Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Dark Matter is Missing

My photograph of dark matter
The existence of "dark matter" is something that is popular in astronomy and astrophysics. It has never been observed (except in my photograph, above). Instead, it is inferred. No, it is not fictitious like the Oort Cloud, because its gravitational effects on objects seems to have been observed. Interesting...something that cannot be seen, touched, measured or physically detected is promoted by scientists, but they reject the Creator because he cannot be seen, touched, measured or physically detected to their satisfaction. One fits their presuppositions and worldview, the other does not.

There appears to be no dark matter in our part of the galaxy. Alternative explanations and theories are offered, some that may even be better than dark matter. But they are rejected because they do not fit. Here, take a look:

A new Chilean study has found that there is essentially no "dark matter" in the solar neighborhood. Dark matter is the name of an as-yet-unobserved material whose existence is inferred by its gravitational effects on visible objects. Three independent lines of evidence support the existence of dark matter, so why was it not detected in this study?
The gravitational pull of this unseen material causes stars to orbit the galaxy faster than they would if there were no such material. Also, gravitational macro-lensing (the bending of light as it passes by a galaxy) allows scientists to compute the mass of the galaxy. Such calculations confirm that galaxies contain far more mass than simply their visible components (stars, gas, and dust). Moreover, the motions of galaxies themselves as inferred from their Doppler shifts suggest that dark matter holds together clusters of galaxies.
You can finish reading "No Nearby Dark Matter", here.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Cosmic Evolution Problem of Galactic Proportions


Yet another puzzler for cosmogonists. We keep coming across reports of stellar objects that are baffling, so astronomers and cosmogonists come up with excuses for them (such as blue stars, or the fact that comets should have been used up long ago if the universe were ancient so the imaginary Oort Cloud is put forth). Note the double standards, however. If a creationists says, "We do not understand this", the Poe-skeptic will say, "Aha! This proves that Intelligent Design and creation science are not science!", but it is perfectly acceptable for evolutionists to say, "It's a mystery" or simply make up stories and call them scientific explanations. (Yes, such "logic" of this double standard escapes me, too, but people persist in doing it.) Instead of a few stars, we have a puzzler for cosmogonists: A spiral galaxy that is too perfect. Of course, it is not a problem for creationists, who do not have to scramble to come up with excuses.
According to the Big Bang theory, galaxies in the early universe were not well defined.  For the first several billion years of stellar evolution, most galaxies were in their infant stages and they looked irregular and unorganized.  The last thing astronomers would expect to see in the young universe would be a well-organized spiral galaxy.
Yet, that is exactly what they found.
According to images obtained using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers from the University of Toronto and UCLA have reported finding the spiral galaxy in a section of the universe that would place it within several billion years of the Big Bang or about 10.7 billion years ago from our current time frame.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Audio Saturday 30: Fossils Oppose Evolution

I thought I was going back to the one-minute audio pieces today, but something came up on Friday that I could not resist sharing. This is a one-hour audio from a show called "Crosstalk" on "VCY America". The full, uninterrupted show is available for purchase, but you can get quite a bit out of the free version. In the "MP3" option, the MP3 is launched immediately. My suggestion is that you save the link to your computer so you have more flexibility. Click here for the show and the write up of "The Fossil Record: A Problem for Evolutionists".

Friday, July 27, 2012

In a Sedimental Mood

Fossils defy standard uniformitarian explanations as to their formation. The process is supposed to be gradual, over millions of years. However, examination of fossils and sediments shows that creatures had to be buried rapidly. Further, the fossilization process had to have occurred in less time than evolutionists want to allow. Standard explanations fit the presuppositions of evolutionary geologists, but they do not fit the facts. The pattern found in ancient rock is better explained by the catastrophe of a global flood at the time of Noah.
Marine biologists have scoured sea floor sediments for decades, finding living creatures in the mud but never fossils in the process of forming. That's because when a sea creature dies, its carcass is totally recycled within weeks. So, if a creature's soft parts are going to fossilize, it has to happen extremely fast.

