Search This Blog

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Is Belief in Creation Fading?

A 2017 Gallup poll shows a decline in the number of Americans who profess belief in special creation without Darwin. A significant number believe that God had a hand in particles-to-propagandist evolution, and then there are those who believe in atheistic evolutionism. Does this reflect reality?


Credit: Pixabay / Barbara Rosner
While any poll can be suspect since we're not given many details, let's just assume that Gallup is being it's reputable self and the results are on the level. Biblical creationists would rightly ask why this is happening. There are several reasons, including the liberalization of Christianity, laziness in Christians regarding learning the truth of creation and teaching their children, peer pressure, and more.

Additional reasons for the fading belief in creation include, bluntly, persecution in academia and the secular establishment. Creationary students have been advised to keep their beliefs quiet until they get the degrees, and possibly the jobs, that they want. Professors tend to be not only leftists, but vehement misotheist bullies who seek to destroy the faith of students. Even teachers who believe in creation have to get out of Dodge; the author of the main article linked below, Dr. Jerry Bergman, was fired for his creationary beliefs and has written books about the struggles of other creationists.

The scientific and logical evidence supports biblical creation, but ideologues in educational power (coupled with lazy, compromising Christians) exert pressure on students who can leave home as believers and come back as atheists! Creation science is streng verboten, as is Intelligent Design, and fundamentalist Darwinists control the propaganda. Evolutionism is presented, but not any of the flaws. Only the sanitized propaganda is given.

Darwinism is the prevailing viewpoint in many nations, and the United States is following the trail ridden by highly secularized (as well as socialist and communist) countries elsewhere. Evolution is not to be criticized, or  Darwin's Flying Monkeys© will get you fired and probably burn a dumpster in front of your house just for the fun of it. My exaggeration on the dumpster part is only slight, but reflects the anger and fear of losing control in the secular science industry and academia — as well as trolling the internet. The truth is on our side, but they have control and an efficient propaganda machine and aren't afraid to use it to indoctrinate people.
A new Gallup poll shows, for the first time since the poll on this subject began, “a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the ‘Young Earth’ creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.” According to the poll, taken in May, the portion of the American public taking the creation position now stands at 38%. Furthermore, fifty-seven percent accept the “scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.” The poll reveals the largest factor in the shift is the jump in the number of Christians who see evolution as God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.
To finish reading, click on "Is Creationism on the Decline? If So, Why?" You may also like to read "Belief in Creation Declines".
  
A poll shows that Americans are becoming more like other secularized nations, accepting Darwinism and rejecting special creation in increasing numbers. Although truth, logic, and science are on our side, why is this happening?

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.