Human Fossil Remains in Australia Thwart Evolutionists

We recently examined a prairie schooner-full of articles introduced in two posts (beginning with this one) that demonstrated how the hands at the Darwin Ranch were busy rewriting their conflicting versions of human origins. Rusty Swingset, the foreman, got frustrated and went bowling. H. erectus fossil remains have paleoanthropologists trying to salvage or work around the Out of Africa (OoA) and Multiregional models.

Credit: Flickr / Ryan Somma (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Essentially, Homo erectus was used in the idea that humans evolved in Africa and then saddled up to ride for other parts of the globe. The OoA model has had supporters and detractors slapping leather with each other for quite a spell, and several other models have been proposed to evosplain the data: those skulls in 'Straya don't belong there because evolution. Genetic research makes them worse for evolutionists. These finds are fine with biblical creationists, but there is some disagreement in their ranks regarding their development post-Flood. Examination of the remains have been complicated by cultural claims by Australian Aborigines and by local politics.

Robust human fossil remains have been found in Australia, at sites like Kow Swamp and the Willandra Lakes region. Their identity in relation to specimens of Homo erectus, and their role in human ancestry, has been a controversial one. This issue will be addressed in this article, as well as models of modern human origin that attempt to explain the robusticity seen in early Australians. Also touched on is the politics that has seemingly paralyzed much of Australian paleoanthropology for decades. The Out of Africa and Multiregional evolutionary theories of modern human origins are considered, as well as an explanation based on biblical events.

To read the rest of this robust article (it is not short or easy), click on "Paleoanthropology in Australia—Homo erectus and modern human origins".

Puzzing Polaris and Stellar Evolution

Many of us in the Northern Hemisphere began stargazing by finding the Big Dipper (or Plough) and using the stars as pointers, and the two on the end of the "bowl" would point to Polaris, the North Star. This was also the beginning of the Little Dipper's handle. While Polaris seems fixed in the sky, it is not that way in the long run.

Credit: Flickr / DSS / Giuseppe Donatiello (public domain)

At one time, the North Star was Thuban, but that changed because of the precession of the Earth. Ever spin a toy top? It wobbles, and if you could have a laser pointer attached to the top, you might see it draw circles on the ceiling. The same thing happens with the earth, but since it is much larger, the precession takes a mighty long time and would take about 26,000 years to complete one cycle.

Polaris is also a Cepheid variable, a kind of star that changes its intensity. (The name came from a star in the constellation Cepheus, which was the first of this kind of variable to be identified.) Astronomers use them in their calculations of stellar distances. Polaris is puzzling because its rate of change does not fit stellar evolution models. I reckon it's also a mite annoying because it's so bright, it's hard to get a fix on it. Mayhaps if secularists admitted that the universe was created much more recently than they dream of in their philosophies, they'd have fewer difficulties.

The north celestial pole is a projection of the earth’s rotation axis onto the sky. Polaris lies within ¾ of a degree of the north celestial pole, so to the naked eye Polaris appears to remain fixed. However, a telescope will reveal that Polaris goes through a tiny circle each sidereal day (a sidereal day is about four minutes shorter than a solar day). This is why we call Polaris the North Star—its location so close to the north celestial pole fixes its position within ¾ degree of true north above the horizon.

To read the entire article, click on "Polaris: A Brief History of the Current North Star".

Embracing the Venom

It is a strange twist to think that something that can kill you may also save you or alleviate your suffering. American states that have the death penalty by lethal injection are being asked to furnish those drugs for use in COVID-19 Coronavirus patients. In a similar way, venomous creatures can help us.

Cottonmouth snake image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Chinmay7 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

If you take a stroll and get yourself bitten by a timber rattler, you'll probably need some antivenom right quick. Where do medical personnel get antivenom to treat snake bites, scorpion stings, and other dangerous poisons? From the critters that cause the problem in the first place! This article on antivenom is very interesting.

Folks have used venoms for a variety of applications for millennia, and people nowadays are getting more interested in natural remedies and treatments in place of built-from-the-ground-up chemistry. Applications are being developed for cancer treatments, pain relief and more using things that could kill us when administered by a snake or something that is on the prod.

Remember, when God created the world, everything was very good. Creationists have some speculations on what changed when, and most agree that this happened at the Fall of Man back in Genesis. Some consider the possibility that our Creator "front-loaded" creatures with the provisions for predation and defense to be active after the Fall. Also, it has been noted that some venoms were not originally lethal, but had other functions, including digestion. Meanwhile, evolutionists are left without plausible explanations or models.