Certain sedimentary rocks, like those of the Burgess Shale in Canada, contain large amounts of fossilized sea creatures that preserve some soft body parts, such as eyes and intestines. Their remains now consist of the same carbon atoms of which their bodies were comprised, but baked and compressed into thin films. Paleontologists have attempted to find an explanation for this remarkable preservation.
You can finish reading "Flood Explains 'Worldwide Pattern' in Ancient Rock", here. Also, you can listen to Duke Ellington and John Coltrane performing "In a Sentimental Mood", below.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Arctic Octopus Adapts Without Natural Selection and Mutation

One of the mantras that evolutionists chant involves the words "natural selection" and "mutation". These are supposed to happen over long periods of time. But the cold-water octopus did not get the memo. Instead, it tolerates cold water extremes in a surprising way — as if it was designed by a Creator instead of blind chance.
Octopuses are not warm-blooded animals, yet the speed with which their nerves transmit signals depends on temperature. So how do those that live and move in sub-zero Antarctic waters function just as well as those inhabiting warm, tropical waters? The answer surprised researchers.


Two biologists from Puerto Rico who studied the cephalopods hypothesized "on the basis of conventional natural selection" that the proteins involved in transmitting nerve impulses evolved because the cold water "selected" individual octopuses with cold-adapted mutations. But the research pair, publishing in Science, did not find the anticipated mutations in the animals' genes.


The scientists compared the genes of an Antarctic octopus with those of a warm-water species. Study co-author Joshua Rosenthal told Science News, "It was a real disappointment at first....We thought there was going to be a difference in their genes, but they were basically identical. It was puzzling."
Wrap a tentacle around your mouse button and click on "Octopus Cold Adaptation Surprises Scientists" ti finish reading.

 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Is Evolution Itself the Intelligent Designer?

An atheistic, evolutionary worldview is irrational. According to its adherents, evolution is an unguided process that is unpredictable. Expecting uniformity and predictability in nature, laws of logic to exist and so on is inconsistent with this belief system. And yet, evolution is presented as if it had intelligence. In fact, evolution is wise enough to design mutually beneficial symbiosis between different organisms, it appears.

To hear evolutionists tell their stories, evolution is able to choose, plan, make decisions and carry out its wise plans. There was a book written by a priest named Nogar that seemed to have a weird religious New Age-y approach, The Wisdom of Evolution. We keep hearing about "natural selection", which indicates that if there is selecting happening, there is a selector. Watch a nature documentary and listen for the "just so stories" of evolutionary propaganda (stories, not facts) and listen for the way that evolution is portrayed as having a kind of intelligence. This is the fallacy of reification.
Red hot peppers!  Can evolution “design” anything, especially a chemical bomb a plant uses to be sure its seeds get spread properly?
There’s a desert plant in the Middle East that has an ingenious way of dispersing its seeds.  Many plants rely on animals for help, but there’s a problem: the animal helper needs to spread the seed without destroying it.  For instance, many plants surround their seeds by fleshy, delicious fruits, but if the animal munches the seeds, there they go, into oblivion instead of into the soil.
Current Biology tells the story of Ochradenus baccatus (“Taily Weed”; see photo in Flowers of Israel), a homely desert shrub that has a “mustard oil bomb” method of attracting animals but protecting its seeds from getting eaten.  It attracts rodents with the delicious fruit, but if they bite into the seeds, a chemical reaction occurs between the fruit juice and the seed juice, and pow! a distasteful, toxic mustard oil bomb goes off in the mouth.  The rodents quickly learn to spit out the seeds rather than eat them.  Fortunately for the plant, the rodents (to avoid getting eaten by their own predators), take the fruits to their rocky habitats, the best places for the seeds to grow.  This provides an especially tight example of commensal mutualism, where both parties benefit equally from their interaction.
Get ready to really read the rest of this reification of evolution in "Ingenious Seed Bomb 'Designed by Evolution'", here.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Ice Age Megafloods and the Noachian Deluge

stock.xchng/ZoofyTheJi
Although believers in evolution and uniformitarianism insist that scientists are strictly unbiased and objective, willing to follow where the evidence leads, such beliefs are based in fantasy. Also, people like that forget what is obvious about human nature: Not only are scientists people, but they have their own biases like the rest of us. Biases and presuppositions in favor of uniformitarianism could not accept the concepts of Ice Age megafloods until there was so much evidence, they were forced to admit that they happened.

