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!

Where Jade Formed

One day, I was riding up near Deception Pass, trying to see if there was action at the Darwin Ranch. On my return, I stopped at a lady friend's cabin. Stormie Waters was doing some prospecting for gold nuggets, and wearing some jade jewellery that was quite fetching. We commenced to making some chin music, and she eventually asked where jade came from.

Credit: Pixabay / Tannon

People may refer to jade as a particular shade of green. Indeed, I lack belief that it is just a coincidence that the jade plant is also green. There are different shades of the jade stone that come from two minerals, jadeite and nephrite. The green in jadeite comes from chromium, as pure jadeite is practically white. So, jade can be found in various shades and the two stones have different amounts of hardness.

Experiments on those two minerals show that the rock forms under extreme pressures and temperatures that are not happening today. The answer to how jade is formed is found in catastrophic plate tectonics, which provided necessary heat and pressure. (Since jade is popular in New Age beliefs, maybe plate tectonics infused jade with magical properties? Nah.) Secular geologists and creationists agree that plate tectonics happen, but only the creationists have a plausible model for how the whole thing began.

Even before it was prized for beauty, this precious stone had another attraction. It is tough, yet easy to shape. So ancient people often carved it into axes, blades, choppers, and hammers. But today its beauty is paramount.

. . .

Jade was popular not only in ancient Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and other East Asian cultures, but also in the Americas. In Central America, Aztec Indians wore it as a talisman, thinking it had special powers to ease abdominal pain.

So where did jade come from? Astonishingly, the biblical Flood cataclysm provided just the right kind of rare, stressful conditions necessary to produce this beautiful gemstone.

To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Jade — Beauty Under Pressure". Bonus for those who want to see appallingly bad reasoning from an angry, uneducated atheist about this article, click here.



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

Phosphorus for Us

Phosphorus is one of those elements that has both negative and positive associations. When refined, it can be obtained in various forms. White phosphorus is exceptionally dangerous, and reacts to oxygen in the air. The stuff explodes (and is used in bombs), gives off smoke, burns exceptionally hot, is stored under water for safety, and can kill in several ways.

Mining phosphate rock in Naru
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lorrie Graham/AusAID (CC BY 2.0)

From the positive side, we need phosphorus. Life needs it. When looking for a video to add, I saw (but rejected because it was boring) a video about foods rich in it. Plants draw phosphorus up from the soil. It is in our cells, which rely on phosphorus to do cell stuff.

And yet, phosphorus doesn't just lay around waiting for some jasper to say, "Oh, look! I found phosphorus in its elemental state!" That'll be the day! It is abundant in the earth's crust and can be extracted from living (or formerly living) things, such as guano.

How did it get there?

Uniformitarian geologists have no clue, and space scientists are making up wild stories to file under "Maybe Coulda". Well, maybe their invisible imaginary space alien friends brought it to Earth when they seeded it with life. Hey, I should be a secular science writer! Anyway, the fact remains that scientists have to resort to speculations, and ignore the logical conclusion that our Creator designed Earth to have enough of what we need to survive. Savvy?

A highly reactive atom, phosphorus is never found in its elemental form on earth. Its elemental abundance is one gram per kilogram in Earth’s crust, about 16 times as plentiful as copper. On our planet, most of it is found in insoluble rocks. Phosphate mines have much of the element from the decomposed remains of living organisms.

It would be hard to imagine a habitable planet without phosphorus, because most astrobiologists recognize the uniqueness of nucleic acids, ATP and phospholipids for cells. So this poses a question: how did Earth become blessed with so much of this element?

To read the entire article, click on "How Did Earth Get Its Phosphorus?"





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

Peer-Reviewed Hoaxes and Postmodernism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

An occasional plot device in books, movies, and television is when a character uses untoward means to make a point. Perhaps he or she was ignored by the government or an employer about serious problems in software or something that were ignored, so the problem is dramatically demonstrated. In a similar manner, hoax papers have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — and accepted.

Credit: Unsplash / Christin Hume

One notable incident was when Alan Sokal submitted an article to a postmodern journal in 1996, causing academic embarrassment. Postmodernism is where truth is relative and absolute truth is rejected. It is also self-refuting, inconsistent, and unlivable. Like atheism, when someone following either philosophy says that something is evil or wrong, that person is appealing to an absolute standard. Ultimately, they are appealing to the truth of God!

Secular science has a definite leftist bias. Current sexual preference and science-denying "sexual dysphoria" trends are embraced, as are global climate change, radical feminism with misandry, and more.  

Likewise, peer review in the secular science industry is not a guarantee of objectivity or accuracy, and bad papers are frequently passed; readers of this site have seen reports of bad peer-reviewed science promoting fish-to-fraud evolution. Some of these were computer-generated; I made one myself.