Researchers are looking into possible cures for pain, diabetes and cancer in natural toxins.

Folk medicine has used the bites and stings of nasty animals for centuries. Science is just catching up with that. For too long, pharmacy companies have thought they had to design healing molecules from scratch. But in a News Feature in PNAS, Amy McDermott writes, “Venom [is] back in vogue as a wellspring for drug candidates.” After telling a remarkable story of cancer treatment using scorpion venom at Children’s Hospital in Seattle, McDermott backs into her theme: there is a natural pharmacy store out in the world.

You can sink your teeth into the rest of the article by clicking on "Venom for Good". For further examples, take a look at "Painkillers from Poisons". The video below is also fascinating.

Misrepresenting Christians on Childbirth Pain Relief

Since the religion of atheism is irrational and incoherent, atheists have a natural proclivity to misrepresent Christian and creationist beliefs. If they were as interested in reason as they claim, they would not be so all fired up to malign their Creator. This helps illustrate the fact that their hatred of God, the Bible, Christians, and creationists is not based on logic, but is a spiritual matter. Take for example the fake news that James Simpson opposed pain relief during Childbirth.

Mostly made at Add Letters

Quite often, atheists will go to atheist clearinghouses for unoriginal spurious thoughts that support their preconceptions. These use circular reasoning from false authorities for ideas like Christianity being copied from pagan religions, generalizing when oligophrenic professing Christians refuse medical care based on "faith" that all Christians are this way, the so-called war between science and faith, Galileo persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, and more. This is simply atheopathic propaganda and bigotry.

James Simpson developed anesthesia for women giving birth, and "sources" that have been cited by misotheists claim that Christians were quirting Simpson because women were supposed to suffer because of Genesis 3:16. By extension, that would mean anyone who gives pain relief or helps heal a patient is defying God's will. They tend to forget about the healings done in the Bible! One thing that Simpson had in common with Galileo is they both went against the scientific establishments of their day. However, it was reasonable to question the validity of Dr. Simpson's method on medical grounds. To resist it after it had been proven, however, would have been ridiculous.

There are a number of myths that atheopaths invoke to justify their hatred of Christianity. Many involve alleged bad things done by the Church (whether or not they are consistent with Christ’s teachings), and in particular, Church opposition to scientific advances.

One is that the Church opposed using anesthesia to alleviate childbirth pain. The use of anaesthesia was pioneered by Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), who had a strong record of care for women. For example, like Ignaz Semmelweis, he insisted that doctors washed their hands thoroughly to prevent spread of infection.

However, some today try to argue there was widespread opposition to Simpson based on Genesis 3:16, “To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.” Supposedly pain relief was opposing God’s command. One modern writer falsely claimed:

You can read the rest by clicking on "Did Christians oppose James Simpson on childbirth pain relief?"

Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 2

In Part 1, we saw that proponents of evolution have a mess, and they are constantly needing to rewrite human evolution because the facts do not fit the narrative. As we continue, we see that other scientific disciplines are also recalcitrant to evolutionary ideas.

Background image: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Radiometric dates assigned to Neanderthal remains conflict with archaeological finds, and the radiometric dating methods used are based on circular reasoning. In addition, these dates were disingenuously adjusted to fit what scientists wanted — especially when they were more compatible with biblical timelines. The archaeologists discovered that the Neanderthals engaged in the same kinds of activities that modern humans would enjoy.

A recent report in the journal Science mixed detailed archaeological finds with stories about human origins. As is typical, age assignments for fossils fit evolutionary time instead of the Bible’s much shorter timeline of thousands, not millions, of years. But the age-dating exercises revealed more about what these scientists believe about the past than what the rocks and fossils themselves reveal.

A cave on the Portugal coast has Neanderthal human remains. A University of Göttingen press release says that archaeologists found these ancient cave-living humans ate “mussels, crustaceans and fish as well as waterfowl and marine mammals such as dolphins and seals.” Neanderthals went fishing?

You can read the rest of this first (of two) installments by clicking on "Mishandled Data Determine New Hominid Ages". Be sure to come back for the final article, below.

After seeing examples of bad logic and tampering with data, we now take a quick look at DNA. There are numerous examples that Neanderthals were fully human, a fact that most evolutionists admit. Those folks were happy about sharing their DNA with modern humans, and it is likely that everyone has some amount of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. But ancient humans were globetrotting much earlier than Darwin's disciples want to believe, but this is not a problem with biblical creation.

