Search This Blog

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Ancient Humans Smarter than Evolutionists Want to Admit

Ancient people were not stupid, that is only an evolutionary preconception. They were intelligent, and created in God's image.

Something that we keep on having to deal with is the idea that human way back when were stupid brutes. This is more than a matter of teenagers thinking their parents are dimwitted because they are unaware of the latest singers or social media outlets, or that people from a hundred years ago were "primitive". When we look at ancient times and wonder how structures were built (must have been helped by aliens), think that Neanderthals were subhuman brutes, or generally assume that people in the old times were lacking in cognition, that, old son, is based on evolutionary bias.

Man was created in God's image, and intelligent After the Genesis Flood, some things that were known or discovered previously had to be rediscovered or reinvented (as well as new inventions, of course). There's a serious lag in the Darwinian timeline for human progress. According to them, we evolved, sat around doing nothing for a few thousand years, then decided to make things. Not hardly! Ancient people had skill and notions. We have a couple of examples in the linked article.

First, iron. It was used before the Flood, but afterward, some entrepreneurs decided to saddle up, scout it out from meteorites, and make things. The rediscovery of smelting, and subsequent advancement of that technology, put a damper on space rock hunting for profit.


Second, people are opportunistic when it comes to finding places to live. Why not grab something that was carved out by flood waters or other natural processes, or even use caves? Our forebears were far more intelligent than evolutionary preconceptions would have you believe.
. . . with every material conceivable, it is hard to imagine a time when, if you needed something, you had to make it from the limited materials available to you. And because we now enjoy the fruit of several thousand years of research, innovation, and creativity, it is easy to get in the mindset that we are more intelligent than those who have gone before us.

When we start with God’s Word, however, we know that humans are not necessarily getting smarter as time goes on. Adam and Eve were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), and originally we had perfect brains and intelligence (Genesis 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4). But our brains are now subjected to a sin-cursed world. So the overall state of mankind is actually worse—not better—as mutations and other genetic problems stack up with time.
You can read the rest of this short but interesting article by clicking on "Human Ingenuity: Outsmarting Evolutionary Misconceptions".

Sunday, March 11, 2018

The Deer Mouse is not an Example of Evolution

Champions of microbes-to-mouse evolution have several icons, including the Messinian salinity crisis, fish with legs, antibiotic resistance, and more. These are unhorsed with critical thinking and good science. Still, they keep on trying, and creationists keep on putting them away. See how that works?

The deer mouse in Nebraska is being falsely called an example of evolution.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Gregory "Slobirdr" Smith
One of these is the deer mouse. In a manner reminiscent of the peppered moth fiasco, the lighter-colored mice living around Nebraska's sand dunes are camouflaged from predators. Your chance of survival is greatly increased when you are not seen, old son.


Some good scientific research was conducted in the genetics and pigmentation of these mice. We see natural selection and mutation (although one mutation usually means there are more, but this was not discussed here). Unfortunately, the science was pushed aside to give praise to Darwin, blessed be! This is in no wise an example of evolution: the mouse is still a mouse. Critters were created to have some amount of variation, but not to change into something else — which is what this kind of evolution is supposed to mean.
One of the most abundant and widespread mammals in north America is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Usually the mice have a dark coat—very useful for enabling them to blend in with dark soils and avoid being seen by predators such as owls and hawks.
In Nebraska’s rolling sandhills however, which are composed mostly of light-coloured quartz grains, deer mice are predominantly a pale, orange-blonde or tan colour.
And so researchers pondered the question: Is the lighter-coloured sandy coat an adaptation that helps deer mice to survive in the sandhills habitat?
To read the rest, scurry on over to "Nebraskan deer mice—evolution’s latest ‘icon’?"

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Nothing Special about New Dinosaur Discovery

Evolutionary paleontologists are excited about a dinosaur discovery that supposedly fills in some missing information. Certain strata in Africa did not have many dinosaur fossils. Although billed as "mostly complete", this sauropod fossil was spread out over a large area, and still has quite a few missing parts.

"Holy Grail" of dinosaurs is nothing special, and the discovery is best explained by the Genesis Flood model
Credit: Cropped from Pixabay / 12019
Although they called it the "Holy Grail" of dinosaurs, it involves circular reasoning, arguing from presuppositions, and leaving out important information about the geology of the area. It is no Holy Grail, it is only more hype. In reality, dinosaurs were created much more recently than the evolutionary faithful want to admit.