Two serious problems hound secular science. One is the loud silence of null results being unpublished; if nothing is found, no report is made. This is detrimental to science research, because people need to know what does not work. In addition, there is the reproducibility crisis. That is, a study may have been conducted, referenced, and not be valid. Additional studies may not be made to support or refute the original research because apparatchiks of the secular science industry approve of the results.

A major part of the peer-review problem is that secular researchers and their obedient lapdog media exhibit confirmation bias, seeing what they want to see instead of what the evidence actually indicates. Unfortunately, people did not heed the 1996 hoax paper wake-up call. In 2018, more deliberately bad papers were submitted to a postmodern radical feminist journal. Many were praised and published by the owlhoots in charge.

One was about canine sexual misconduct in Portland, Oregon parks. It included "oppression" and "rape", two prominent leftist buzzwords. The part that really got my attention is that the research (again, it is a fake paper) was applied to human culture. Evolutionists frequently do that same nonsense. Essentially, the feminists embraced the material because it supports their presupposition that men are bad. That's confirmation bias again, old son and daughter.

We see frequently see confirmation bias in origins research. F'rinstance, the supposititious dysteleological claim of evolutionists that the human body was poorly designed, therefore, evolution. Secularists see what they want to see, and not necessarily what exists in reality. Again, scientists are not dispassionate and objective, they interpret information to conform to their worldviews. The truth is that we were designed by our Creator (Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:18-22, Psalm 14:1), and no amount of denial or tampering with data can change the truth.

This was my perspective on the reports, now I hope you'll take a notion to read or hear Dr. Mohler's Christian worldview perspective. I'd be much obliged if you'd click on "The Briefing" for Thursday, Oct 4, 2018.



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

Cells, Adaptation, and the CET Model

Today is the 100th anniversary of Dr. Henry M. Morris' birth. I think he would approve of the continuing work of the Institute for Creation Research.

Have you had the experience of buying a gift for someone and having it used for a purpose other than what it was intended? Maybe a thing that is sometimes called a "hot mat" or "hot pad" where cooks can take pots off the stove and set them on those so they do not damage the counter top. Some have nice images, which adds to the kitchen décor. I've seen them used as decorations on the wall. I wonder if Dr. Araujo may feel that way about her work on cells and mathematics.

Image of cells credit: CSIRO (CC BY 3.0)

Sure, there's no escaping math, it seems. You thought you were safe studying biology? Not happening, old son. Dr. Araujo's strength is in mathematics, but did a great deal of research in the logic used by cells for adaptation.



Although she tried to apply her work to molecules-to-mathematician evolution, it actually is a much better fit for creation science research. Specifically, something you have read about here a few times: the Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET) model that is being developed by the Institute for Creation Research. Organisms were designed by the Master Engineer to adapt, and information continues to support this fact.

A new development in mathematical modeling from Dr. Robyn P. Araujo at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, goes a long way to help explain how creatures adapt. A design-based interpretation of her findings causes the math models to be integral to understanding the engineered mechanisms that enable organisms to rapidly solve environmental challenges.

It's rather technical, but you can read the rest by clicking on "Cells Use Elaborate Math to Adapt".

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

The Simple Explanation for Plant Evolution

When hearing a Darwinist evosplain the process of how something got here, you are going to hear a wagon train-load of arbitrary assertions. Instead of beginning at the beginning and investigating if something evolved according to their definitions of the word, they skip that step and begin with how it evolved. That is, they presuppose Darwinism.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Pirex

Imagine this scenario where a creationist is having a discussion with Rusty Swingset, the foreman at the Darwin Ranch:

Rusty Swingset: Now we'll look at how this plant evolved.
Inquirer: How do you know it evolved?
Rusty: That's how things work.
Inquirer: You have quite a few assertions and tell an interesting story, but do you have a mechanism?
Rusty: It evolved the way all things do.
Inquirer: Is there any empirical evidence to go with the story?
Rusty: It evolved, ya idjit! Now shut up and swallow your propaganda!



They get on the prod when people do more than just accept their materialistic exacerbation. Although evolutionists claim to be empirical and logical, the narrative drives their interpretations of evidence. Notice that secularists claim to use logic, but when we examine their reports, there is precious little of it in use. Ever notice that logic is no longer taught in secular educational indoctrination establishments? It's easier for atheists and evolutionists to promote their views when they are not going to be challenged by rational thought. Otherwise, the purveyance of Darwinist propaganda would be shut down as unscientific and illogical.

Lacking evidence, evolutionists use the tried 'n' true scientific method of Making Things Up™, which is not logical, nor is it scientific. Then their acolytes claim that there is no Creator...