Neanderthals are classified by evolutionists as archaic humans given that both their DNA and bones are essentially human. Yet, new stories constantly hit the headlines with the supposedly shocking news that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals were found to have interbred once again. Recently, another such story appeared in the journal Genetics. Why is this type of news so exciting, yet also so confusing to evolutionists?

To wrap up this series and read that last short article, click on "Neanderthal DNA Muddles Evolutionary Story".

Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 1

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution have contrived a number of stories to convince the world (and themselves) that we evolved through trial and error, vast amounts of time, survival of the fittest. Our putative ancestors were critters that looked a great deal like monkeys and apes. However, their stories have many problems, so they are constantly changing.

Background image: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Public indoctrination centers (commonly known as schools, but more accurately as branches of the Ministry of Truth) do a good job in presenting varnished tales of tails and origins, but they do not seem to teach students how to think critically. Instead, they lasso the evoporn and believe it, even when facts disputed or rejected by evolutionists. Somehow this gives them license to ridicule, as if such actions prove that they are right; note that logic doesn't seem to be stressed by the evolutionary Ministry of Truth, either, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ gibber at biblical creationists with bad information while thinking that we are the uninformed ones.

Mocking a "meme" and ignoring the accompanying content
Image used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: After I linked to this post in a comment on that Page, the owner hid it from public view.

One of the main concepts is Out of Africa. This is evosplained as hominids evolved down Africa way, then humans emerged and took off to settle down in assorted places on the earth. Problems with this idea were found, but the narrative was more important than the facts — a common problem with the evolutionists. Emphasizing naturalism and utilizing a passel of logical fallacies, fake science continues. Evolutionary history is rewritten again and again. They wouldn't have these problems if they were intellectually honest enough to admit that their epistemology is fundamentally flawed.

You may be thinking that we have two articles today. Actually, it's three, and two more tomorrow. Let's saddle up!

“New fossils, tools and analyses of genomes have thrown everything in disarray,” announced author Graham Lawton in the cover story in the latest issue of the British science magazine New Scientist. Once again, the latest rewrite of human evolution announces that we should forget all we once knew, because a “huge array of fossils and genome studies has completely rewritten the story of how we came into being,” yet again. It’s about the fourth time this has happened in the past year or so, I might add. Why does this keep happening? The story of human evolution is, as Mark Twain said a century ago, based on a few bone fragments and several buckets of plaster.

Having just completed the most detailed book-length review ever done by objective PhD outsiders of the peer-reviewed evidence for human evolution with my colleagues, I can say with confidence that Mark Twain’s sentiment over a century ago was correct. I could add the theory of human evolution is now based on more than a few bone fragments, but it is also based on even more just-so stories, as well as requiring a lot more faith than Mark Twain had.

To read the rest of this first article, click on "The Latest Rewriting of Human Evolution". The next article, below, reinforces this first one.

Evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists get their hands on a few bones and use them to spin a yarn. (Sometimes the hands at the Darwin Ranch have someone squat down behind a big cardboard box and use bones to tell a weird puppet show.) They use circular reasoning and even contradict themselves in their efforts do deny the truth that we were created, not evolved.

When you try to force fossils and artifacts into an evolutionary timeline, the anomalies outnumber the confirmations.

In recent news about early humans, statements often express surprise and falsification of earlier notions. Humans at all stages of Homo traveled farther and showed intelligence greater than expected for upwardly-mobile apes.

You can finish reading this article by clicking on "Early Man Science Is a Confused Muddle". The last article for today expands on the Out of Africa model.

Using tendentious deep-time dating methods, evolutionists are unable to come up with a coherent timeline to make the OoAM work. Instead, they rustle up some rescuing devices that are ineffective because they are still contradicted by observed evidence and their own established dates. Their stories are simply comfortable speculations and not based on actual evidence.

Most visitors to the American Museum of Natural History look in awe at the allegedly pre-human ‘apemen’ (a.k.a. ‘hominins’ or ‘hominids’), including those in the ‘Our Family Tree’ display (fig. 1). Using skull casts, it illustrates the claimed evolutionary relationship between them—clearly meant as a kind of knockout punch to anyone still daring to doubt that man is no more than a highly-evolved ape.
. . .
Interpretations and ‘dates’ of fossil skulls are in turmoil, too; notions once proclaimed as near-certain are often later discarded. Others keep accumulating difficulties and are repeatedly ‘patched up’, seemingly awaiting the time when alternative ideas will permit their abandonment. This includes the leading ‘African’ model of human evolution.