Darwinists do not have a good explanation for what they've found, nor is it anything all that special except to fit their narrative. Even sadder for them is that the Genesis Flood models by creationary scientists can provide a far better explanation for the discovery.
A recent article by a team of paleontologists, led by Hesham Sallam, of Mansoura University, Egypt, claims to have found the Holy Grail of dinosaurs in the middle of Egypt. The Genesis Flood model easily explains this unique discovery. Co-author Matt Lamanna of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, said,
When I first saw the pics of the fossils, my jaw hit the floor. This was the Holy Grail—a well-preserved dinosaur from the end of the Age of Dinosaurs in Africa—that we paleontologists had been looking for a long, long time.
Until this discovery, dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous strata were lacking across much of Africa. This discovery of a long-necked dinosaur (sauropod) was the first to fill that gap. The specimen was found in the Western Desert of Egypt in a rock unit called the Quseir Formation.
To finish reading, click on "The Holy Grail of Dinosaurs?"

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Reporting on Darwin's Results

Seems that the hands at the Darwin Ranch (out yonder by Deception Pass) should find a new employer. Well, if they value intellectual honesty and scientific integrity, that is. Although acolytes in the evolutionary death cult claim that evolution is essential for science, Darwin not only fails to make the grade, but actually hinders real science.

Examining the projections and results, Darwin receives a failing grade

You can't even say that the Bearded Buddha gave it the old college try. (Do people still say "old college try" anymore?) From the outset, Chuck admitted that he did not have evidence, but hoped it would come along. That ain't no way to run a railroad — I mean, present a hypothesis. That's blind faith. Later, after Mendel (peas be upon him) started the science of genetics, the synthesis of genetics, natural selection, wishful thinking, blind faith, weaseling with "maybe", "perhaps", "could be", "scientists think" — no, that's not science.

The origin of flowering plants was an "abominable mystery" for Darwin, and remain so even today. A spider in amber is 175 million years too young according to secularists. Multicellular life form origins are unanswered. Desperate evolutionists say that the loss of features is evidence of forward-moving evolution.


We're told that evolution is too slow to see, then there is ultra-fast evolution (Darwinists have rescuing devices). Horse evolution is still bucking the storyline. Absurd, fact-free stories about the origin of snakes. Survival of the fittest, but who decides?

Yes, we have a passel of news items. They sure do go to a lot of work to deny the Creator, don't they? The real, logical conclusion is that Darwin was wrong. God exists, and he made us. We are responsible to find out about what he said in his Word.

Read about the items listed above, and more:

Darwin Report Card: How Useful Is Evolutionary Theory? 
Darwin Report Card, continued: How Useful Is Evolutionary Theory?

Darwin failed. His "theory" is not a theory, it is not successful, it is not accurate, it is not even science. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Startling Varieties of Frogs

When someone refers to a frog, the idea that many people may get is the common variety that we see in ponds and so forth. If you study on it, you will see that there are many types in diverse areas. (Saddle up for a ride in the desert, you may notice that there are some living out there as well.) Then there are tree frogs, and others. When I was reading this article, I expected something mundane, and almost croaked out "Oh, no". Then I realized that I had better hop to it and write it up for all y'all.

"Enough of the frog puns, Cowboy Bob!"

It's a good thing you toad me, or I might continue. So anyway...

The means of survival of frogs in various environments testify of God's creative skill
Credit: Freeimanges / Robert Badgley
Frogs and toads live in different environments, as I have mentioned. They are able to survive harsh conditions (some frogs can freeze solid and "come back to life" when warm weather returns), and even have interesting defensive mechanisms. Ever hear of "toad licking"? Some owlhoots extract the defensive skin venom of the Colorado River Toad and process it so they can get high. Others actually lick the critters. This is pushing the toads toward extinction, and can lead to the extinction of some individuals. Helpful hint: better keep away from poison dart frogs, Ferdinand.

The reproduction methods of frogs varies. Tadpoles are the young 'uns, looking very different from their parents for a spell, but they have the genetic information programmed by the Creator to grow up into what we expect to see.
Seeing a familiar frog afresh is a wonderful way to be more stunned by the exotic forms. So what is this familiar frog? For the US citizen, it is usually a member of the true frog family (Ranidae) that resides around ponds, lakes, and streams. As a rule, these frogs sit at the water’s edge, have slimy skin, plunge into the water at the least disturbance, and lay gobs of jelly-coated eggs in clusters. These eggs hatch into tadpoles that primarily eat algae and aquatic plants. Many of us have taken them home in a bucket to rear into frogs, an attempt that was sometimes successful if our mother dutifully kept us on task. These typical frogs are a nice, predictable platform from which we can be flabbergasted at fantastical frog life.
To read the entire article, click on "Wonder Jumpstart".

