VENUS: Obviously Venus wasn't formed to be inhabited

 "Life on Venus? UK probe could reveal the answer (Royal Astronomical Society, 7 July 2025). The royal jazz at UK are bosom

buddies with NASA’s bio-astrologers in spirit and in sleuth. Here, they try to one-up their competitors across the pond with dreams about Venus . Of all places to not look for life, Venus should top the list, with its surface hot enough to melt lead and its clouds dripping with sulfuric acid.

"Over the past five years researchers have detected the presence of two potential biomarkers – the gases phosphine and ammonia – which on Earth can only be produced by biological activity and industrial processes."

This is patently false. Ammonia (NH3) is common in the solar system but it is dead by itself. And the claims of phosphine (PH3), a smelly, explosive, poisonous gas that is equally dead by itself, were rejected shortly after they were reported." 

CEH

God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.... Isaiah 45:18
**Obviously Venus wasn't formed to be inhabited.....

Are Humans Animals?

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Matthew 6:26

"Whether they realize it or not, every person’s answer to this

question directly reflects their worldview, and whether they accept man’s explanation of the world’s history or God’s account of history that is recorded in the Bible.

Despite the claims and beliefs of many, humans are not animals. At the heart of this issue lies this question—
Q: where did humans come from?
Q: In other words, did we evolve or were we created?

Intuitively we know—as much as some try to fight it—that humans are not animals, that something is different about us.
From our mental capacity to our physical abilities, our creativity to our ingenuity, humanity has declared itself to be set apart from the animal world in every way.

The first two chapters of the book of Genesis record the creation of the world. In that creation account, the creation of mankind is specifically detailed and gives us the following information:

--God created mankind in his own image (Genesis 1:26)

--God created mankind as male and female (Genesis 1:27)

--God gave mankind dominion over everything that moves on the earth (Genesis 1:28)

--God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils (Genesis 2:7)

In the very first verses of the Bible and throughout the rest of Scripture, we see that mankind is a unique creation." 

AIG

Whale Valley: Whale of a Tale

 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth.... Genesis 1:21

"In a captivating headline published in Live Science on 4 July 2025, evolutionists take flood evidence and transform the narrative into supposed ‘evidence’ for evolution. graveyard in the Sahara desert that shows they once had feet and toes’ bypasses the obvious question about how a well-preserved fossil graveyard formed in the world’s largest hot desert, to instead attempting to make the case that homologous structures in the whale pelvic region demonstrate a history of evolution. 

Well-Preserved Fossils Suggest Rapid Burial

Referencing a feature on the website of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the authors state that:
According to palaeoclimate reconstruction based on evolutionaryinterpretations, the Tethys Ocean began to shrink between 7-11 million years ago, during the Tortonian stage of the Late Miocene. This was supposedly triggered from the gradual collision between the African and Eurasian plates resulting in the closure of the West Tethys Seaway. These changes in land-ocean coverage supposedly resulted in atmospheric changes connected with the region, resulting in the weakening of the African Summer Monsoon.

The article by Sascha Pare, entitled: ‘Whale Valley: The whale

Q: But what do the whale graveyards really show?

“These skeletons and other marine fossils date to the late Eocene epoch (55.8 million to 33.9 million years ago), when present-day Egypt was submerged beneath the Tethys Ocean and whales had just evolved into sea creatures, according to UNESCO.”

As the story goes, this change further reduced rainfall in the region, compounding upon the lost sea, and expanding aridity in the region. Deducing from the estimated time frame, this process would have supposedly taken around 4 million years for the aridification of the region, forming what we know today as the Sahara Desert, estimated to have finally formed between 2-3 million Darwin Years before present—or even as early as 7 million years ago, according to Science (2006).

Unasked Questions

Q: With such a gradual process of ocean shrinkage and coupled atmospheric feedback taking around 4 million years, just how would 400 whale skeletons become fossilized? 

Q: With gradual ocean shrinkage, wouldn’t whales have just migrated and for those that did not, wouldn’t their remains have rotted with the ebbs and flows of the slowly retreating sea? 

---This provides strong evidence that these fossils in Whale Valley formed due to catastrophic processes rather than from ocean shrinkage and the slow process of the aridification of the desert.

The environmental conditions associated with the evolutionary story just does not fit with fossil formation we observe in the Sahara.

Further support for a global catastrophe comes from the variety of well-preserved organisms found. Quoting from the Live Science article:

“In 2005, paleontologists uncovered a stunningly preserved, near-
complete B. isis skeleton, prompting UNESCO to list Whale Valley as a World Heritage site. Since then, plenty more fossils have emerged, including the remains of ancient Eocene turtles, bony fishes, sharks, rays, crocodiles, sea cows and shellfish, according to the review.”

