Search This Blog

Sunday, April 22, 2018

One Gene to Rule them All

Back over forty years ago, the hands at the Darwin Ranch obtained copies of The Selfish Gene by C. Richard Dawkins, which became one of their sacred texts — I mean, textbooks. Dawkins made a number of assumptions upon which he built his arguments. One of these was the analogy used in the title, that somehow, genes get dominant status as "replicators", the whole purpose is to keep making copies of themselves.

"The Selfish Gene" became a kind of textbook for evolutionary thinking. It is finally being questioned, and evolutionists are having disagreements

Unfortunately, it wasn't until recently that some scientists actively questioned and doubted what Dawkins was presenting. Now there are squabbles in the bunkhouse, some saying that the individual is what matters, others say the group drives evolution and natural selection, and so on. None of them are willing to admit that cells, organisms, and the like have the appearance of design because (wait for it) they are designed by the Master Engineer. Dawkin's book caused problems for Darwinists, and some rethinking (with the requisite presupposition of naturalism) is in progress.
A recent opinion piece posted on the Chemistry World website notes that Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene deeply motivated a generation of biologists to adopt a gene-centered framework to explain why biological phenomena seem to operate for specific purposes. The book’s persuasion notwithstanding, the article notes ongoing challenges to the validity of Dawkins’ “selfish gene metaphor.” It also highlights other inconsistencies in evolutionary theory.
Atheist-inclined biologists thought The Selfish Gene provides satisfactory naturalistic explanations for biology’s apparent purposeful features. Most could see that creatures have microscopic molecular machines, tissues, and organs which give every indication that they function for a purpose. Creatures also seem to endlessly engage in goal-directed behaviors. As Philip Ball at Chemistry World opines, Dawkins asserts that the reason organisms have parts appearing like they were designed for a purpose, and why they are driven to do what they do, is because they are “survival machines” whose purpose is to act solely as a vehicle to perpetuate their “selfish,” self-replicating genes. Per Dawkins, selfish genes control what traits creatures possess in their ceaseless struggle to survive.
To read the rest, click on "'Selfish Gene' Metaphor Misleads Evolutionists".

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Huge Landslides and the Genesis Flood

If you get a notion to saddle up and ride in the Wyoming Territory, north of Cody is Heart Mountain. It is 8,123 feet (2,476 meters), and a popular place for geologists because of the huge landslide that took place long ago. Uniformitarian geologists are mighty puzzled by the slide.

massive landslides of the past are best explained by the catastrophic activities of the Genesis Flood
NASA image by Robert Simmon, based on data Landsat 7 data provided
by the Global Land Cover Facility (modified)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
As expected, geologists use what they know about present processes and try to extrapolate backward into the distant past. Yes, they have knowledge of the mechanisms of landslides in the present. That enables officials to give warnings on occasion. Don't be a hotshot and ignore them, you savvy?

Working and speculating backward does not work very well on a large scale, and the landslide at Heart Mountain is a case in point. The best explanation is the catastrophic changes that occurred during the Genesis Flood.
According to God’s Word, the great Flood of Noah’s day was the most devastating catastrophe in history. If true, we would expect to find evidence of upheaval on a scale unlike anything we see today. And that’s what we find.
Geologists have discovered huge chunks of land that broke free during past super earthquakes and slid dozens of miles in just minutes. The next time someone questions Noah’s Flood, share the following example!
To read the rest of this short article or download the MP3 version, click on "Supersized Landslides".

Sunday, April 08, 2018

The Darwin Termite Does Not Support Evolution

This child does not know anyone who likes termites, except for mayhaps entomologists who study it doing insect stuff. There is one obnoxious pest in Northern Australia known as Mastotermes darwiniensis, the Darwin or giant northern termite. It commences to eating almost anything organic, ruining agriculture, and so forth. Interesting that Darwin's advocates think that it has "evolutionary significance".