To read the full article (which includes some serious problems for arch-compromiser Hugh Ross) and conclude today's series, click on "‘Out of Africa’ on the ropes — The favoured story of evolution is now struggling". Don't forget to see "Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 2".

Save the Planet by Killing Humans?

Updated and addendum added 4-23-2020. 

It should not be surprising to learn that Earth Day is on the birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), since good ideas about taking care of the environment are a masque for more sinister purposes. Environmental extremists hold to old Earth and evolutionary views. I didn't realize it was the 50th Earth Day anniversary until it was happening.

Credit: Pixabay / Čeština

Atheists and leftists (Lenin was both) will manufacture a false crisis or exploit a real one. For example, they have been saddling up and riding with the Darwinists to manipulate facts and emotions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. 

To enact Draconian controls over the sheeple and institute Marxism, some falsely claim that Earth is overpopulated and that such growth is unsustainable. Such views often come from the ridiculous assertions of Paul Ehrlich who based his views on Malthus. Of course, Marx approved of Charles Darwin, and neither believed that people are created separately by God from the animals.

In a confused Malthusian polemic, Dr. John Reid (not to be confused with this Dr. John Reid) wanted to eliminate large numbers of the population, discard religion, use Marxist principles, and more. Play God and decide who is worth keeping alive — but not those old people who have served their purpose. I recommend the book Taking Up Space which is even more prescient today than when it was written, see my review here. 

People who watch the fourth season of the second MacGyver series know about File 47. It is a blueprint to destroy millions of people through engineered natural disasters and such, and the episodes about this are startlingly relevant today. For that matter, so is the article from 2007 (linked below). Be aware, though, that there is some hyperbole used for emphasis.

Who says ideas do not have consequences? Ideas are not just neutral, ethereal concepts with no bearing on life. Quite the contrary. Bad ideas have bad consequences. And good ideas have good consequences.

One very bad idea which leads to some very nasty consequences is materialistic reductionism. This is the idea that only matter matters. It is a severely reductionist way of looking at reality, and is the basis of many harmful worldviews, such as Marxism.

A good example of the ugly consequences of lousy ideas came out in an ABC (Australia) Radio National program last December. The December 10 [2006] Ockham’s Razor, hosted by the antitheist Robyn Williams, featured a talk by Melbourne neuroscientist Dr John Reid.

To finish reading, click on "Melbourne atheist: the exterminator — Chillingly consistent application of evolution". 

I'm going to put this ADDENDUM (well, sorta) right here. After this post went up, I heard Dr. Albert Mohler's episode of The Briefing for Earth Day. (Strange that he didn't mention Lenin, though.) 

Part I — Today Is the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day: So, What’s That Really About?

Part II — How Should Christians Think about the Earth and the Environment? Dominion and Stewardship in the Biblical Worldview

Part III — A New Religion for Secularists? The Modern Ecological Movement Reveals a Theological Substructure

It is excellent, and I'd be much obliged if you'd read, download, or listen online. To do that, click on "Wednesday, April 22, 2020".

Also, I think you would be interested in "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans" and "Deluded Guardians of the Planet".

Another New Pterosaur Discovery

Pterosaurs have been interesting additions to movies about dinosaurs and such, and most of us probably can picture the winged reptiles. What may be less known is that there were many types. Big ones, little ones, many teeth, no teeth — in many parts of the world. Now paleontologists have added another one.

Credit: Modified from an image at Wikimedia Commons by Antonio R. Mihaila (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are so excited about this, they are going to add it to the festivities when they dance around the maypole. But they still don't know where to place it on the failed evolutionary tree, and have no evidence of its evolution. We may be tempted to say, "Big deal, another flying reptile". Well, it is a discovery, and we can expect additional news about recent pterosaur fossils because some are very well preserved and have soft tissues. That is always bad news for proponents of deep time because these critters were created far more recently than they believe.

Pterosaurs were amazing flying reptiles that came in all shapes and sizes. Not surprisingly, when these bizarre creatures are found in the fossil record they are 100% flying reptiles. Some achieve the size of a fighter jet, such as Quetzalcoatlus discovered in Texas or Hatzegopteryx in Romania. Paleobiologists have recently discovered a new pterosaur (Afrotapejara zouhrii) in Africa belonging to a group called the tapejarids that were small to medium-sized toothless pterosaurs.

To see what the flap is about, wing on over to the short article, "New Pterosaur Discovered".

