposite is true. Engineered adaptability shows that organisms have built-in abilities to detect and respond to environmental changes according to the plan of the Master Engineer, and the evidence supports this view far better than what Darwin proposed. Attempts to deny the work of the Creator are refuted time and again.

Sometimes all a medical doctor can do is treat one symptom after another rather than addressing what’s actually making the patient sick. People who believe that organisms look designed because they are designed frequently face the same frustrating cycle when they talk to those who embrace evolution. Just like doctors treating only the symptoms, they counter the latest evolutionary claims with science-based answers only to have each discredited “evidence” for evolution followed by another “but what about…?” challenge. It can be like an endless game of whack-a-mole.

To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Darwin's Anti-Design Doctrine".



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

Places Named in Genesis

In "Finding Eden", we examined how some people are attempting to locate Eden from clues in the Bible. Now we will broaden the subject to other place names in the early chapters of Genesis. It is not all that surprising that people will attempt to map out some locations despite the huge amount of years that has elapsed because some of the directions are very specific, such as the rivers in Eden. 

Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs

The authors clearly intended readers to know that they were writing history, but considerable debate exists about this point. There have been attempts to understand what the writers were thinking, and also to make Genesis locations into a kind of hybrid of allegory and history, of both past and present. Some scholars seem to forget, or ignore, the fact of the Genesis Flood and how it would drastically alter the land.

I should pull in the reigns for a moment and let you know a view that I accept, but is not dealt with in the article linked below. Like other biblical creationists, I believe that Moses did not sit down and write the first five books all by his lonesome. Don't get me wrong. Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV), and Moses was not excluded from divine inspiration. Because of the structure of the early parts of Genesis, it is very possible that other authors were involved, including Adam, and Moses was the final editor. Do you follow that? Also, the narratives are often in present tense, and you will find the comment "...to this day", from the perspective of the authors.

Some of the references to locations in and around Eden were somewhat less specific, however. The historical references are called deixis, and require some explanation.

The debate about Genesis’s genre is influenced by the perceived historicity of Eden in Genesis 2. A method for examining the genre of the early chapters of Genesis is to identify the relative frequency of deixis indicators, in particular the author’s use of places. The distribution and type of place references suggests that the author intended an historical genre for Genesis 1–11, but that there is a discontinuity between old and new worlds as a result of the Flood. The use of place names associated with Eden is thought to be for etiological purposes.

To read the entire article, click on "Reading ‘places’ in Genesis 1–11".




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

Genetic Tinkering to Break Biological Shackles

Scientists are pushing the limits of ethics and morality, with the help of CRISPR to do genetic engineering. We have seen that some scientists are working on making horrible hybrids from animals, and even with human embryos. They talk about ethics, but their worldview is based on materialism and evolution, so we cannot expect high standards. News from communist China is fascinating from a scientific perspective, but is also alarming because of the potential for dehumanization.

A mouse with a peanut by Albert Anker

The news is that scientists messed with mice, and had a brood from female "same sex parents". Now, some critters commence to doing parthenogenesis (reproduction without a male), but they were designed by the Master Engineer for that activity. Also, the communists are not quite constrained by the remnants of Christian values like we have in the West. What happens next? Since the secular science industry is interested in anti-biblical political causes nowadays and contributes to gender confusion, this "progress" can become dangerous.

I'd take it mighty kindly if you'd listen to the podcast or read the transcript of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler for October 16, 2018. He deals not only with this issue, but also the morality of making something un-extinct, if it's possible.



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

Do-or-Die Lobster Situation

Set aside your bib and butter so y'all can appreciate the design of the lobster before you appreciate it with your fork. Crustaceans have a habit of molting their shells so they can grow into new ones, but there is a process that involves many steps. For the lobster, it really is a do-or-die, all-or-nothing situation. It is even more impressive because some of them get comparatively long and heavy. Most do not have great lifespans, but others are can be impressive.

California spiny lobster image credit: US National Park Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Time is not a luxury when it's time to do the new shell thing. Lobsters grow the new shell under the existing one, breaking out of the old one (partly through bulking up by taking on water), letting the new shell harden, and more. The specified complexity of the process defies evolution and shows the skill of the Master Engineer. By the way, if you ponder on it, it seems that our Creator likes variety in his creatures.

Have you ever dreamed that you were squeezing yourself out of a giant toothpaste tube as the tube slowly tightened around your body? Something similar happens to lobsters, so it’s more of a living nightmare for them. Lobster molting would end in sudden death if God hadn’t provided a solution to their predicament of constantly outgrowing their shells.

