Search This Blog

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Whale Study Supports Creation Model

A study on how whales became the largest mammals on Earth had some interesting speculations, with homage to Darwin and just-so stories added. Short answer: they got big because they ate a lot. The long answer involves conditions that gave them the proper food with the right quantity and quality. 

The study was evolutionary in nature, but variations in critters isn't evolution, it's simply variations. Nothing is changing into something else, like the fish-to-land-animals-back-to-the-sea whale evolution foolishness, you savvy? In fact, none of the long-age evolutionary claims can be substantiated. The blue whale evolution concept has failed as well. That's because they were created, and not the product of evolution.

Humpback whale "breeching" image credit: Sally Mizroch,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Several possible conditions that led to baleen whales' increase in size, such as ocean upwelling bringing nutrients, the Ice Age, windblown iron-rich dust assisting phytoplankton and helping with that food chain, and other possibilities fit right in with Genesis Flood models. Conditions during and after the Flood may have matched the evolutionary speculations, but without the millions of Darwin years obtained by circular reasoning and a whole whack of assumptions.
A study published in May in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B hypothesized how and when baleen whales (those which filter feed plankton, krill, and other small creatures) grew so large. Previous hypotheses on the subject had come up with several potential methodologies: change in diet to a particular niche, response to macropredator size, loss of competition for resources, larger intake of food, localized prey density, and so on. They were surprised to discover a correlation between intense wind-driven ocean upwelling and baleen whale body size. They also found that, by comparing baleen whales from the fossil record, today’s giant whales (like the blue whale) grew in size rapidly, starting at about the time of the late Pliocene (supposedly 3 million years ago) through to the late Pleistocene (conventionally dated to 100,000 years ago); the entire time period in Flood geology terms would be during the Ice Age (c. 2300–1900 BC).
To read the rest, click on "How and When Did Baleen Whales Get So Large?

A study on the evolution and size of baleen whales raised some interesting speculations. Some of the more reasonable material supports creation science Genesis Flood models.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Chowing Down on Propane

Some people say that the little things in life are what matter. We can adjust that to say that little living things matter. This goes all the way down to bacteria. Many people know that even though there are harmful bacteria, there are many that are necessary for life. Some even help protect the environment.

Mostly made at Atom Smasher
Way down in the deep blue sea are organisms that live on asphalt volcanoes and essentially chow down on propane. Seems weird, but it's true. It's also frustrating for evolutionists to explain the symbiotic relationship among the critters living there, and waving it off as EvolutionDidIt is beyond credibility.

So, why is it different when biblical creationists say that God created bacteria to adapt and to eat propane, and have a quid pro quo happening with other creatures? I think the principle of the impossibility of the contrary may apply. That is, although they don't want to admit that the Creator's design is the logical conclusion, evolution is clearly impossible. But fundamentalist evolutionists cling to their stories despite the lack of models, science, or logic.
Asphalt volcanos really do exist on the ocean floor. They leak natural gas, oil, and the same type of black glop we use for road pavement. They have been oozing for who knows how long, although scientists discovered them only 15 or so years ago. Unique sea creatures team up to eat their petroleum products. How could any living thing live off natural gas?
We know of special bacteria that eat oil. For example, they cleaned up the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill more quickly than some thought possible. But the mussels, sea worms, crabs, sponges, and other animals that thrive on the slopes of asphalt volcanoes cannot eat oil.
To eat up the rest of this article, click on "Propane Eaters Spur Creation Questions".
   
So, deep sea bacteria help clean up the environment by eating asphalt and propane. This frustrates evolutionists, since they have no plausible evidence or models. They also reject creation out of hand, even though it's the logical conclusion to what's happening way down in the oceans.

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Bad Assumptions to Attack the Bible

Christians and creationists encounter the so-called "New Atheists" as keyboard warriors, attacking God, the Bible, Christianity, Christians, and especially creation science. You'll probably encounter that one guy who acts like he is the one to come up with some great new insight to cause the collapse of theism, all by his lonesome. Better thinkers than you have tried and failed with the same arguments for a long, long time, Poindexter.


The Penitent Apostle Peter, Anthony van Dyck, 1618
When you study on it, you'll see that the logically impaired arguments leveled by misotheists today have a great deal in common with criticisms of the Bible used in days of yore. Today, we deal with speculations passed off as "science", with "scientists think", "maybe", "could have been", "perhaps", and so forth. Similarly, there were heretics that made up their own false theologies, and others who would join in by making up excuses essentially based on naturalistic philosophies. 

Arguing from presuppositions (assumptions about what is true) and faulty epistemology (how someone knows something is true) are joined up with bad logic. "Prophesies were not fulfilled, and made up after the fact". "The Virgin Birth was a cover-up for Mary's pregnancy from a Roman soldier". "What the apostles wrote about the life of Jesus has little resemblance for what really happened". How do you know that? Were you there, or can you furnish reliable eyewitness accounts? Do you have anything resembling evidence, or do you rely on prejudicial conjecture? A bit of critical thinking and challenge can make fluster naysayers.
Is the Bible the reliable Word of God or a fallible collection of human religious ideas? The purpose of this article is to show that the conflict between secular science and the Bible is not new, but dates back to the days of the early church. Greek scientists like Porphyry and Celsus questioned the reliability of the contents of Genesis, Jonah, Daniel, as well as the factuality of Jesus’ Virgin Birth and Resurrection. This paper will demonstrate how early Greek scholars alleged that the holy Christian Scriptures were unreliable productions of men and will consider the commitment of the early church to these writings as the voice of God.
To read the rest of the article and see the poor reasoning of misotheists, click on "Battle for the Bible in the early church".
   
Misotheists today have a great deal in common with the anti-Christians of ancient times. Unbelievers and heretics would use bad logic and assumptions that had no basis in fact.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Another Evolution Revolution?


There's a whole heap of consternation going on in muck-to-man evolutionary circles. Yet again, they make much ado about practically nothing. Paleontologists have a piece of bone and a tooth, and it means that they have to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Watch the textbooks not get changed. Again. 

Trouble arises because because of evolutionary presuppositions and the narrative that humans and chimpanzees split off the Darwinian timeline and commenced to evolving their separate ways in Europe instead of Africa. Katie, bar the door! It would help matters a great deal if they avoided bad science and had a realistic worldview — such as the eyewitness account of creation, that wasn't threatened to be overturned when supposedly significant items are discovered. But they don't cotton to hearing the truth.
The CBC News headline “7.2-million-year-old pre-human fossils challenge evolutionary theory” tells it all. Another headline at The Telegraph was more confident, exclaiming that “the history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa” as previously thought. The source of these and many other reports was an article published in PLoS One that was far more modest than the frequent headlines that were very confident of the conclusions.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Yet Another Revolution in Human Evolution". For additional information, I recommend "'Prehuman' Fossil Age Questioned".
   
Evolutionary paleontologists made fragmentary discoveries that should supposedly cause a revolution in evolution. The big deal is made of very little information, and caused by bad science coupled with evolutionary presuppositions. They actually have nothing of significance.

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 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
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.