Atheists Presupposing Naturalism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Atheists and most evolutionists presuppose the philosophy of naturalism in their approaches to evidence. Their worldview demands it since they reject anything that indicates intelligent design — or worse to them, the God of the Bible. As we have seen, the commitment of Darwin's acolytes to naturalism is more important to them than properly interpreting evidence.

The Three Philosophers by Giorgio Barbarelli da Castelfranco, 1509

Atheists consider themselves messengers of reason, and you will frequently find them online touting their wisdom and intelligence because they reject God. However, our Creator does not have a passel of respect for their alleged wisdom (Rom. 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1, Prov. 1:8, 1 Cor. 1:19-21). It is amazing how they seek their identities in slapping leather with the God they claim does not exist.

Arbitrary

In The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle discusses a kind of checklist that he calls AIP. The A is for arbitrariness. Dr Lisle states,

In logical reasoning, no one is permitted to be arbitrary. That is, we cannot simply assert a claim that has no reason behind it and expect others to accept that claim. Our beliefs must have justification. Rational debate would be impossible if the two opponents decided they didn’t need to give a reason for their position. If each person simply assumed what he was trying to prove, then there would be no point in arguing. Yet many evolutionists believe a number of things with no logical reason at all. It is unfair (and irrational) for an evolutionist to ask a creationist to provide a reason for his position, if the evolutionist himself is unwilling or unable to do the same thing. Such arbitrariness must be exposed as a fatal flaw in non-biblical worldviews.*

Atheists use loaded terminology to describe themselves as rational, "brights", freethinkers, and so on. Somehow, they are "better" and "smarter" than Christians (especially biblical creationists) or theists in general by the simple question-begging assertion that they are smarter; they claim that we do not use reason because we believe the Bible. That kind of foolish assertion has been refuted here and in many other places repeatedly.

Indeed, it is not uncommon for Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ and Satan's Handmaidens to patrol the internet, seeking Christians, creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design to harass. If you pay attention, they frequently make arbitrary assertions (many of which are outdated or utterly false from the get-go). Sometimes we correct them on their own mythology. 

Well, these supposed lovers of reason appeal to science and empirical facts for the most part, and often stack the deck as to which kind of evidence are acceptable. When given a response, they like to move the goalposts and say the answers were not up to their tendentious standards. Atheists and evolutionists may claim to "follow where the evidence leads", but only as long as it is compatible with naturalism and materialism. What is ironic is that by boxing in their thinking, they are unable to reach logical and valid conclusions.

One of the atheopathic Pages on Fazebook like to share posts from Christians and creationists so they can mock us. (Ironically, by sharing the posts, they are indirectly spreading the gospel message.) The owner prefers to remain anonymous, possibly because the poor logic (especially straw man arguments) of the Page's denizens is exposed and they seldom have answers above the level of ad hominems, ridicule, more straw man arguments, and purulent rhetoric. Intelligent discourse is not their strong suit (Prov 18:2). Let's take a look at a comment from a thread on that Page.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

On Good Friday in 2020, I posted a link to a video at The Question Evolution Project on miracles at the crucifixion of Jesus. The derision included arbitrary assertions based on naturalism, which in turn rejects miracles. They were averse to considering any evidence. I even linked to a video that answered some of the atheist's questions (and more). Why should they read material or watch videos? After all, we should be aware of their wondrous powers — they don't need to examine the evidence because atheism (Prov. 18:13). Don't you know who they are?

Sarcasm aside for now, atheists and evolutionists use ridicule as a knee-jerk reaction. They are fond of the hit-and-run use of laughing emoticons. It seems that in their minds, fleering gives them the superior intellectual and moral positions. This is coming from a naturalistic worldview as well as hatred of God and his people. The specific comment to consider it, "Ridiculous statements require ridicule".

A good question to ask is, "What logical or empirical process brought him to that conclusion?" This illustrates the arbitrary and self-serving nature of that comment. The question I used here can be modified and used for other assertions as well.

What is worse in this case can be found in two parts. First, "ridiculous statements". By what standard? Because he is an atheist with a materialistic worldview, people like him are intellectually superior? Not hardly! Calling something of this nature seems like a personal preference and a childish attitude of, "My worldview can beat up your worldview!" The other significant word is deserve. Who appointed him (or other atheists) the judge, jury, and executioner? Such things are driven by arrogance, not logic.

Inconsistency and Preconditions

The letter I is for inconsistency. For example, the laws of logic are not material things, so for a naturalist to appeal to logic or utilize mathematics, he or she is being inconsistent — logic and math are not material things. The letter P is for preconditions of intelligibility. Everything make sense in the biblical creationist worldview, but atheism and evolutionism cannot account for, and be consistent, by using immaterial concepts. They are actually admitting that their worldview is fundamentally flawed, and they are standing on our worldview. See "Logic and the Bible" for more, and see the follow-up linked at the end of that article.

