Piltdown Superman

Although the law of biogenesis shows us that life only comes from existing life, Darwin's acolytes continue to experiment with chemical evolution. Even evolutionists generally admit that abiogenesis is pretty much impossible, but they keep on trying to displace the Creator. Original image from MorgueFile , modified with FotoSketcher By the way, if someone tells you that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, he or she is misinformed, deluded, or lying outright. They try to back off from the OoL problem. As is common with evolutionists, a recent study involved dealing from the bottom of the deck instead of playing the hand that they were dealt. That is, numerous assumptions were made, important information was circumvented, and a prairie schooner-full of "givens" had to be made. (Reading the article struck me that the scientist were acting similarly to when kids will play, "What if...?" and then building on those fantasies.) Worse, there wa

When someone says protein, the first thing I think of is how I can fold it. Just kidding, I think of protein-rich foods. There are millions of kinds of proteins which are classified according to their functions and other criteria. Folding is a very specific biological process. Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens Protein folding is not fully understood, but it is vitally important because it is the way proteins take their shapes so they can be useful. If they don't fold properly, they are useless, and the particles can actually be harmful. Some researchers got a molecule to fold, and remarked that maybe complex molecules can be had before evolution began. This is based on materialistic presuppositions, not on actual scientific evidence. Abiogenesis has been refuted long ago, but that doesn't stop some materialists in blind faith denial of our Creator. Click for larger Reporting from the secular science industry focused on the historical assumptions about the origin of

Many believers in scum-to-sculptor evolution have realized that life could not have arisen on Earth according to their paradigm, so they push the problem out in space and give it to the aliens. Other materialist owlhoots still try to make origin of life speculations seem plausible. How about order from disorder?  Credit: Freeimages/ Loretta Humble Keith Cooper headed down to the Darwin ranch and ran an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. Not much reason to, since it is loaded with assumptions (even though evolutionists are not skittish about them) and multiple variables. Just take some biological stuff lying around and hope it evolves into something useful, and then upward into humans and things. Not hardly! Aside from OoL refutations, there is not model or mechanism, and the author admits that his idea has problems. The idea is irrational. His biggest problem, however, is that he refuses to humble himself and admit that life was created by God. OOL without des

Evolutionists have their invisible imaginary friends that they call extraterrestrial beings. Like dark matter, they have never been scientifically observed but secularists believe in them anyway. This is probably because they know abiogenesis is impossible on Earth, so it must have happened out there. Our Creator made Earth a special place, and they don't take kindly to that fact. One concept to justify belief in ETs is the Drake equation. Credit: RGBStock/ Dez Pain Alien enthusiasts do not have much hope, as it seems that every time NASA comes up with more exoplanets, their hopes are dashed (such as those around TRAPPIST-1 , for example). Indeed, the habitable zone is fraught with problems . Unlike it's smarter brother the Fermi Paradox , Drake's equation looks very math-like. It was illogical and unscientific from the get-go, but it is still dogma for SETI folks; you could fly a starship through the holes in it. Secular astrophysicist throws down on the Drake equati

Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass have been gnawing on the peyote buttons. Huge amounts of money are being spent on SETI and other efforts to find their imaginary friends: space aliens. They reckon that if intelligent life is out there, wants to be found, and has a hankering to talk with us, that would justify their faith in evolution and rejection of the Creator. Background image furnished by Why?Outreach (click for larger) After all, since life cannot happen by chance here, so it must have happened out there and made its way here later. That does not solve the abiogenesis problem. I heard a phrase that applies: they're just kicking the can down the road. The SETI people are acting like a cult, using intelligently-designed equipment to search for signs of intelligence from creatures that were supposedly not formed by intelligence. A "study" suggests that aliens might be purple. Why is that? What is the evidence, since nobody has

You know about the sun, right? Perhaps you've heard of it, it's the greater light that rules the day (Gen. 1:16). By astronomical standards, our sun is well-behaved and quite stable . Other stars tend to be cranky, shooting out solar flares, superflares, and the like on a basis that would be dangerous for life on Earth. M6.4 class solar flare erupting, image credit: NASA / SDO (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secularists argue from materialistic presuppositions, including deep time. Using the discredited nebular hypothesis , they build a scenario for the origin of the solar system and the planets. Since they presume that life evolved, they commence to building themselves a heap of problems, such as the alleged faint young sun paradox . As scientific knowledge increases, their guesswork becomes increasingly implausible. Interestingly, there are secular scientists who think that superflares may have made goo-to-gambler evolution possible.  Biblical cr

Yes, the title is a dreadful play on words based on the so-called Fermi Paradox. This concept is based on presuppositions rooted in abiogenesis (life from non-life), atoms-to-aliens evolution, and numbers. There are so many stars out yonder, there has to be life on many planets. Materialists have a firm commitment to the Fermi paradox, but there is not much reason to believe it anymore. Credit: Pixabay /  Enrique Meseguer Yes, I know that there are birds known as snipes, but this kind is not a bird and requires special methods for hunting . That's because the legendary critter is elusive because it doesn't exist. A snipe hunt is nonsensical, but people have fun with it. Searching for space aliens on exoplanets is an expensive waste of time, and doesn't seem to be pleasurable. That's because the Creator put Earth in a special place and did it recently, as well as making man in his own image. Materialists don't cotton to those notions. Interesting that materiali