Creationist scientists are trying out their own models about the relationship of these Ice Age megafloods with the global Noachian Deluge. The data seem to fit rather well — far better than for uniformitarian viewpoints.
It took 40 years for mainstream geologists to accept the Lake Missoula flood, despite hundreds of pieces of obvious evidence. The acceptance forced many geologists to shift from strict uniformitarianism (the reason they rejected the Lake Missoula flood in the first place) to believing in neo-catastrophism—the idea that the earth in rare instances does have huge catastrophes. The meteorite impact hypotheses for the extinction of the dinosaurs and Ager’s discovery that some sedimentary units were quickly laid down over hundreds of kilometers has reinforced the trend towards neo-catastrophism among mainstream geologists.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

"Evolutionary History" as a Utility Explanation

When someone has an "evolution is true" worldview, they are forced to reinterpret facts to suit their presuppositions. This gets embarrassing when they deny the global Genesis Flood and have to explain sea animals buried in volcanic ash, and creatures that do not fit into the failed "Tree of Life". Also, they are trying to use "evolutionary history" when there is none. Of course, creationists do not have these problems.
Something seems wrong with this picture: deep sea creatures living in the dark were preserved in ash from a land volcano.
Science Daily just picked up on a press release from Oxford University that came out two weeks ago: the discovery of exquisitely-preserved Ediacaran creatures.  Both articles explained that the Ediacaran fauna appear to bear no relationship to the Cambrian animals that came (in Darwin years) millions of years later, even though “where exactly they fit in the tree of life is unclear.”  The discoverers believe the animals are baby rangeomorphs, animals with frond-like structures that “lived deep beneath the ocean where there would have been no light.”
You can read the rest of "Are Two Cambrian Explosions Better Than One?", here.

 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Defending Evolutionary Equivocation

Although some evolutionists are supposedly amazed when they are told that there is equivocation, the fact is that such equivocation is actually prevalent. (Of course, this is rooted in their "evolution is a fact" presuppositions.) How do you defend equivocation? With more equivocation, of course.
If anyone doubted that evolutionists equivocate, or that such equivocation is prevalent, they need doubt no more. I recently pointed out several examples of evolutionists equivocating on evolution. When they proclaim that evolution is an obvious fact, they are referring to the origin of species by random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and a host of other explanatory mechanisms evolutionists employ when needed. This claim goes against the scientific evidence. Evolution may or may not have occurred. That is an ontological claim that can be argued. But there is absolutely no question the origin of species by evolution is not a fact. That is an epistemological claim which is undeniably false. The claim that evolution is a fact refers to our knowledge. It refers to the facts and theories of science. We may not know what happened in the distant past, but we do know exactly what is our current knowledge of what happened in the distant past. That knowledge indicates there are substantial problems with evolution. It is not something that likely happened, according to our current knowledge. It certainly is not a fact.
You can read the rest of "Professor Confirms Evolutionary Equivocations", here.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Fifteen Stumble-riffic Questions for Evolutionists

Creation Ministries International has a section on "15 Questions for Evolutionists". These are questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. (There is a video after point two of which I am rather fond, but I have a bias.) They do try to answer them, but do not fare well. At the bottom of the page are some of the objections and attempted answers. Click here and give it a whirl. Oh, and don't forget that February 12 is "Question Evolution Day"!

Evolution, Dogma and Conflation

Foot soldiers in the war against those of us who dare to question the "fact" of evolution portray scientists in glowing terms. They are eminently logical, follow where the evidence leads, never have biases, are exceptionally honest and so on. (Of course, such praise makes them seem like automatons rather than people — if you believe such praises in the first place.) People who actually believe this lofty view of evolutionists are shocked — shocked, I tell you — at the suggestion that some scientists may have biases and engage in sneaky behavior.