Internal Worldview Critique

One thing that atheists hate about presuppositional apologists is that we try to show them the inconsistencies in their worldview, and how they fail to uphold reason and logic. I just showed you some of that by pointing out the fallacies and asking questions. Recently, Clinton Richard Dawkins made an absurd attack on God's existence by saying that after President Trump called for a national day of prayer to deal with COVID-19, the death toll went up. That straw man argument was arrogant and exceptionally ignorant. Helpful hint for anyone: if you're going to try to show how someone is wrong, at least understand the subject you are claiming to refute.

Those of us who engage with atheists and evolutionists, you will see that they cannot give a cogent response. Abuse, distraction, straw man, prejudicial conjecture, other fallacies are utlizied, but keep them on topic and see what happens. (Use your discernment to see if there is intellectual honesty and someone is spiritually seeking behind the bluster, or if you are being baited into wasting your time.) One atheist railed to Creation Ministries International with a list of reasons he denies God. Part of this seemed to be based on emotions and ignorance, and like most atheists and anti-creationists, he did not do his homework. He received a response anyway, which you can see at "Duplicity in the Bible?" 

Like other biblical creationists, I am not opposed to honest questions. Most knowledgeable biblical creationists know the subject and are aware that resources are available. But angry atheists who are attempting to justify their rebellion against God? I don't have time for that negativity. They need to humble themselves and repent before the God they know exists (Rom. 1:18-23).

* Third printing, February 2010, Master Books, Chapter 5, Page 92 according to my Kindle.

The Young Earth and Swimming in the Sahara

Have you ever wondered why the ancient Egyptians chose an arid, sandy place to live?

"This here's the spot!"

"What? Where? We're standing in sand, and it's hot enough to boil a monkey's brain. Kind of arid, ain't it?"

"It's good for my sinuses. Let's commence to building us a civilization".

As you well know, that didn't happen. In a like manner, if you read your Bible, you'll see that the Promised Land is frequently referred to as "flowing with milk and honey" such as in Numbers 13:27. (Not literally, of course. It was an expression to say that it was a fabulous place.) People wanted to take it away from the Israelites for a long time, partly because it was a nice place and also because they hated God's people.

This painting in the Cave of Swimmers is located in the Libyan Desert area of the Sahara
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Roland Unger (CC by-SA 3.0)

It may come as a shock, but the Sahara was not always a desert. It was populated, had people fishing in the lakes, and more. The wet Sahara has been known for a spell, but recent discoveries make the picture more impressive. This all fits with the biblical creation models of climate after the Ice Age.

Wim Van Neer of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and his colleagues recently catalogued numerous fossilized aquatic animals found in today’s Sahara Desert. The excavations were from the Takarkori rock shelter in southwest Libya in sediment layers claimed to be 4,650 to 10,200 years old. Many of the animal bones showed clear evidence of cut marks from human activity.

To read the article in its entirety, click on "Ancient Sahara Was Wetter Than Expected". You may also find "Climate Models and the Wet Sahara" useful.

Opossums are not Particular

Marsupials are plentiful in Australia and other areas, but if you take a notion to find one in North America, your choices are limited. Just one, the opossum. They cause arguments among evolutionists regarding their origin and dispersal and they are examples of the Master Engineer's planning.

Credit: Flickr / Andy Reago & Chrissy McClarren (CC by 2.0)

If you've been in these parts, you've seen them. Sometimes rooting through the garbage, living under the utility shed, up a tree hanging by the tail, and so on. The Virginia opossum species is known for its ability to reproduce frequently. (Despite the hillbilly stories, they are not considered good chow.) Opossums are opportunists when it comes to living quarters and what to eat — in fact, they are indirectly beneficial for our health by eating passels of ticks that carry Lyme disease. Don't expect to find a 'possum coat next to the mink, though, because it only looks good on the critter it was designed for. If you get too close, they might hiss and show their teeth. Some like to bite.

What creature has a kangaroo pouch, a monkey tail, and a rat’s snout yet lives—mostly unseen—in America’s backyards? A true American success story, the Virginia opossum has flourished in our cities, while urban sprawl has decimated most other wild animals. The key to its success is a few simple, God-given strategies for survival. Don’t be picky. Don’t be tasty or beautiful. When in danger, pretend you’re dead. Raise lots of young.