In a previous installment , we looked at how astronomers working on the first light of the so-called cosmic dawn. They used a number of assumptions as well as observational evidence to plug into their model; cosmology itself is not real science . Likewise, when folks commence to saddling up and riding the trail of the origin of life question, there are many presuppositions that are not actually scientific. Credit: Pixabay / Roy Buri Just as no human was there to see the origin of the universe and take notes, no human observed the origin of life — both are historical events. We can attempt to put scientific methods to the process, but we want to know the origin of life, the possibilities are very limited. Indeed, abiogenesis has many insurmountable problems.There are only a few possibilities to consider involving the origin of life.. Secularists use materialistic presuppositions that are based on faith and apply evolutionary ideas. Likewise, biblical creationists presuppose the e

In a previous exciting installment, we examined how abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) has serious problems from the get-go . If you have ever read or watched science fiction, you may have encountered reorganization or relocation scenarios. That is, put the story on a distant planet, or in the far future where Earth was mostly destroyed by a war or other catastrophe. Seems like Darwin's lab-coated disciples do this in reverse for their tales: since conditions on Earth make abiogenesis impossible, go back in time and imagine a different world so that life could spontaneously form. Credit: Unsplash /  Lucas Vasques Under scrutiny, we see that life requires water and oxygen. However, water is a serious impediment in the spontaneous formation of those nucleotides that are necessary for the formation of life. Some riders of the owlhoot trail are attempting to deny the Creator's work by suggesting that life formed in formamide.  (Careful, I though the world was "form

Although I tend to shy away from probability arguments about evolution and the origin of life (naturalists cling to that one zillionth of a chance), they do serve a purpose. In this case, the probability of life arising all by itself from minerals through time, chance, and random processes is essentially nonexistent. Someone who says it is impossible is not lying or uninformed, but those who distance themselves and say that "the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution" are  lying or uninformed. Credit: Freeimages /  Nate Brelsford Darwinists tell some interesting stories about conditions on "primordial" Earth way back when, and how molecules formed amino acids, cells, and other microscopic things, eventually up to humans. The stories almost seem plausible, and colorful graphics help, but evolutionists leave out important information, and even resort to dishonesty to keep their failed evolutionary religion afloat, and to deny the work of the Creator. 

You would think that the hands at the Darwin Ranch would be too busy with running the propaganda mill, counting up the grant money, and passing off conjectures as scientific research to indulge in peyote gnawing. I mean, some of the downright weird concepts they're coming up with for the origin of life. Facts and science are not included, those cost extra. Credit: Pixabay / ar130405 The origin of life (OOL), chemical evolution, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, wishful thinking — whatever you want to call it — is scientifically untenable. As we've seen here before, those owlhoots just keep on a-trying. Recent results are getting very, very strange. So, here we go again. via GIPHY How about the hydrocarbon soup out yonder, at Saturn's largest moon? Not hardly! The scientist who came up with this one seems to have forgotten (or never learned) basic chemistry and biology; it won't work, snookums. Or maybe life-based organisms did not originate in water, bu

Darwin's true believers are a mite confused, and have trouble keeping their stories straight. Some will tell the falsehood that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution , and then support cheating on OOL research . Following that, they commence to making up rescuing devices to explain away the impossibility of abiogenesis. Way back when the excuse factory was attached to the propaganda mill and ran off a diesel engine, the concept of an " RNA World " was put forward.  Isn't that a song? You know, "Its an RNA world where evolution flows, no one owns a piece of my enzyme —" "You're thinking of ' Five O'Clock World ' by the Vogues, Cowboy Bob!" via GIPHY Anyway, evolutionary desperadoes said, "We don't need no stinking DNA, we can have RNA evolve all by its lonesome!", or words to that effect. Essentially, they are relying on magic, not science, in their efforts to deny the logic of the Creator.

Things are getting silly with the hands at the Darwin Ranch, down Deception Pass way. They are so certain of their presuppositions about evolution, they assume  that it happened both on Earth and way out yonder, thataway. (Worse, they assume  that the origin of life began in space as well.) But they're used to believing in things without evidence, such as the Oort cloud  (some think the fantastical death star "Nemesis" stirs up the mythical Oort cloud), and believing fish-to-fish farmer evolution itself. So, betting on the odds of their own fantasies that some intelligent life must  be out there, some folks keep looking. Credit: Pixabay /  Stefan Keller Some scientists want us to keep mum about our presence, as bad things could happen. Others are determined to go ahead and broadcast into space, even setting dates by which we would be contacted — but those speculators would be long gone so they don't have to own up to their errors. The following link has severa