Darwinism has replaced the need for demonstration in science with the convenience of assertion.

When you read papers and articles that offer to explain how something evolved, what you often find are statements that they just evolved. Let’s see some examples.

To learn more, click on "How Could Plants Evolve? Answer: They Evolved".




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

The Formation of Geological Strata

The Grand Canyon is a destination for people who are interested in geology, whether professionals or amateurs. A passel of tourists go there as well. Purveyors of deep time claim that it is a great place for their beliefs, and biblical creationists say that it has evidence for the Genesis Flood. In fact, several creationary organizations organize tours and explain how the evidence supports the Flood. Instead of shying away, they get intense and some even go rafting.

Credit: Pixabay / Bettina Nørgaard

As creationists have said many times, everyone has the same facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that bring on the science shootouts. Those interpretations are based on worldviews. Secularists demand deep time so Darwin can perform his prestidigitation, and have a bad habit of ignoring evidence that supports the Genesis Flood.

See those layers that the woman is seeing out yonder? Those layers are all over the world, but they're not always nice and level. Some are at an angle. The standard explanation is that they were laid down gradually over millions of years (uniformitarianism). However, the explanations often fall short and only look good on paper. Layers are not always horizontal, and experiments show that they also form sideways in rapid currents! Let's take a look at a creation science point of view that utilizes the evidence.

Sedimentologist Guy Berthault was one of a team who made an important discovery regarding how the world’s sedimentary layers were deposited. These geological strata are clearly-defined beds of sedimentary rock that often have the appearance of bands or stripes of alternating or repeating layers. Most people have noticed them in cliffs, where they are often seen in side view. Grand Canyon comes to mind, where bold horizontal layering in the sides of the canyon is a major visual feature.

Geologists once thought that all such layers formed upwards. This conventional view of layer formation was one of the three principles of stratigraphy identified by creationist geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno (1638–1686). However, today the typical way this is explained is that sand, silt, and clay settled to the bottom of a placid lake or sea, and accumulated over eons of time. Eventually, a significant layer of sediment formed, which slowly hardened into rock. Then, a new layer of sediment started to deposit on top of the first, and so on.

To finish reading, click on "Geological strata: they’re everywhere".




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

I Sing the Body Excellent

A persistent purveyor of evoporn named Nathan Lents wrote a book to continue the oft-refuted untruth that the human body is poorly designed. An article derived from his book was syndicated in several newspapers, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© gibbered with glee. It also caused some irritation to creationists, since we have to explain why this otherwise well-informed individual is saying things that are not true. They also defy common sense; for being "poorly designed", our bodies do quite well. Notice that they ignore material that they cannot explain away, such as "Humans: Better Designed and Capable than Darwinism Can Explain". People are willing to confiscate excuses to deny God, so they pay people like Lents to provide them. I lack belief that he is being truthful.

Credit: Unsplash / Kristopher Roller

Whenever you come across an argument from dysteleology (if there's a Creator, he fouled up), it smacks of personal preference, ignorant statements, and silly speculations. For example, C. Richard Dawkins insists that the human eye was wired wrong, but someone with actual knowledge of the biology involved shows that the Master Engineer knew exactly what he was doing. It seems to me that there is no small amount of arrogance in these "bad design" falsehoods. Let's see you build a better human all by your lonesome, old son.

Now we have two articles taking on the Lents disinformation. The first one is by Dr. Jerry Bergman, a prolific author with many degrees is medical and biology-related fields. In fact, he is working on a book that repudiates the flawed design claims. To see it, click on "Is the Human Body Poorly Designed?" Second, we have "Is the human body badly designed? Refuting Human Errors: A Panorama of our Glitches by Nathan Lents". These two articles should reassure people that the human body is amazingly designed, despite the rantings of folks making money from promoting both hatred of God and ignorance of reality.





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

Evolution and the New Age

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Back in the 1960s, the "Age of Aquarius" was supposedly dawning, and everything would be peace, love, and grooviness, man. People were investigating Eastern spiritualism, using recreational drugs, having casual sex, rebelling against "the establishment", and more. In later years, these attitudes, beliefs, and actions were somewhat unified under what became called the New Age. (Ironically, those who rebelled against the establishment have become the establishment themselves, but never mind about that now.) There is still an undercurrent in many New Age philosophies that include Eastern mysticism.

You may get a blank stare if you use the term New Age. It is less popular now, and some people prefer to call it new spirituality, but it is still the same. What practitioners do not realize is that there is not much "new" happening, it is actually a conglomeration of repackaged very old religious views. Some of the trimmings seem new. I don't rightly recollect an emphasis on meditation on crystals and minerals years ago, and I think that's fading away, as are some of the other fads.