A very common shell game is conflation (or equivocation) on word meanings. The term "evolution" can mean many things. When the faithful chant that "evolution is a fact", they may actually be right when using some definitions of evolution. However, they are not right when they take one meaning of evolution and switch it with microbes-to-microbiologist evolution.
When I explained that evolutionists equivocate by using different definitions of the word evolution, a professor was shocked. Such allegations were “pretty despicable” and the only equivocation on evolution, she retorted, “is coming from you.” Such is the life of a messenger. Evolutionists misrepresent science in various ways, and when you point it out they put the blame on you. I once debated a biology professor and when I pointed out that evolutionists misrepresent science in their insistence that evolution is a fact, he said I didn’t understand the word “fact.” That retort might make sense if evolutionists had some nuanced meaning in mind, but they don’t. Quite the opposite, their claim is that evolution is as much a fact as is gravity or that the Earth is not flat. Not much subtlety there. But his sound bite accusation achieved the desired effect. It is standard for evolutionists to misrepresent science, and it is standard then to assign the blame on the messenger who points out the misrepresentation. In this case, the professor was scandalized when I pointed out the standard equivocation of defining evolution as mere genetic tweaking. While on the one hand claiming that it is an indisputable fact that the entire biological world arose by itself spontaneously, evolutionists on the other hand will explain evolution as the mere shifting of allele frequencies, an utterly uncontroversial observation which no one disputes. In other words, they make a dogmatic claim that is contradicted by science, and then justify it with a completely different definition of the word. It would be like claiming the Earth is flat, and then arguing strenuously that a field is flat, as though that was the basis of the dispute. However dignified the evolutionary argument is made to appear, it is ultimately nothing more than a shell game.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Dinosaurs, Birds, Evolution and Flighty Speculations

It appears that many people are unaware of what happens in the evolution industry. People ennoble scientists, saying that they are strictly objective, unbiased and follow where the evidence leads. This is clearly not the case. For one thing, such sentiments display ignorance of the process of investigation. Also, scientists are portrayed as superhuman, having no emotions and no biases. There is also the assumption that scientists are unified on all aspects of evolutionism.

When it comes to origins science, facts are selected to fit the presuppositions of the scientists' worldview. When the facts do not fit, excuses are made, masquerading as valid scientific theories or hypotheses. These excuses are vague, and even laughable. Especially when some evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Birds and dinosaurs have oval eggs and big eyes.  Does this necessarily  mean they evolved from a common ancestor?
Hopeful ovals:  Intent on evolving sparrows out of T. rex kin, some paleontologists are selectively basing arguments for common ancestry on similarities that do not seem all that impressive.  For instance, a report on PhysOrg allowed researchers from Barcelona to claim common ancestry based on oval egg shape.  “Researchers from Spain identified in Lleida a series of dinosaur eggs with a unique characteristic: They are oval in shape,” the subtitle announced.  “The discovery represents proof in favor of the hypothesis that birds and non avian theropods, dinosaurs from the Cretaceous Period, could have a common ancestor.”  The reporter later downgraded from proof to the milder phrase that it “suggests a connection with bird eggs.”  If such a shape had been found in an unrelated animal group’s eggs, Darwinists would have undoubtedly attributed it to “convergent evolution.”
Peter Pan evolution: Nature on July 12 declared that “Birds have paedomorphic dinosaur skulls” (paedomorphic referring to “retaining a morphology as adults that resembles that of the juveniles or embryos of most other archosaurs”).  The team of Bullar et al. (Nature 487, 12 July 2012, pp. 223–226, doi:10.1038/nature11146) performed detailed measurements of skulls of birds and theropods, and hypothesized that bird skulls represent a stage of arrested development of dinosaur skulls.  Are they implying that a dinosaur didn’t finish maturing, and became a bird instead?  Apparently so, and don’t think for a minute that we humans are exempt from this kind of hypothesis.  They added, “Heterochrony—change in the timing or rate of developmental events—has been implicated in the evolution of major vertebrate lineages such as mammals, including humans.
Read the rest of "Birdifying Dinosaurs", as well as an interesting exercise, here.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 3

It has become a sort of occupational hazard for those of us who present scientific, philosophical and logical material against evolution that we must deal with ridicule and abuse. It comes with the territory. What becomes startling is the intensity of attacks from Darwin's cheerleaders. (Personally, I believe it is because evolution is a foundation for atheism, so they feel that they must protect it at all costs.) Another startler is the lack of logic that the evolution thought police employ. Earlier in the day that I am writing this, a friend and I encountered the genetic fallacy, ad hominems, straw man fallacies, "moving the goalposts", appeal to motive, appeal to majority, appeal to ridicule and more. As well as simply wasting our time.