To read the rest, click on "Lobsters Get Comfortable in Their New Skin".





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

Silly Dinosaur DNA Research

In the secular science industry, things are seldom as they appear — especially regarding origins. Now secularists are riding at a full gallop to the propaganda mill up yonder at Deception Pass. Do they really have dinosaur DNA? Somebody tell those owlhoots to bring those ponies back to the corral and step inside so we can talk a spell.

First of all, to get real dinosaur DNA, you need to get it from a real dinosaur. I don't see any hereabouts, do you? Nor has anyone found some intact that hasn't degraded over the years. Evolutionary science and creation science are forensic in nature, so the researchers made numerous assumptions about the ancestry of dinosaurs. That's mighty difficult, since dinosaurs had no evolutionary past. In addition, they made the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into (or are closely related to birds), but such an idea is ridiculous. When unfounded, unscientific assumptions are made, the research can easily fall down like a house of cards. This is a great deal of wasted effort to deny the fact that dinosaurs (and everything else) were created, and not the product of dust-to-dinosaur evolution.

The original study, published in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature Communications, made the following claim: “Given our data, it is perhaps not an unreasonable speculation that, if we had the opportunity to make metaphase chromosomes from tissue of non-avian theropods, both karyotypic and molecular cytogenetic analysis (genome size aside) would reveal little difference from a modern chicken, duck or ostrich (or at least a spiny soft-shelled turtle).” The study’s authors basically made the claim that a Velociraptor would have similar DNA to a modern chicken if the DNA were viewed under a microscope. That is an extremely bold claim to make!

To read the entire article, click on "Have Researchers Found Dinosaur Genes?" By the way, chickens (alleged dinosaur descendants) are scary. Maybe we can see movies about chickens running rampant and terrorizing the world!




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

Tapestry Art and Noah

Tapestries are an ancient art form, and were extremely popular in Europe during the Middle Ages. Perhaps the larger versions were used to cover the cold castle walls as well as appeal to the eye. Since this art was made by hand on a loom, it had an advantage of being somewhat portable. The Wawel arrasses can be found in Warwel Castle in Poland.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / KHRoN (CC BY-SA 2.5)

The king, Sigismund II Augustus, he liked him some tapestries, and had a passel of 'em. Celebrated 16th century artist Michiel Coxie (the "Flemish Raphael") was involved. His scenes involving Noah and the Ark included dragons, the word in use before dinosaur was coined. Coxie wanted to be faithful to the biblical text, and after all, dragons were mentioned in books at the time; dragons must have been on the Ark.

Dinosaurs have appeared in old art, such as the Angkor Wat carving, those at Bishop Bell's tomb, possibly the Ica stones, and others. Darwin's disciples object to the possibility that man and dinosaurs ever coexisted because evolution, but historical records, art, and especially the Bible indicate otherwise. Michiel probably did not see any of those critters, so there is a bit of artistic license in his work.They did had some dinosaur characteristics, however.

Within the eight pieces telling the story of the Flood are two tapestries showing the animals going onto and coming off Noah’s Ark. Many of them are easily recognizable as good depictions of their living counterparts today: lions, camels, cows, and various types of birds. But there are also animals that look distinctly like dragons.

To read the entire article, click on "Dragons on Noah’s Ark — The tapestries of Sigismund II Augustus".





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

The Joy of Rewriting Textbooks?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes, "Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?'", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts.

Credit: Freeimages / Zsuzsa N.K.

First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not.

I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and definitions that emerge from research may eventually be proven wrong, the process for gaining new knowledge — the scientific method — is the best way we have of learning about the world around us. That’s what’s wondrous to a scientist— to know that we understand the periodic table, or our solar system, or the animal kingdom, a little bit better, because someone has come up with a new idea that’s a better fit for all the data points that have been gathered over the years.

It sure is nice to have a sense of wonder about science and knowledge. Many of us do. I wonder about the first part of that quote, where she's "one of the lucky ones who was trained to see science as a process". How are other people trained, then? Also, she said that science is "a way of looking at the world". That sounds to me like an empirical worldview, which is rather sterile. As many creationists (and others) have said numerous times, people interpret data according to their presuppositions.

She went on to give an illustration about "scientists getting excited" and discussed chemist Neil Bartlett. He made an important discovery, so textbooks had to be rewritten. Well, yes. When real discoveries are made, textbooks need to be rewritten. Not so much with evolutionary "discoveries" — certain examples of fraud, such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, are still in the textbooks. Other examples of bad evolutionary science are frequently found in textbooks.