Q: Could gradual environmental change feasibly result in ‘stunning preservation’ of these organisms?
Beyond the evolutionary story of a localized oceanic shrinkage leading to the whale graveyard, the authors zoomed in on a curious structure found in whale skeletons as supposed evidence that they had legs. The evolutionary narrative holds that these bones are vestigial – merely remnants of an evolutionary past, ‘proving’ that whales are evolutionary ancestors. 

Q: But are these bones really vestigial? Is the evolutionary allegation really a watertight argument?
---Despite this claim of vestigiality, other evolutionary literature over the past decade has independently demonstrated that whales’ pelvic structures actually perform useful functions, including but not limited to anchoring reproductive organs and providing structural support for both reproductive and digestive systems. While evolutionists may attempt to justify functionality as a claim of ‘exaptations’ (suggesting changes in function over time), this is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. As with the overall theory, this narrative once again highlights how evolutionists insist on reading history into the structure without direct evidence of such transitions.

As Dr. Bergman recently wrote, commenting on the Live Science article:

“…the animal discovered and reported by Pare in Live Science found in Whale Valley was not actually a whale, but rather a dolphin-like creature known as Archaeoceti, which measured about eight meters in length—significantly smaller than the average modern whale, which typically reaches around 27 meters length, making it roughly 3.4 times longer than Archaeoceti.”

By attempting to construct a coherent narrative, evolutionists often

make philosophical connections from fragmentary evidence to fit the story they seek to tell. 

Once again, this is far from being the scientific method, as this would mean any observation would have an a priori interpretation. 

Each observation would be used to support their favored narrative by default, rather than explore alternative interpretations.
While we encourage qualified scientists to continue highlighting flawed reasoning and other ‘whales’ of tales, we must restore scientific enquiry to its original intent of an open search for truth." 

Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds

DIVINE DESIGN of Plant Leaves (photosystem II)

 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, 

and herb for the service of man: 

that He may bring forth food out of the earth; 

The trees of the LORD are full of sap; 

the cedars of Lebanon, which He hath planted;

Psalm 104:14,16

"Plants.... Daniel Reeves did a beautiful job of presenting together on the design of these green creatures.
He cites Robert Boyle, chemist and Sabbatarian, who devoted his Sabbath study to the Book of Nature. 

God’s possessions, made with wisdom, very much include plants. Daniel quotes from Psalm 104, a hymn to divine design, with an emphasis on types of vegetation.
He gives a macro picture of plant leaves as the most highly functional solar panels in existence, while Dr. Emily Reeves delves into the biochemical wonders of photosynthesis. She notes, for example, the operation of photosystem II, “the only enzyme in nature that is known to be able to split a water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. That means that this little enzyme that’s in plant leaves is responsible for producing over 99 percent of all the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.” 

EN&V

Case for a Creator: Helium Analogy

 And He is before all things, 

and by Him all things consist. 

Colossians 1:17

"The element helium was first discovered by an astronomer, not a chemist, because its existence was inferred from observations of sunlight before it was actually found on earth. 

The astronomer, Norman Lockyer, noticed that there was a wavelength of light produced by the sun that was not produced by

any element yet discovered. He inferred that there must therefore be an undiscovered element in the sun. This was a perfectly legitimate inference, Occam’s razor notwithstanding, because no already-known entity could produce that wavelength of light. And it made no difference that no one knew exactly how or why different elements produced different wavelengths of light. If any chemist had insisted that there was not a new element in the sun, he would have needed to show that you actually can get that wavelength using only the already-known elements. In fact, the English chemist Edward Franklin attempted to do this by putting hydrogen under extreme heat and pressure, but was unsuccessful. 

*The same goes for evolution. 

--The evolution of highly complex biological systems has never been observed, 

--and there are certain theoretical arguments that purport to show that it is essentially impossible (statistically speaking) for random variation, natural selection, and the laws of nature alone to produce those systems. 

So any scientist who wants to argue that the already-known entities in nature could produce all of biology needs to show how this could occur, in spite of the theoretical hurdles. 

---If they can’t do this, then we are perfectly justified in proposing a new entity, such as a designer. 

One final objection must be answered. 

Q: If we don’t know exactly how the designer crafted life, then how do we even know that a designer is the right explanation? Couldn’t it just as easily be something else? 

A: Once again, the story of helium is illuminating. Helium and intelligent design are both parsimonious explanations regarding the broad type of cause, yet non-parsimonious regarding the specific entity. 