Not only do these evolutionists fallaciously assume that people deny evolution because they do not understand it, but in the midst of their vituperative railing, they try to prove evolution by citing bad science. (Also, "You're wrong because I disagree" is not a refutation.) Using logical fallacies, abuse and then misunderstood scientific principles while attempting to straighten out creationists does not impress anyone.

I have noticed many times that when someone realizes that the atheistic, materialistic worldview is shown to have flaws, they simply resort to ridicule as well as greatly exaggerating their knowledge of science. Attacking the person who presents the truth may make them feel better, but it does not change the facts.
For that matter, I have challenged people who were attacking me to debunk the science in the articles cited. All I heard was a cricket concerto until the personal attacks resumed. And my experiences are nothing compared to people who are more prominent in scientific creationism and Intelligent Design!

But enough of my ramblings.

In a response to the article linked in Part 2 of this small series, a misotheist attacked the author — and humiliated himself in the process.

Click here to read "Entropy At Work: Skeptic Blunders on Thermodynamics".

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 2

stock.xchng/creationc
In our last exciting episode, we saw a basic overview of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This time, we are getting into some more specific material.

This next article examines the science behind some of the objections or rebuttals by evolutionists to creationist arguments. First, the open system, closed system and isolated system confusion. Next, the idea that ice crystals forming is supposedly evidence against entropy in relation to evolution. Third, a theological question related to the fall of man back in Genesis.

To read "The Second Law of Thermodynamics — Answers to Critics", click here.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 1

Edited Introduction 7-09-2012

Evolution is not against the law of the land by any means. Instead, it is encouraged by secularists. (Intelligent Design and creation science have laws construed against them.) Evolution violates several laws of science. In this case, Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is running down.

In some ways, this important scientific law is common sense because we can see it happening all the time. The most basic form says that "everything goes from order to disorder". Things break down, run down, fall apart, get worse. The only way to offset this tendency is to add energy and specific information.


Here is an introductory overview of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Later, we will have some more detailed articles, including excuses skeptics make to say that it does not apply to evolution. Yes, they really think that.

Evolution versus a basic law of nature

Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).
thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
You can continue to read "Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?", here.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Has the Higgs Bosun Particle Been Found?

There has been a flurry of activity on the Internet about the so-called "God Particle", a name that is not popular among physicists. What does it have to do with evolution? Nothing. What does it have to do with cosmology? Perhaps something, but it's dependent on your worldview and presuppositions. Some people are desperate to do away with God, so they will take any excuse to claim that he was not needed, that the universe somehow made itself (never mind that this is absurd even on the surface). Those of us who believe in a Designer can easily see further affirmation of his incredible wisdom, even on the subatomic level.
Standard Model diagram of particles (TriTertButoxy, Public Domain)
According to a recent news item flashed around the world, scientists at CERN, using the Large Hadron Collider, say they have confirmed the existence of a previously hypothesized particle officially called the Higgs boson but colloquially referred to as the ‘God particle’. If confirmed subsequently by repeated experimentation, this would be a major accomplishment for science. Some might claim that confirmation of the existence of the ‘God particle’ is also confirmation of the non-existence of God, but a careful examination of the situation reveals that just the opposite is true.


What is the ‘God particle’?

The ‘God particle’, officially the Higgs boson, is one of the elementary particles in the Standard Model of elementary particle physics—see box. 

The one force not heretofore theoretically explained by the Standard Model is the force of gravity. This is, perhaps, partly due to the fact that the Standard Model did not have a theoretical explanation for the mass—or lack thereof—of its particles and mass is, of course, fundamental to the force of gravity. The best theoretical explanation of the force of gravity is still Einstein’s General Relativity in which gravity is considered to be the distortion of the fabric of space by the mass of an object—like a bowling ball distorting a trampoline. However, this too does not explain the occurrence of mass.

Enter the Higgs boson

Click here to read the rest of "Has the ‘God particle’ been found?"
Also, a related article is here.

