Search This Blog

Sunday, July 23, 2017

A Monstrous Muddle for Evolutionists

Way back when, scientists thought that the platypus was a prank, what with looking like it was built from spare parts and all, and being unfriendly to evolutionary classifications. Jump forward about 150 years from the "you gotta be kidding me" time, and we get another one: a fossil called Tullimonstrum, or the Tully Monster. Not the kind of monster that will jump out and eat your car, since it was 10 cm (4 inches) long.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu TamuraCC BY-SA 4.0
This, too, looks like it came from spare parts. Seems like scientists would be suspicious, since it was first discovered in the 1950s in Illinois, and no other fossils appear to have been found. Darwinists have dust-ups over how to classify the thing, and you'll find articles about the mystery being solved, no it is not, and so on. I suspicion that this was made by our Creator to remind us that there's still very much that we don't know.
From a biologist’s perspective, a few identifying clues stand out—but only a few. One is that it had a notochord. A notochord is a stiff rod made of cartilage that runs down an animal’s back like a backbone, providing support while it is an embryo. All vertebrates and some invertebrates have notochords. In vertebrates, the notochord can later become part of the vertebral column. This makes it an important clue to one of the most basic distinctions in biology: was the Tully monster a vertebrate or an invertebrate?
To read the entire article in context (or download the MP3), click on "How to Solve a Monster Mystery".

The "Tully Monster" is a strange creature known from fossils, and those are found in only one area. It defies evolution, but is not a problem for biblical creationists.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Reproducibility Crisis in the Science Industry

One of the axioms we were taught about science is that someone floats a hypothesis, gives it some testing or adjustments, discards if necessary, then the hypothesis graduates into a theory and possibly becomes a fact. Looks good on paper, but there is a serious problem in the science industry called the reproducibility crisis. Essentially, there's not much happening in the area of retesting and verification. It's bad enough in origins science, but when it affects people's lives through biomedical research, that's mighty low.

Credit: Freeimages / doctor-a (modified)
There are several reasons for this. One of the main reasons is that fame and fortune in the secular science industry goes to the ones who have the sensational news, especially if it claims to give evidence for minerals-to-mycologist evolution. Scientists and other people also need to know what does not work, but that information is often neglected.

In origins research, sometimes it actually is difficult to reproduce someone's research. Try obtaining the original material that was tested. Also, evolutionists are biased, and want to prove their point (often to give them self-justification in their rebellion against the Creator). Kind of hard to tell if their papers gave all the facts. Actually, we've seen that pertinent facts are omitted (here is one example), so it can make someone a mite wary when asked to take someone's word for something.

Another reason that test results are not reproduced often enough is human nature. We like incentives (I get an occasional gift card for working enough overtime, but I doubt that a gift card to the lab's commissary would be sufficient for them). Many people want the glory, and will cut corners and even cheat to get it. Because of the pressure to perform that some scientists face, well, they may do what it takes to get recognized. No glory in replication of someone else's work. But there may be some accolades in discovering that a "great discovery" was actually more fake science news. Some folks are stepping up and sounding the alarm.
Concerns about unreliable findings in biomedical research, such as cancer research, have been well documented. The problem is known as the ‘reproducibility crisis.’ If this is a problem in a field open to observation and visible in the here and now—biomedical research—what about evolution, which is based on events and extinct life forms that are claimed to have existed eons ago?
University of Bristol Professor Marcus Munafò writes in Nature in a book review about the crisis,
Nuh uh. You have to read the professor's remarks and the rest of the article by clicking on "Unreliability in Science Reaches Epic Proportions". You can also listen to an audio version with surprisingly good text-to-speech voices.

The inability and unwillingness to reproduce research in biomedical and evolutionary science is becoming outrageous. It also illustrates the fact that secular scientists are human and prone to the same vices as the rest of us.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Heretics in Secular Cosmology

The dominant secular concept for the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang, but y'all probably knew that. It's been around less than a hundred years, preceded by the Steady State. Astronomer Fred Hoyle disliked the Big Bang and gave it that moniker out of derision, but it stuck. Neither speculation about the universe has any significant observational evidence.