The whole shootin' match is very loosely knit, and beliefs are buffet-style. Have a bit of meditation, smoke marijuana (which is far more THC now than in the flower child days) and use LSD for altered consciousness, Theosophy, reincarnation, quantum physics, UFOs, and maybe a dash of non-biblical Jesus on top for color, and more. People can add or remove beliefs like they do with browser extensions, and have no feelings of guilt. Some folks bypass the Westernized forms, and ride directly into the Eastern religions. If you study on it and look at the state of many Eastern countries, you can see that those religions do not give much benefit to those countries, so it's mighty foolish to import their "spirituality", wouldn't you think?

Some things may be considered or even labeled as New Age, but that is often through merchandising or misnaming. As I write this, I am listening to some quiet background music that is classified as New Age. (Some artists object to that classification, they just want to make their music.) I'm not into ocean sounds and whale songs, though. I'll allow that this music is often conducive to Yoga and meditation (but not always by any means), so New Agers snap it up for their purposes.

A dominant theme in New Age beliefs is relativism, which is the idea that there is no ultimate truth. (Presuppositional apologists can trip these people up when they say that all truths are equal, your truth and my truth. We tell them that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and they get all het up because their worldview is self-refuting.) This relativism is an extension of postmodernism.


Unfortunately, I have to saddle you with another specialized word: monism. That gets into some deep philosophy (the link will explain it for you), but basically, New Age things are pantheistic, or variations on it. Evolutionism fits in well with New Age philosophies, because it is actually an ancient pagan religion that goes back to the ancient Greeks and Hindus. Indeed, some owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand are incorporating animism into evolution and giving it the power to make decisions.

UFOs became a part of the New Age movement decades ago, but it became far more religious in intervening years. There are some downright nutty religions that mix UFOs and other New Age beliefs. Ever meet a space alien? (Don't laugh, many people sincerely believe they have done so, not realizing that they are demonic entities.) They tell people that they came from far away, maybe even "Ascended Masters", and are more highly evolved. Those nice fellas want us to leave behind the God of the Bible, and maybe replace the real Jesus with their version. Not this child! For more about UFOs, you may want to read "Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception Video Review".

Atheists, leftists, New Agers, evolutionists shun logical thinking, although some claim to utilize it. Yes, the do: they corrupt reason for their own deceptive purposes. Catching logical fallacies is not difficult (see these links), nor is simply asking someone to give evidence for their assertions — this frequently causes rage. Keeping people on topic often puts a burr under respective saddles as well.

Evolution is a cornerstone of many false religions, including atheism, liberal Christianity, UFOs, New Age, and others. Just keep an eye out and you'll see what I mean. Do not be deceived! All of these seek to deny the God of the Bible and denigrate Jesus Christ, our Creator and Redeemer. I'd like to recommend a book chapter that is available online, "The New Age Movement (Pantheism and Monism)". It will take some time, but I think you'll find it helpful. For additional reading, although I linked to it earlier, another chapter in the series is about postmodernism.

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

Chimp Genome Research Supports Creationists

The hands at the Darwin Ranch do not like to play with the hand they were dealt, so they stack the deck. Evolutionists did bad science with the chimpanzee genome so they could propagate the "humans are 98.5 percent  similar to chimps" falsehood. To do this, they used their limited knowledge of genetics (a field which is still growing rapidly) and did some dirty science by selecting data that would confirm their biases, stitched the chimpanzee genome together, and even had samples contaminated by human DNA. Then Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ grabbed the sanitized false report and swooped all over, claiming that Darwin was right. But they're wrong.

Credit: RGBStock / Savvas Stavrinos

Creationists have been saying all along that even if that genome similarity number was true, there are still massive dissimilarities between apes and humans, genetics notwithstanding. The small number of genetic difference between humans is apparent in the variations between people if you take a stroll down a city sidewalk. Creationists have pointed out that the science promoting genomic similarities is lacking, and Dr. Tompkins did his own research to show that the original findings were inaccurate at best, and the similarity is actually much smaller. 

Secular scientists are well heeled, having our tax dollars at their disposal so they can promote evolution and materialism. Perhaps the reason new genetic research was conducted in the first place is because creationists did the heavy lifting for them. Resources for creationists are far more limited, but that does not stop them from using what is available, using their God-given minds, and presenting the facts. The truth is on our side. Yippie ky yay, evolutonists! 

The more DNA sequencing technologies improve, the worse it gets for the evolutionary paradigm. Such is the case with the newest version of the chimpanzee genome.

Since evolutionists speculate that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor about three to six million years ago, their theory requires a human-chimp DNA similarity of 98 to 99%. The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.

To read the rest, click on "New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research".


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