Posts

Lucy's Status Sketchy at Best

Image
Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") as a transitional form between humans and apes has been dubious from the beginning. Evidence shows that Lucy was designed to walk on all fours, not upright like humans. In 1995, Häusler & Schmid proposed that Lucy was a male, and should be called "Lucifer". The skeleton was not all found in the same place, indicating that the bones are contestable, so we shouldn't be surprised that a baboon bone was found in the mix . There are other "relatives" of Lucy in all the confusion, and the press went wild over the announcement of a few more bone fragments that were named as a Lucy relative . Despite all the evidence, old and new, against A. afarensis being anything other than an extinct ape, evolutionary paleontologists want to slap leather with actual evidence and reason, saying, in essence, "You'll take my transitional form when you pry it from my cold, dead hands ". Why do they cling to a few dub

Relationship Status of Opals to the Earth — It's Complicated

Image
G'day. Uniformitarian explanations for the very complicated formation of the opal are inadequate, and biblical creationist theories involving their formation due to the Genesis Flood fit the data far better. It is not time, not millions of years, but conditions that make the difference. In fact, opals can be made in laboratories in a matter of weeks! For that matter, diamonds can be made in labs , too. morgueFile / cohdra This attractive gemstone is mainly found in a certain area of Australia. (There are some bland common opals, but you're not likely to find them mounted in a ring.) You can get fine opal jewellery on a cattle baron's salary, but even the ranch hand that works for him can save up and afford a good-looking piece his own self, too. Precious opal, with its dazzling display of brilliant blues, greens, yellows, and fiery reds, is one of the most recognizable Australian icons. More than 95 percent of the world’s opals are mined in this one country, exp

Mental Machinery

Image
When you stop and ponder it, you'll realize that your brain has a lot on its mind. It's always working, even when you're asleep. You're still breathing, pumping blood, liver and kidneys doing their things, all of those autonomic things. But what about how you process incoming information? Your eyes are always moving, but we seldom are aware of it. Add an object in motion (like the car that just now went by my window), the eye sends signals to the brain and the object doesn't become a blur. How? You get audible input, so how does the brain balance deal with multiple sounds? For that matter, we have a time dilation/contraction going on, anticipating or even predicting the future, and it is demonstrated when watching musicians at work. How can the brain process non-Euclidian geometries? The brain is using proteins, electrochemical impulses, all sorts of things, and it's plumb loco to believe that evolved and is anything other than something designed by the C

Watching Stars Form

Image
We are told by secular astronomers about the "birth" of stars and the rate that they form. That's great, let's watch! Unfortunately, despite the pronouncements of scientists, nobody has ever seen a star form. But we do get blessed with assertions of speculations passed off as facts. They don't seem overmuch concerned with their circular reasoning, either. Blue Straggler Stars in Globular Cluster M53 Image Credit: ESA/Hubble, NASA The presuppositions are that the universe is billions of years old, and that "enigmatic" blue stars are observed , therefore, they must be forming because the universe is billions of years old, and they are observed... Nice circle you built there, Cicero. Stellar evolution for the win, right? In addition to blue stars, there are other evidences that the universe is young. Oh, plus the annoying fact (for them) that nobody has seen a star fire up in the first place. No, God created the universe much more recently than unif

Diamonds Aren't So Old After All

Image
Secular geologists will tell you that diamonds are several hundred millions years old, or more. However, there are certain facets of science that are conveniently ignored., showing that diamonds are nowhere near as old as believed. One of the main reasons for this is an a priori commitment to "deep time", since Darwinian evolution beliefs require huge amounts of time. Pixabay / studiopratisaad0 Diamonds form under intense heat and pressure under the earth's surface, and are one of the hardest materials (the Mohs scale of hardness gives it a 10). However, like opals , they can also be made by man. "Synthetic" diamonds have that qualifier because, although they're made of carbon like natural ones, the process itself is not from nature. (Also, don't confuse synthetic diamonds with cubic zirconia , that critter is chemically different but looks like a diamond.) The fact that they can be home grown shows that it's conditions, not time, that are t

The Color of Chameleons

Image
In a previous post, we examined how chameleons are extremely efficient at hunting and hiding. But what about that ability to change color? There is a great deal of mythology about how they can change color to match their surroundings (some of them do not change color at all), but the reality of the situation is far more interesting. Chameleon on branch, Pixabay / Shilona This reptile is designed with layers of skin, and the cells reflect light in different ways. When its emotions change, the cells move closer together or further apart, "changing" their color. The technology is so advanced, scientists are examining it for our own applications (biomimicry), including more efficient solar cells and even house paint! Chameleons are clearly the product of the design of the Creator, not evolution. It was a sweltering day in the Madagascan forest when a creature cautiously approached into view. Mitten-like feet daintily grasped and propelled it along a branch and his body w

Science Business Without God

Image
People expect secular science researchers to act in an ethical manner. But what is their standard for ethics? Darwin? Survival of the fittest? After all, according to their worldview, we're all just bundles of chemicals following our impulses. When there are instances of fraud, plagiarism, false research, cover ups, disingenuous peer review — so what? They're acting in accordance with their materialistic worldviews. When someone says, "That's wrong! You're lying!", or something, they're appealing to a higher authority. The ultimate authority is God, and he told us what we need to know in the Bible. That is the final standard for ethics. Scientists cannot claim the final authority on moral high ground. Some people are saying that there should be standards, reviews, and so on in the scientific community, and the alarm is being sounded with a resurgence of eugenics — and this is being researched for genome tampering. To read about this, click on &quo