Friday, July 6, 2012

More Species Found, Frustrating Evolutionists

When evolutionist scientists insist on using erroneous preconceptions, they get embarrassed. For instance, relying on evolution yields "living fossils" (plants and animals that were only known by their fossils, presumed extinct, and later found alive and well). In addition, not every square inch of this planet has been explored; new species are frequently discovered.
Encompassing Cambodia, southern China, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Vietnam, the Greater Mekong region’s rainforests and swamps are home to a myriad of creatures. So many, in fact, that in the last decade or so more than 1,000 species of plants and animals previously unknown to science have been discovered—an average rate of two per week...
..The ‘Lazarus effect’ refers to the unexpected ‘reappearance’ of an ‘extinct’ kind of creature after “a lengthy hiatus [gap] in the fossil record.” However, as our earlier article explained, in reality there is no ‘Lazarus effect’ spanning millions of years. Because many scientists either don’t know or deliberately forget (2 Peter 3:3–6) about the Genesis Flood around 4,500 years ago, they wrongly interpret the absence of particular organisms across multiple layers of sedimentary rock as being ‘a lengthy hiatus’ across millions of years. One clue should have been the ‘flat gaps’—locations where these layers are missing, but show no signs of millions of years of erosion.
Read "More Mekong ‘hidden animals’ found", in its full context, here.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Taking It Slow

Despite the evidence (such as the osedax in the last post, a fossil of a fish eating another fish and others), people insist on the uniformitarian belief that fossilization is a slow process and not the result of rapid burial and proper conditions. The latest? Mating turtles. I can think of several jokes to make now, but I will leave the tacky stuff to the high-class science journals.

Not only are evolutionists baffled and leave it as a "mystery" (note the double standard, creationists cannot get away with that kind of thing), they are also troubled about the alleged conditions of the environment where this happened. Yet again, this all fits well with creationist and global flood explanations; we do not need to have "just so stories".
Evolutionary paleontologists have a mystery on their hands: how did turtles in the act of mating become fossilized?
Most of the news media are amusing themselves with prurient attention on turtle sex, using double entendres and French or Latin expressions to remind themselves that “turtles do it,” too: “Palaeontologists catch turtles in flagrante,” PhysOrg headlined, while Live Science put up in bold type, “Coitus Interruptus: Ancient Turtle Sex Fossilized” (we’ll spare our readers further titillating examples of sexting as news).
A more obvious question reporters seem to be skipping over is, how quickly would an animal have to be buried to be preserved in the sex act?  The BBC News article showed a photograph of the exquisite preservation of one of the pairs of fossils claimed to be 47 million years old.  About nine pairs have been found at the Messel Pit in Germany, most of them apparently in mating positions.
You can finish reading "Mating Turtles Fossilized Instantly", here.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Osedax Eating Holes in Uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism, the belief that "the present is the key to the past", is based on the preconception that natural processes that we see today are the same as they were in the distant past. There is little or no room for global catastrophes like Noah's Flood. Difficulties for this viewpoint continue to crop up, however. For instance, the osedax worm eats the bones of dead things. Many fossilized organisms have been found with bore holes from the worms. This indicates that burial and fossilization had to have been rapid, not gradual.
Osedax worms—also called "zombie" worms—live off the bones of dead creatures. Several species of Osedax surfaced in Monterey Bay, California, in 2002, and evidence of them has now been found in the Mediterranean in a fossilized whale bone. These bone-destroying worms have evidently existed across the globe as long as animals have, which raises a question: If the fossilization of bones requires vast timespans, why didn't Osedax consume them before they could be mineralized?

Monday, July 2, 2012

Bacteria Do Not Appear to Age

This week, we are keeping the articles lighter and shorter. After all, last week had some deep stuff.

Do bacteria show the effects of age? Yes. No. Both. Maybe. What bacteria do with aged and damaged biochemicals is yet another indication of the Creator's ingenuity.
Bacterial cells are singularly long-lived. They keep dividing for what seems like forever. But because they are made of biochemicals, their DNA and proteins should suffer damage similar to what any other cell endures, including animal cells. What keeps bacterial cell components from wearing down?
Microbiologists have been trying to find out how these single-cell organisms handle chemical damage, which relentlessly accumulates due to friction and uncontrolled chemical reactions. So far, the results have been confusing, but a new analysis appears to have confirmed that bacteria have a remarkably well-engineered damage-reduction program.

Labels