There's nothing cowboys like more than riding into town for supplies and slipping off to the library to do some reading on abiogenesis. Good times, good times... Just kidding, science fiction is low on their list of priorities. Even so, some folks want to read secular materials to get a handle on how Darwinists are thinking, and how they try to deny the Creator. Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap First off, to tackle that kind of thing, it helps to have a strong background in science. Second (and this is the kind of thing creationists discuss frequently), a reader needs to understand the presuppositions of materialists and the assumptions upon which they base their research and conclusions. Third (one of my favorites), keep an eye out for bad logic — especially circular reasoning and affirming the consequent . Fourth, a good knowledge of creationary material is very important, since creationists are not likely to twist science to advance secular paradigms. There are some other thi

The search for signs of life on Mars continues, partly motivated by the hope of secularists to justify their faith in molecules-to-Martian evolution and abiogenesis, and from there, deny the Creator. Before that, however, secularists desire to find  water on Mars . It appears that water was indeed there in the past as the signs are quite distinct , though not all scientists are convinced. Speculative image of an ocean on Mars, credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some scientists are saying that billions of Darwin years ago, Mars was a mighty fine place that even had oceans. Conjectures and models about what happened in the unobserved past can be useful, but they need to deal with evidence. Questions are raised, such as how Mars got water in the first place, where it went, conditions that would allow such vast quantities of water, the " faint young sun paradox ", and more. Interesting that these owlhoots are willing to consider huge amounts o

I keep a-warnin' ya, don't be playing cards with the hands at the Darwin Ranch when they head out from Deception Pass and ride into town on payday. Those rapscallions don't like the hands they're dealt, and cheat mighty fierce like. Evolutionists are known for equivocation, such as equating change with evolution , and seeing "evidence" of evolution practically under every bush. Some even try to fool us by saying that abiogenesis (origin of life, OOL) has nothing to do with evolution (those are the ones who know abiogenesis is impossible), or say it happen out in space, and other trickery. Then they commence to working on origin of life experiments anyway. Public domain photo credit: New York Public Library We've read stories from the wild-eyed science press going after sensational claims about life being made in a laboratory, but what was obtained was primarily a few amino acids that were pretty much useless by themselves. (From the Irony Board: s

Yes, it's true. A famous astronomer built on the work of a previous astronomer and saw canals on Mars. What, you didn't know? It was in the newspapers, even the New York Times .  Except that the big news was in 1907. Seems that fake news is not a new phenomenon, only the moniker is new. Making use of the Breaking News Generator again This is where someone might object that scientists makes mistakes, but things got fixed because science is self-correcting . No, not really. Secularists often use the reification fallacy and act like science is a sentient being that makes choices (especially regarding muck-to-mechanic evolution), which is a form of pagan nature worship . Giovanni Schiaparelli thought he saw channels on Mars, and the Italian word was translated as canals  (which strikes me as an easy mistake), and Percival Lowell "saw" canals on Mars. He even wrote a book or three on the subject. Those mistakes were corrected with additional research and improve

Many devotees of molecules-to-miscreant evolution have realized that abiogenesis happening on this world is impossible, and some will distance themselves from the problem with the falsehood that "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" . Others cling the the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and come up with other incoherent origin of life experiments . Some even in voke a kind of animism . Image modified from Yassine Mrabet   /Wikimedia Commons The Miller-Urey experiment was saddled up and ridden hard as "proof" that life could have happened by chance, but it proved next to nothing. Using intelligently-designed equipment in a controlled environment based on the now-abandoned "reducing atmosphere" concept, the researchers obtained some amino acids. These building blocks of life were caught in a trap and removed from the toxic environment, which invalidates the experiment. (Many images on the web conveniently leave out the trap part, or neglect

The problems of the origin of life (OOL) on Earth are astronomically difficult, and one disingenuous rescuing device that the Evo Sith utilize is to claim that OOL has nothing to do with evolution. (We can quickly dispense with that falsehood at this link , and move on.) Despite the insurmountable difficulties, there are still materialists that insist on making the impossible appear plausible. Credit: Morguefile / Alvimann Abiogenesis models are packed with a passel of presumptions, including the "reducing atmosphere" (a concept that has been largely abandoned nowadays) in the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and the experimenters cheated by putting in a trap to remove the amino acids from the environment that would have destroyed them. There are some worse speculations today involving animism. No, it's not praying to animals, but a primitive belief that everything has a spirit . So, some materialists are violating materialism by believing that the spirit of molecu

You'd think that it would be just a matter of time that ancient fossils supporting abiogenesis would be found, what with all that searching for proof of evolution instead of doing useful science and all. Unfortunately for them, this fossil discovery causes some serious problems. Credit: Image cropped from Pixabay / Couleur One problem is that the fossilized microbes are pretty much the same as their living counterparts. Strange, I thought evolution was a kind of irresistible force and that everything has to evolve — especially over billions of Darwin years and environmental pressures. Sure, they can do plenty of hand waving and ignore the "stasis" problem, but there are more troubles: they have no idea how Earth got its oceans, and undocumented abiogensis is supposed to have happened almost instantly. Not scientific, old son. The evidence refutes evolution and supports recent special creation, but they continue to deny the truth. Recently, evolutionists discovere