For the rest of this fun overview (or download the audio), click on "The Opossum—Survival of the Generalist".

Mutations and Adding Information

Something that Papa Darwin did not foresee was that mutations would be utilized to save his failing story of evolution, since natural selection did not cause the changes that he claimed. It has long been said by creationists (including this child) that mutations do not add information to the genome. That statement is insufficient.

Credit: Pixabay / Vicki Nunn

Some folks only know about mutations from stories, so if there is a radiation leak or a critter is mutated, it becomes something clunky or an improved human with great powers. Maybe even with the ability to shoot power bolts from the eyes. In fact, mutations are not quick. They take a mighty long time to accumulate, and they seldom help the organism.

When creationists say that mutations do not add information, several things are at play here. One of the most important parts is vocabulary. What do you mean, information? It is intangible and can be difficult to define. The word evolution needs to be carefully defined. Also, what does it mean to add information? Genetic information can be shuffled, cut, spliced, diced, and other information can be added in, but it is usually harmful. More specifically, though, mutations do not add useful information that would lead to Darwinian evolution.

Russell F. wrote to us with a question of whether mutations ever add genetic information. He is involved in street evangelism and is looking for an accurate and concise summary of the topic.

CMI’s Joel Tay explains,

Usually, I quote the inquiry, but this one is rather long. I hope you will read that, the explanation, and follow the links to the related articles that help pull the explanation and everything together. Ready? Great, you can saddle up and ride on over to "Do mutations add information? Is that Evolution?"

An Abundance of Dubious Models

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Models and simulations are important in many areas related to science, but they are only as good as the information that are utilized. Regular readers have seen many posts with links to articles discussing faulty models (including yesterday's "Increasing Dark Matter Desperation") using mathematics and various scenarios.

Credit: Freeimages / Sanja Gjenero

No researcher is completely unbiased and objective. They operate from their worldviews, presuppositions, and agendas. Many times, important data are ignored or even suppressed, which frequently happens with global climate change models. Michael Mann used a fraudulent "hockey stick" graph to support global warming. Indeed, environmentalists are driven by their emotions and agendas, with predictions that have failed many times over the years, often suppressing pertinent information and indulging in fake science (see "Climate Change Alarmism vs God" and "Deluded Guardians of the Planet"). Both evolutionists and environmental extremists are often guilty of tampering with data.

When dealing with the COVID-19 crisis, many models have been produced. Healthcare officials in governments around the world went into action with the data they had. Projections of extremely high death rates frightened many people, and COVID-19 is very contagious — but it is not nearly as lethal as other diseases. The survival rate is very high, but it is a long road to full recovery. The virus began in Wuhan, China, but the ChiComs gave false information that would have saved many lives. People depend on the World Health Organization for serious and accurate information, but details are coming to light that WHO may be complicit with China.

At the end of January, COVID-19 was considered no big deal, and people like New York City mayor Bill De Blasio, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Peolsi were urging people to get into crowded places in February and March. Warnings had been given but these politicians made things worse for people.

Many sources of information prompt us to question the validity of the models, but we tend to laugh off absurd studies such as flatulence spreading COVID-19 or conspiracy theories such as a link between the pandemic and 5G networks. The established guideline for social distancing is six feet (about two meters) from other people. A study that is largely ignored (and would be extremely impractical) is that 27 feet is the safe distance. Tests for the virus — at least initially — have been unreliable. These factors add to the fear and confusion. For that matter, social distancing and even self-quarantining seem to be helpful, but for people to congratulate themselves on their actions does not take into account all of the information; other factors are involved beyond personal space.

By the way, one big question for many people is why everyone is being restricted. Back in Bible times, people with contagious conditions were isolated, not everyone else. When the Apollo astronauts came back from the moon, they were quarantined for fear of space bugs or something. Why aren't we isolating the sick people instead of riding herd on the general populace?

This Coronavirus is aptly called novel, and scientists as well as the public are learning how to cope and deal with the situations. While they are learning, restraint would be in order. Health scientists like to do health scientist stuff and make projections, but they went with extreme worst-case scenarios at full gallop a mite too soon. We cannot fault them for not dealing with the economic impact and human factors, but like evolutionary scientists who see worm burrow fossils and claim to have evidence of our most ancient ancestor, they were too hasty. Projections on the death toll have been revised downward several times, and emergency field hospitals such as this one are being taken down because they are not needed.