Lockyer proposed an element, rather than something else (e.g., a new law of nature), because it was already known that elements can produce light. But he proposed a new element, because it was known that none of the old elements could produce that particular wavelength of light. 

Likewise, ID theorists propose a designer to explain the specified

complexity of life because it is already known that designers (i.e., minds) can produce specified complexity. But we must propose a new designer, because none of the old designers (ourselves, beavers, etc.) are capable of having created the systems in question. 

By now it should be clear why it is the height of silliness to demand proof that the designer could create life, or to expect detailed explanations of how it could be done. If chance and necessity are insufficient to produce life, then we must conclude that something beyond chance and necessity was involved. 

*The proof of that entity’s capability is simply the fact that life exists." 

DanielWitt

Where did the Flood Waters Go?

And the waters returned from off the earth continually: 

and after the end of the hundred and fifty days

 the waters were abated. 

Genesis 8:3

"New research reveals that only the oldest and fastest-sinking oceanic plates can transport water deep into Earth’s mantle, due to the unique heat-transferring properties of the mineral olivine.

The Earth’s outer shell, called the lithosphere, is broken into rigid

sections known as tectonic plates. These plates float on top of the hotter, more flexible mantle beneath them. When two plates collide, the denser one sinks into the mantle in a process called subduction. The plate that sinks is referred to as a “slab.” Oceanic plates are typically denser than continental ones, largely due to their high content of olivine, a mineral that makes up about 80 percent of oceanic lithosphere.

Olivine is also the predominant mineral in the Earth’s outer shell, representing 60% of the upper mantle (40-410 km of depth). While subducting, the cold slabs are progressively heated by the warm ambient mantle through heat diffusion, a process that involves heat

conduction and heat radiation. Understanding slab heating processes is fundamental to explaining the occurrence of deep earthquakes, and the presence of water at more than 600 km of depth.

The heat transport by radiation accounts for approximately 40 percent of the total heat diffused in the olivine-rich upper mantle. Therefore, radiative thermal conductivity plays an important role in slab heating and can have far-reaching effects on the density and the rigidity of the subducting plates, and their capacity to carry water into Earth’s interior." 

SciTechDaily

Your Memory Tree

I will praise Thee; 

for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: 

Psalm 138:14

"Humans can remember various types of information, including facts, dates, events and even intricate narratives.
"We then discovered that people don't simply recall various events

from the narratives but often summarize relatively large parts of a narrative (such as episodes) in single sentences. This gave rise to an idea that a narrative is represented in memory as a tree where nodes that are closer to the root represent an abstract summary of larger episodes."
Tsodyks and his colleagues hypothesized that a tree representing a narrative is first constructed when an individual first hears or reads a story and understands it.
---As past studies suggest that individuals comprehend the same narratives differently, then the resulting trees would have unique structures."
MedicalXpress

Cortical Choreography of Sentence Production

 Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex! 

Psalm 139:14 NLT

"In a recent paper published in Nature Communications Psychology, a research team at NYU, led by Associate Professor Adeen Flinker and Postdoctoral Researcher Adam Morgan, explored how the brain constructs sentences from individual words.

The study revealed that although the brain’s activity patterns for individual words stay consistent across different language tasks, the way those words are arranged and processed depends heavily on sentence structure. In sensorimotor areas, neural activity mirrored the order in which the words were spoken.

However, in prefrontal regions—especially the inferior and middle frontal gyri—the encoding strategy was different. These areas not only represented the words participants intended to say but also registered each word’s grammatical function (such as subject or object) and its place within the sentence’s overall structure.

The researchers also found that during passive constructions like

“Frankenstein was hit by Dracula,” the prefrontal cortex maintained activation for both nouns throughout the entire sentence. 

Even while one word was being spoken, the other remained active in the brain. This ongoing, simultaneous encoding indicates that forming grammatically complex or non-standard sentences requires the brain to retain and manage multiple elements at once, likely engaging additional working memory to do so.

Interestingly, this dynamic aligns with a longstanding observation in linguistics: most of the world’s languages favor placing subjects before objects. The researchers propose that this could be due, in part, to neural efficiency.

Ultimately, this work offers a detailed glimpse into the cortical choreography of sentence production and challenges some of the long-standing assumptions about how speech unfolds in the brain. Rather than a simple linear process, it appears that speaking involves a flexible interplay between stable word representations and syntactically driven dynamics, shaped by the demands of grammatical structure." 

SciTechDaily

Quite the Admission

Professing themselves to be wise,

 they became fools....

Romans 1:22

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. 

He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

"We take the side of science 

in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, 

in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant

promises of health and life, 

in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a

prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." 

CMI