The giant norther termite of Australia is not an example of evolution
Credit: CSIRO (CC BY 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Apparently, only in 'Straya can these things be found that are supposed to be evidence of evolution from cockroaches. It's the wings that got Darwin bots all het up, plus a few other similar features between cockroaches and termites, thousands of species of each notwithstanding. Evolutionists have confirmation bias and use the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and ignore the simple fact that having some features in common can also be evidence of the Designer of both. With a bit more examination, the evolutionary story falls apart.
Termites, of which about 2,000 species have been described, belong to the order Isoptera, which means ‘equal-winged’. In contrast to nearly all other insects, the front and back wings look totally alike — with the exception of the species Mastotermes darwiniensis, the ‘Darwin termite’ (named after the city of Darwin in Australia's Northern Territory) . . .

When this termite was described about 100 years ago, evolutionists were enthusiastic. At last the origin of these highly organized insects was thought to have been discovered! The anal lobe was the proof: ‘Termites have evolved from cockroaches!’
 To read the rest of this short article, click on "Darwin's termites".

Sunday, April 01, 2018

The Resurrection and Creation

The time of the year commonly called Easter, Resurrection Sunday, and others is obviously vitally important to Bible-believing Christians. Although we proclaim the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ throughout the year, on this day we have a more intensive celebration, often paying attention to Passover and other events of the time.

Celebrating the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is also celebrating creation
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
Because everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23), God the Son took on human form (Philippians 2:7), died on the cross and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) out of love for us (Romans 5:8). We can have salvation (Romans 6:23). It is by faith alone, and not by anything we can do ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9). Study on it: our Creator (John 1:1, Colossians 1:16) suffered, died, and arose for us. There is evidence for creation and for the Resurrection, which help strengthen our faith. In this way, celebrating the Resurrection is also celebrating creation!
We rightly acknowledge God as Creator of all, but it behooves us to remember that while all three persons of the Godhead were involved, it was Jesus Christ, God's "dear Son: In whom we have redemption through His blood" (Colossians 1:13-14) actually doing the work, for "all things were created by Him, and for Him" (Col. 1:16).
On the cross, Jesus Christ willingly dismissed His spirit once His work was "finished" (John 19:30). Furthermore, after three days in the grave, He chose to take His life back again. As He told His disciples, "I have power to lay [my life] down, and I have power to take it again" (John 10:18)—an empty claim from the lips of any but the Creator. As the Creator and giver of life, He has the authority to do as He chooses.
To read the rest, click on "Do the Doctrines of Creation and Resurrection Reinforce Each Other?" Have a blessed Easter!

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Planetary Defense is Failing

The title sounds a bit like a line in a Western-style space opera, doesn't it? "Message coming in now, Cap'n. Planetary defense is failing!" Then the unlikely hero suits up and saves the world. In reality, we have planet-sized deflector shields in place. It's been there since the creation of all things a few thousand years ago.

Creationists have pointed out that Earth's magnetic field shows that our planet is young
Image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
"Come on, Cowboy Bob! Everybody knows that the universe is billions of years old. An atheist on a forum said so."

The space protector comes from the magnetic field. (Other planets have magnetic fields, but ours is better.) This bad boy has been a favorite evidence for Earth being young, because it is decaying. Yep, been measured and everything for quite a few years, and it's not as intense today. If you work backward, the magnetic field would be so strong, it would wreck our happy home, so it cannot be billions of years old.


Secular scientists have been attempting to make rescuing devices, saying that the magnetic field has reversed. That's mighty fine, and creationists agree that the evidence shows this. However, a reversal does not mean that it begins again at the original strength. There are no plausible hypotheses or models for the reversals. (Biblical creationists propose that the reversals may have been a consequence of the Genesis Flood.) The field would be ineffective to protect us in a relatively short time.
Old-earth belief tries to paper over a disturbing fact with speculative models, but 160 years of measurements show the strength of our planet’s magnetic field is dropping fast.
How do secular geophysicists deal with one of the longest-running measurements in the history of science? The strength of the magnetic field was first measured 183 years ago by Karl Friedrich Gauss in 1835.  For the past 160 years or so, continuous measurements have been made. Early measurements show the field was 5% stronger than it is now. Continuous measurements plotted on a curve show an exponential drop in the overall strength of the field year by year. If this were to continue, it would put life at risk on the planet in mere thousands of years. Extrapolating backward, a stronger field would have made the earth uninhabitable a few tens of thousands of years ago.
 To read the rest, click on "Earth Magnetic Field Still Decaying". 

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’?"