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Question Evolution, Face the Fury

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The secular science industry is conveniently providing illustrations of the need for Question Evolution Day, and are providing them in a big way. Mighty obliging of them. Although science is supposed to be the search for knowledge, the word science is equated with vertical evolution, and contrary views are not only discouraged, but actively suppressed. A paper was recalled because the authors had the audacity to use the word creator. Evolutionists bushwhacked Mary Schweitzer because of her work on dinosaur soft tissues. Darwin deniers are harassed and even fired because of their views, not because of their job performance. 

Some people think for themselves this Question Evolution Day, but secularists are outraged when Darwin is doubted
Most of this was made at Atom Smasher
Have you noticed that logic and critical thinking are actively discouraged instead of taught in schools nowadays? Bullying and ridicule from Darwin's microcephalic children ensue, again equating evolution with science and inferring that creationists are bad people with "agendas". Yet, secularists have agendas, and seek to protect their death cult of evolutionism from scrutiny.

Their double standards include allowing bullying of Christians and creationists because we "deserve it", as I've seen a few tinhorns say. Some will even reflexively call us "liars" because they dislike (or do not understand) evidence we present. Those actions are nothing less than unabashed bigotry, old son.

What really takes the rag off the bush is when a minor government official in India apparently not only doubted Darwin, but misrepresented it. Circle the wagons! Someone did not kneel before Darwin, blessed be! The outcry in India is actually funny in some ways, but it clearly illustrates the desperation of Darwinoids. Instead of telling the man that he said something wrong, and instead of responding rationally with the true spirit of science, people went plumb loco. This is what thinking people are up against. And some try to tell us that evolutionism and atheism are not religions? 

Wouldn't it be nice if they were honest for once? Secularists have repeatedly shown that they do not believe in intellectual, academic, professional, speech, religious, and other freedoms. And it is escalating.
There’s no escape. You can’t flee anywhere in the world if you doubt Darwin.
Look at this headline in Nature News: “Anti-Darwin comments in India outrage scientists.” It doesn’t say that scientists (defined here as members of Nature's opinion of acceptable materialists who pay homage to Darwin) merely “disagree” with the comments. It doesn’t say that they feel such comments are misinformed. No; Nature reporter T. V. Padma says the comments 'outrage' scientists (scream when you say that!). The word implies hate, intolerance, and mob psychology. The subtitle is even more disturbing: “Researchers and government officials have condemned the statements of a junior minister who questioned the theory of evolution.” The priests of Darwin want to send this minister to materialist hell for the unpardonable sin!
To read the rest, click on "Big Science Condemns Blasphemy Against Darwin".

Sunday, February 04, 2018

Bicycle Wheels, Evolution, and Pantheism

Although a decent bicycle is affordable for most people, bicycle racing for prize money requires some expensive and specialized equipment. Research has been done on aerodynamics, as well as making the frames themselves both stronger and lighter. The wheel design is also extremely important, as crosswinds can be dangerous, whether indoors or on the open road. 

A bicycle wheel was inspired by the humpback whale, but credit was given to "nature", not the Master Engineer
Credit: Pixabay / John R Perry
Biomimetics is the concept of taking what is found in nature and applying it for our use. I can just imagine a scene in a Zipp Speed Weaponry meeting where they were looking for inspiration to improve bicycle wheels. "You're taking inspiration from the lumps on the pectoral fins of humpback whales? Sure, that's the first place to look!" They were able to make a successful and safer wheel, and see them around $1,800 USD for just the front wheel. You'd better be a well-heeled or sponsored serious racer to buy those, pilgrim.

Unfortunately, they were not considering that organisms in nature were designed, so these owlhoots got all pantheistic on us and gave credit to "nature", as if it was a person (fallacy of reification). Hail Darwin, blessed be! Nature does not select or evolve something for a purpose, though many people act that way. Give the Master Engineer credit, you savvy? It makes far more sense to approach life from a design perspective rather than a Darwinian death cult worldview. 
The report on Zipp’s new wheels is a clear example of how evolutionists are content to plug a massive void of empirical evidence with their faith that nature somehow exercises agency, “At the unveiling of the 454s in London Wednesday night, Zipp engineers repeatedly turned to the idea of biomimicry, an old concept of approaching engineering problems by looking to how nature has solved them.” But nature can’t solve anything because it has no mind or will—it can’t think, plan, or build.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Whale Fin Inspires Safer Racing Wheels". Also, you may want to see this self-serving video: