Here’s one particular episode of Answers News I wanted to share. This episode, hosted by Tim Chaffey, Avery Foley, and Jennifer Rivera, delves into a variety of news items related to science and politics. It covers a number of articles I wanted to blog on, but since they responded first, I figured I’d give them the credit and touch on the main points.
1: An article in Science Daily titled, ‘From fins to limbs,’ attempts to explain how and where the earliest vertebrates used their limbs. Evolution, of course, is assumed and presented as fact. The premise is that fish limbs evolved into tetrapod (a group of four-footed animals) limbs. Therefore, all that’s left is to figure out is how limb function changed.
One might question how anyone could solve this mystery when the earliest vertebrates are long extinct; and, as Dr. Rivera pointed out, there’s no muscle or soft tissue preserved. The answer: evolutionary assumptions, speculation and manipulating computer models (yes, manipulation). The researchers created three-dimensional computer models of the fossils, building a musculoskeletal system for the extinct fish and tetrapods, then compared those models to ones obtained from living fish and tetrapods.
By doing all this they found. 1: There are three transitionary stages of function. 2: The earliest tetrapod limbs were more similar to each other than to any fish or modern tetrapod. 3: Early tetrapod limbs were better for propelling it through water than for walking on land.
So, by assuming evolution, manipulating data and comparing speculative models to authentic models, scientists “proved” what they wanted to prove- they solved the riddle of functionality. Interestingly, the models show that early tetrapods were better equipped for swimming than moving on land.
My takeaway from this article is this: evidence for evolution is contrived.
2: The next article from Gizmodo tries to save face by denying the existence of living fossils. Living fossils are living animals once thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago because they’re missing from the fossil record.
In this case, scientists, after studying the genome of a large fish called the coelacanth, declared living fossils to be a myth. Convenient!
Obviously, scientists can’t study the DNA of extinct coelacanths, but they can analyze different species of modern ones, and, needless to say, they identified differences, which means that the genome of living coelacanths cannot be identical to extinct ones. Astonishing! Scientists have found that living coelacanths have acquired “dozens” of new genes over the last 23 million years, yet they still look the same.
What we really see here is an example of scientists moving the goalpost. What defines a living fossil is not the genome, per se, but the resemblance to its extinct relative. And since the coelacanth has barely changed after 23 million years, the term ‘living fossil’ is appropriate.
I think the real reason why some scientists take issue with the concept of living fossils is because it falsifies evolution. If a species shows no evidence of evolution after many millions of years, then maybe evolution is the real myth. Hence, evolutionists are eager to eliminate the notion of living fossils. But the problem is that they have to redefine the term in order to do this.
I don’t think these researchers made a very compelling case because the number of changes are relatively small. Acquiring ‘dozens’ of new genes over 23 million years is hardly significant considering the number of changes evolutionists claim were necessary to change an ape-like creature into man (about 2 million years), or a deer-like mammal into a whale (15 million years). So living fossils are alive and well, and the coelacanth is living proof.
The team from AiG pointed out that the study is based on assumptions that cannot be supported by observational evidence, including the belief that the fossils are millions of years old, and I concur. I think it’s more reasonable to believable that the fossilized coelacanths died out only a few thousand years ago, not millions.
3: Next, a hit piece by Snopes exposes the hypocrisy of fact-checking, as Snopes admits to publishing opinion stories without fact-checking. This story is from a hostile, atheist professor who has slandered creationists by comparing them to conspiracy theorists. Snopes- known for their biased reporting- warns others not to publish information without fact-checking, but they have violated their own rules in order to publish a false narrative.
4: An article from the Washington Examiner demonstrates how absurd modern culture has become as it seeks to eliminate gender for a political cause. The lengths some people go to deny science is egregious, as nurses and midwives in the U.K are being ordered not to use words like ‘mother’, ‘woman’, or ‘breast milk’. Instead, they’re told to use terms like ‘human’ or ‘birthing parent’ in order to appease the offended.
Throughout human history, people have known there’s a difference between male and female. Science affirms this. Yet there are those who would rather offend the 99 percent who recognize male and female for the 1 percent who take issue. This disturbing practice has already spread to America.
As Dr. Rivera points out, this philosophy serves to eliminate gender identify. God created people male and female, but the culture seeks to be their own god by denying reality, censoring language, creating their own facts, and punishing those who don’t agree . The only oppression here is for those who recognize traditional language, logic and science.
5: Sadly, this next article exposes more abuses by Big Tech. Here we see YouTube’s intolerance and political bias as they censored all videos produced by LifeSite– a pro-life organization- on their channel without warning. LifeSite embraces the sanctity of human life, but YouTube has chosen to appeal to a culture of death and destruction.
6: The next article from the Express presents a misleading headline, claiming that Bible experts are certain the Tower of Babel is real… but then makes the case that the Jewish people during their exile in Babylon were inspired to write a myth based on the inspiration of real ziggurats they saw during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This is yet another example of ‘experts’ attempting to deny real history to the Bible while replacing it with symbolism.
7: The last article is from CNN. In 2015, scientists discovered 47 teeth in a cave in China, dated between 80,000 and 120,000 years old. This discovery rewrote human evolution because it undermined the ruling paradigm- the Out of Africa theory. However, this article attempts to undo those changes as scientists used other dating techniques to arrive at a new date of 16,000 years for the teeth; therefore, there’s no need to alter science textbooks.
Fascinating. I would argue that all the dating techniques they used are unreliable, and this is why it’s perfectly reasonable to infer a young age for the earth. Nonetheless, evolutionists largely insist that dating techniques are reliable and shouldn’t be questioned. But now we have a clear example of evolutionists admitting that dating techniques- such as radiometric dating- are unreliable. So, if that’s true, then there’s no good reason to accept their new dates, right?
It seems the purpose of this research is to rescue secular science from the embarrassment of being wrong. Yet one of the researchers, Chris Stringer, contradicted the study, admitting the research doesn’t ‘definitively’ prove that there were no modern humans in China more than 50,000 years ago. Funny thing, the author goes on to lament that the theory of human evolution is ‘complicated’. Hmmm.
Avery Foley pointed out that the biblical timeline of human history isn’t nearly so complicated, as it doesn’t keep changing the way evolutionary history does. And it’s not that evolutionists are getting closer to figuring out the truth. So perhaps the Bible’s history is correct, and secular history needs to conform. The Bible remains just as accurate today as it was when it was first written. Another creationist, Nathaniel Jeanson, has made some remarkable predictions based on biblical history, something evolutionists can’t do.
Go ahead and check out the video, or tune in to other episodes of Answers News.