We keep hearing about new discoveries that frustrate believers in deep time and evolutionists:

• Human-Chimp genome is not as close as we were told
• Dinosaur evolution needs to be rewritten again
• Magnetic field reversals are shown to happen far more rapidly than previously believed 
• Several finds, including rapid speciation, fluster evolutionists
• Neanderthals were not stupid brutes, but fully human 

There are many more on this site alone.I reckon the reasons folks might get excited about rewriting textbooks is that they can get paid for it. Another is that secularists can cover their tracks and try to hide their embarrassment. Of course, some evolutionists will still manage to lie outright, since the end justifies the means as a long as people can be made to believe in evolution.

Science is exciting and fun. When used to appreciate and understand the work of our Creator, the sense of awe deepens. Biblical creationists in scientific disciplines often say that they are motivated to know how God created something. Being excited about EvolutionDidIt and evosplaining with "it evolved" is fatuous. If textbook writers are excited about updating real science, good for them.




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

Totalitarian Evolutionism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article is an unexpected sequel of sorts to "The Pandemic of Unchallenged Darwinism".

Although Charles Darwin has been taking a dirt nap for over 136 years, his speculations still have a tremendous influence today. That is not because the science behind his work is so powerful that it is irrefutable. On the contrary, as scientific knowledge has grown over the years, the paucity of evidence for universal common ancestor evolution has become increasingly apparent. Why is evolution still holding such a lofty position with both the public and the scientific establishment?

Background image furnished by Why?Outreach, then modified

The primary reason that Darwin is still on his throne in the minds of many is that accepting evolution is a spiritual matter. If the origins controversy and the age of the earth were strictly about scientific evidence, most people would be biblical creationists, and Darwin would be just a footnote in history.

Evolution is also accepted because it is protected; secularists do not want to have their worldview inconvenienced by the truth. As readers of this site have seen, contrary evidence is suppressed, terrible logic is employed by Darwin's disciples, pantheism and animism are used ("evolution" is made into an entity that makes decisions), and more. Further, active deception is used to convince people to believe in evolutionism It is noteworthy that science is conflated into evolution, and appeals to emotional intimidation are added. "You reject evolution? Then you are a science denier!" That'll be the day! Some of us are not so easily swayed by lies, old son.

Atheists and evolutionists not only use emotional manipulation, but capitalize on the way critical thinking is seldom taught anymore. Logical fallacies reign triumphant in the secular science industry as well as in everyday discourse. A sanitized version of evolution is presented to the masses as an undisputed fact, and many people do not know that there is such a thing as creation science.

To be blunt, the scientific establishment can be compared to the one-party system prevalent in Communist regimes. Elections in the Soviet Union were a farce and were controlled by the Party for many years, and reforms were too late. Secularists control much of scientific research and the science media.

Let me get into a recent bit of shame in the United States. I hope this comparison is accurate. When Donald J. Trump was elected as President of the United States, the losing party threw tantrums. Unlike Republicans, the leftists reacted violently. On Wednesday, October 3, 2018, there was a "Presidential Alert Test" of the National Wireless Emergency System. Leftists went nuts. One even said, "He’s raping us through technology." Oh, please. When leftists were not acting up physically, they resorted to emotional manipulation and blatant deceptions with the help of the media.

When Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, three women made unfounded accusations against him (one was embarrassingly risible), even though he had been a Circuit Judge on the US Court of Appeals and had many years in public service. He had even passed six FBI background checks before this. The presumption of innocence and any semblance of due process were rejected by the Senate (especially the leftist media, which influenced some of the public). Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono insisted that an accuser of Kavanaugh must be believed, even though there was no evidence against him. This is a genetic fallacy. (I'll be switched with snakes if this whole thing isn't reminiscent of the Stalin show trials.) The Democrat Party obstructs Donald Trump and his actions, especially if they perceive a threat to their sacrament of abortion. I believe that America is faced with one-party rule and totalitarianism from the left, whether fascism or socialism.

In a similar way, we are effectively dealing with one-party rule in science. Those who deny (or even hint that they are not fully convinced) about Darwin's system are regarded as second-class citizens, so his disciples feel they have the right — indeed, a public service — to ridicule, lie about, and misrepresent those of us who present contrary evidence. The party in charge obtains tax money to tell silly Darwin-affirming stories and present them as "science" with little resistance, and Darwin's protectors want this to continue unabated. For them, an accusation against someone's character is as good as a trial and conviction, therefore, whatever someone says is negated because of such ad hominems and misrepresentation.