Much of the data are skewed. If someone has the Coronavirus at death, it is different that someone who died solely because of the virus. Dr. Deborah Birx tells us that reports are "liberal", so the virus is not necessarily the cause of death, but only getting credit for the kill when there are other conditions. Accounts that medical professionals are assuming COVID-19 and putting the diagnosis code on the forms without testing the patient are surfacing. People have questions that are going unanswered right now.

Some of the cable news networks are showing a death counter almost like covering COVID-19 is a game show. In a way, it is to them because they are leftists and want the President to look bad. But experts have to do something with models and they need information to work with. Unfortunately, more information is muddying the waters retroactively because there is some suspicion that the virus had made landfall in the United States in December 2019. It is possible that people had the virus but did not even know it because they were asymptomatic. Others were sick and recovered. My wife suspects that she had the virus here in New York in January or February. Perhaps I am asymptomatic. Now, how do we get tested at this late date?

Parody of the atheist bus campaign sign (click for larger)
Original Image: Wikimedia Commons / Dan Etherington  (CC by 2.0)

Despite the panicporn, confusion, and fearmongering, God is in is still here and cares for us. I have several items for you. Some of this material will be dated rather quickly including the "video" below (other material was released after I made it), but there are things we can learn about gathering information and making models. Be aware that Plante and Stigall are news and political commentary (often with humor), not Christian ministries.

• Putting death in its context — Yes, Covid-19 is a killer but…
• Creation Virology and COVID-19 
• This audio of The Chris Plante Show has interesting material. Begin at the 5 minutes 52 seconds mark, and I hope you'll do the first hour. At least the first half hour (there's a segment after the commercial breaks). Contains political material.
• Chris Stigall's podcast often has interesting discussions of this Coronavirus as well as politics and economics. Here is a link to the latest episode to date, and you can click around for more.
• Childlike Trust: God’s Antidote for a Troubled Mind

Increasing Dark Matter Desperation

Although science is supposed to be about investigating ideas with evidentiary support, secular astronomers (as well as Darwinists) imagine something and then try to find evidence for it. They are riding for the Big Bang-Deep Time brand and are locked into naturalistic presuppositions, putting forth desperate and puerile attempts to justify their blind faith.

Image location: Hubblesite (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Because the Big Bang works as well as a drunken outlaw at a church ice cream social, it has been Frankensteined many times in efforts to make it function. Dark Matter is one of those rescuing devices conjured up because laws of physics and observed evidence don't rightly comport with secular cosmogony and cosmology. They are like the Whos down in Whoville that Jim Carrey's Grinch described as relentless. Several new efforts have been run up the flagpole, but not many folks are saluting them. Maybe if they'd cowboy up and realize that the universe was actually created, and created recently, they would abandon such foolish notions.

The history of dark matter searches is a long string of non-detections. When does theory have to face reality?

The standard big-bang cosmology requires lots of mysterious unknown stuff labeled ‘dark matter.’ Cosmologists are convinced it exists, because otherwise galaxies and clusters of galaxies would quickly fall apart (quickly, that is, in moyboy cosmological terms). Theory requires that 85% of the universe is made up of this invisible matter that doesn’t emit electromagnetic radiation, but has gravity. Another 11% consists of dark energy, which is also completely unknown. That leaves only about 4% of reality accessible to observation.
Here are some of the most recent searches for dark matter and negative results.

To finish reading, click on "Will Dark Matter Hunters Ever Give Up?". In a related article that has some interesting background information, see "Dark Matter Search Keeps Coming Up Empty".

The Resurrection and Creation

In one of those calendar quirks and because Easter is not on a fixed day, this is also Cosmonautics Day. Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space way back in 1961. However, this pales in comparison to the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Background image: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs

Many things happened on that first Easter morning and the days leading up to Jesus' Resurrection. The Creator of the universe (John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16), who is God the Son, took on human form, died on a cross for our sins, and was bodily raised from the dead. The Lamb of God (John 1:36, 1 Cor. 5:7, Rev. 5:13) is the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5) has conquered death. Many prophesies were fulfilled, several of which were made centuries before Jesus was born. Easter and creation are important to Christian doctrine in several areas.

The featured article has three parts:

    Part 1: What the resurrection tells us about God, the world we live in, and Jesus

    Part 2: What Jesus tells us about the Old Testament

    Part 3: What Genesis tells us about the beginning of the world

It is not a quick read, but I'd be much obliged if you would carve out about 25 minutes to read it while waiting to carve your ham or whatever celebratory meal you're having. To do this, click on "The resurrection of Jesus and the beginning of creation".