Credit: kraifreedom /
The Big Bang of today is not the same as in Ol' Grandad's day. Flaws are found, and it keeps getting modified with rescuing devices that look good on paper, but still have no observational evidence. Now you're more likely to hear about "inflationary theory", and some ornery cuss may want to slap leather with your for calling the Big Bang an explosion — but that's how it was established. Fundamentalist atheists and other secularists are like biblical Christians in one respect: low tolerance for heretics. In this case, the heresy is that a few cosmologists are disputing the scientific validity of inflation, and others are circling the wagons against those who are disputing the consensus. All that hassle to cling to cosmic evolution, and they're all wrong: the universe was created, and created recently. No explosion, inflation, or anything else. As for Christians, there's no valid reason for you to hang your hat on materialistic ideas when you have God's Word, you savvy?
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory. They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.
Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.
To finish reading, click on "Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American".

Atheists do not tolerate cosmological heretics. In this case, some are daring to say that "inflationary theory" has no evidence, and cannot save the Big Bang.

Sunday, July 02, 2017

Bizarre Burrowing Rodent Befuddles Darwinists

Much as I wanted to skip this article because the creature under consideration is ghastly to behold, once again, the ugly things that trigger the "eww factor" are actually quite interesting. I'd rather use the name sand puppy, the naked mole-rat

"Isn't Naked Mole-Rat the CIA code name for Hillary Clinton?"

Now, be nice, this isn't a political piece. Besides, the White House Communications Agency selected Evergreen for her, but code words change over time. Donald Trump's name is Mogul. Code words — hey, nice job of getting me on a rabbit trail.

So anyway, the naked mole-rat is native to Africa, and in a separate family from other mole-rats. It has several unique properties that thwart ribosome-to-rodent evolution and illustrate some of the Designer's abilities.

Fun fact: the naked mole-rat is modest at the beach and uses a changing room
Image credit: Pixabay / cocoparisienne
Although a mammal and having many needs of other mammals, this puppy acts almost cold-blooded because it has some control in regulating its body temperature (thermoregulation). The nekkid mole-rat also has the ability to live for much longer periods of time in an oxygen-deprived environment, and can live on (of all things) fructose. This critter is relegated to evolution's mysterium tremendum, since they cannot offer a reasonable explanation and simply say that it exists and has these features, therefore, evolution. That's not science, old son, that's faith. It does not take blind faith to reach the logical conclusion that the complexities (and possible medical benefits from studying) of the naked mole rat are the product of our Creator.
Naked mole-rats are highly social, cold-blooded, subterranean mammals. They live much longer than most rodents and are pain resistant, cancer resistant, and suffocation resistant. These characteristics naturally intrigue scientists wanting to help people live longer, healthier lives. The naked mole-rat’s decreased sensitivity to pain, for instance, results from a mutation affecting nerve function, and study of this mutation may reveal ways to decrease chronic pain in people. The latest naked-mole-rat discovery has awakened hopes for innovative medical interventions for heart attacks and strokes. These are events that damage the heart and brain through oxygen deprivation.
To finish reading, click on "Naked Mole-Rats: Evolutionary Marvel or God’s Grand Design?"

An amazingly ugly creature has some amazing survival abilities. It also thwarts evolution. In addition, it is being studied by medical scientists for imitating its abilities for humans! 

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Bad Behavior and Evolutionary Thinking

Darwin devotees assume that we evolved from savage brutes and did almost nothing for most of our alleged history. This defies human nature. Evolutionists contradict themselves on the definition of human nature, and especially where it came from.

When challenged to give a source for morality, some atheists say that they obtain it from evolution. Such a concept is difficult to reconcile with people who say that evolution is just a biological theory and is not a part of daily life. In reality, evolution is not confined to academic and scientific discussions, as it permeates multiple facets of society itself.

Mostly made at Atom Smasher
One way to tell if a philosophy is permeated with problems is that is inconsistent. Atheism is both arbitrary and inconsistent, and appealing to evolution is ridiculous. Our chimpanzee "cousins" engage in cannibalism, torture, rape, and more. We can't say that it's wrong, because they are animals doing animal stuff, but when we engage in such activities, those are immoral. To be consistent, why are they wrong? According to evolutionism, we are the strong ones at the top of the food chain. Whatever an individual or a group thinks is the best way to survive should be acceptable. In reality, the final source of morality and ethics is God's Word, and we are created in his image.
If you subscribe to news feeds, read the newspaper, or watch TV, you could be forgiven for thinking that we modern humans have been behaving very badly. In recent years, we have variously been blamed for causing: global cooling, global warming, famines, floods, mass extinctions, plagues, deforestation, landslides, earthquakes, and much, much more. All the problems on planet Earth are apparently our fault, and it’s only supposed to get worse. Naturalist and evolutionist Sir David Attenborough summed up this thinking well: “Humans are a plague on earth.” But this raises an interesting question: if naturalistic evolution is true, why does it matter that we’re a “plague on earth”?
To read the rest, click on "Evolution vs human behaviour — Human behaviour belies evolutionary explanations for our existence".