Not only do evolutionists and atheists try their best to have evidence suppressed, but they seek to silence us. The sidewinder linked above ("public service") defames creationists on the internet, sends out spam to uninvolved and uninterested parties, attacks them on their social media timelines, and more. Others resort to simple-minded ridicule, such as this one. Perhaps they think that we will be shamed and intimidated into silence, and let them run rampant with their version of science. Not hardly! Some of us are on the prod because we are tired of being lied to about evolutionary and leftist science. We won't back down, we won't be silent, you savvy?

Atheists and evolutionists like to point to fossils for support of evolution, sometimes as if the very existence of fossils confirms and old earth, and also proving Darwin right. However, scientists (like other people) interpret evidence based on their presuppositions. Many examples of transitional forms (something shown evolving into something else) are ludicrous to less biased people (see "Silly Darwin Stories Never Rebuked by Big Science, Big Media"). People tend to believe scientists, but if they strip away the paradigms and actually examine the evidence, they can see that fossils do not contain the expected transitional forms after all. Even trained observers risk the wrath of the secular scientific establishment when they point out that they are using erroneous assumptions about fossil patterns.

Like the Communist Party that controlled the Soviet Union, the state is the final arbiter of truth. Evolutionists of the secular science party parade their fossils propaganda to convince people that Darwin was right and creationists have nothing to say. Again, they are attempting to preserve their one-party system and negate the opposition. The hammer and sickle were smashed, but some jaspers who have no appreciation for history are attempting to piece them back together again. Likewise, the father of lies was defeated millennia ago but he and his minions are attempting to have control through deception.

Readers of secular science media need to realize that every fossil bone, every tooth, and every footprint is being interpreted in terms of millions of years of death and struggle in the upward march of progress from bacteria to man. Free-thinking reporters never stray, because they would quickly be shamed out of their jobs. Readers of BM, whether at Science Daily or at national park signs, never hear that there are other ways to interpret fossils. Even when Dr Mary Schweitzer found soft, stretchy tissues in dinosaur bones, eliciting gasps from hosts on 60 Minutes, nobody was permitted to question the 80-million-year age of the fossils or the reality of dinosaur evolution. Only creationists pointed to the obvious contradiction with the party line, but they have to operate in the gulags of BS, or outside the institutions of power, as did members of unregistered churches or dissident groups in communist countries. The situation is so bad that even anti-creationist scientists who have doubts about Darwin’s mechanism have to meet in semi-secret groups and publish with caution (example: The Third Way of Evolution). They feel obligated to make it clear up front that they are not one of “them” (the creationist counter-revolutionaries).

To read the entire article, click on "Darwinists Use Fossils as Props for Propaganda". Also, totalitarian regimes such as communism or fascism have a great deal in common. You may want to see my article, "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism".

<>


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

Our Solar System is Young

We have been examining reports on various celestial bodies and seeing how scientists are frequently baffled by their signs of youth. If the solar system was billions of years old, there should not be a heap of geological activity. Pluto, for example, is surprisingly active. Those articles are interesting and even fun, but today, we will get a broader view.

Computer simulation of Gula Mons on Venus
Credit: NASA / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Even using dates assigned with secular presuppositions of cosmic evolution, various objects are not as old as they "should" be. We have craters and volcanic activity on Venus, the rings of Saturn are on the young side, our own moon shows signs of volcanism, planets are warmer than expected after such an allegedly long time, short-term comets should not even exist, and more.

One ineffable humbug insists that a possible interstellar asteroid (which is now considered a comet) overturns all of young earth creation science. (he has to put his head in the Martian sand and ignore all the evidence for a young solar system that has been available for a mighty long time.) Also, astronomers do not understand that asteroid. For all anyone knows, it could have been one of "ours", catapulted out by planetary graviational forces and is returning. Maybe time will tell. All that aside, the evidence clearly shows that the solar system was created recently.

Secular astronomers insist our universe is 13.8 billion years old and our solar system is 4.6 billion years old. These claims contradict the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent six-day creation. In spite of the secular scientists’ claims, the enormous amount of data collected by unmanned space probes in the last half-century strongly confirms that the planets, moons, and comets in our solar system are quite young. Even when favorable old-universe assumptions are made, the data suggest that the maximum possible ages for these bodies are much, much younger than 4.6 billion years. And since these are maximum, not minimum, possible ages, the age estimates are consistent with a solar system that is just 6,000 years old. A number of evidences confirms this young age.

To read the rest, click on "Our Young Solar System". You can learn more on this site and their site. Many of the links after the article are clickable, and most contain creationary resources.





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