When evolutionists complain that humans are immoral, they are being inconsistent. According to their worldview, it's survival of the fittest, and we're going whatever it takes, singly or in groups, to improve our survival. The biblical worldview has very different reasons for morality.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Scientists Discover Men and Women are Different

Who would have believed that men and women are actually different if scientists had not said so? Actually, most of us already knew that. We have different hardware, software, and firmware. The postmodern political correctness movement is pressuring the American military to lower fitness standards for women to do that same combat jobs as men, which is admitting that the differences between sexes exist. Last I knew, the Marines were not having any of that.

The Luncheon Of The Boating Party, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1880-1881
Our obvious differences are can also be seen through genetics. Bill Nye the Leftist Agenda Guy's views on gender have changed (not because of science), and his earlier TV show about the clear science has been edited to reflect his evolving non-science views. Listen up, pilgrim: those who want to deny what God told us back in Genesis about only two sexes are not only Scripture deniers, they are science deniers. We know that secularists try mighty hard to avoid admitting that the Bible is right about something, but they cannot change the truth. There's a passel of genetic differences between men and women, and even between male and female critters. What we also see is an accumulation of mutations, which is devolution.
An article in New Scientist titled “Sex Differences in Human Gene Expression” concluded that “Researchers uncover thousands of genes whose activity varies between men and women.” Specifically, their study found 6,500 genes were differentially expressed. They concluded that men and women are distinctly dimorphic, consequently one result of this fact is that they have very dissimilar disease susceptibilities. The sexual dimorphic traits result mainly from differential expression of the genes that exist in both sexes. These results strongly go against the current politically correct view that the only differences between males and females are a few minor plumbing variations and a couple of small hormones.
To read the rest, click on "Surprise: Men and Women Greatly Differ Genetically". Also recommended is this episode of Dr. Albert Mohler's The Briefing, (which you can listen, download, or read the transcript) that has two pertinent segments: Bill Nye again, and the pregnant "man".

Once again, the Bible is proven right. In this case, scientists discover what God said and what everybody knows: men and women are not the same. The difference in this study is that there are profound differences on the genetic level.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Underground Agents of Regeneration

They work underground, seldom seen. There are many of them, and they are working to make our lives better. Sounds like a spy movie or something, but in this case, the underground is literal. We're talking about earthworms. Some folks only think of them when a robin yanks one out of the ground or someone uses them for fishing. Farmers have greater understanding and appreciation of them.

Credit: USAID (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There are bunches of earthworms in the soil, and they are just doing worm stuff. They eat, burrow, poop — and their activity benefits the soil, therefore, benefits us as well. Since they eat waste and since billions of people do not have proper sanitation facilities, USAID has a project called Tiger Toilet to use the wrigglers in breaking down human waste products! Initial results are promising, with a benefit of comparative lack of odor. For more about this, click on "Testing the 'Tiger Toilet'" and "The Results Are In: Tiger Toilets Field Trial Findings".

In his wisdom, God gave us earthworms to help regenerate soil and break down waste, and we're using the creatures. Creepy evolutionists at Darwin's Ranch are stealing credit from God and giving worms credit for the ecology that led to the Cambrian Explosion. What are those ranch hands smoking, anyway?

Despite their size, earthworms are surprisingly helpful creatures. They occasionally venture above ground in broad daylight but are mostly night crawlers. They are best known for their underground habits, such as recycling organic waste, aerating soil, and helping organic matter to decompose.
Earthworms are detritivores—garbage eaters—the ultimate in dirt-digesting junk-food consumers. They eat almost anything—scraps of fruit, morsels of dead animal flesh, leaf litter, etc. As an earthy, underground version of “filter feeders,” they ingest whatever is buried and rotting in topsoil or within near-surface soil. Meadows and pastures are crawling with worms! Their numbers may reach above 300,000 per acre, especially in chalky clay soil. The aggregate weight of a dairy farm’s earthworms likely outweighs the total weight of livestock grazing above them.
To burrow into the rest, click on "Thank God for Earthworms!"
Our Creator has blessed us with crawly things. Earthworms are beneficial for soil and waste disposal as well as other ways of helping us.