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, December 31, 2013

Evolution, Racism and Aborigines

Although some people try to deny it, evolution has been used as a "scientific" basis for racism. White Europeans had largely forgotten that their lifestyles originated with biblical principles, and believed that they were racially superior. Such ideas became justified by Darwinism, and were found in the United States and elsewhere. (Why do you think Elliot Marston thought it was just fine to hire Matthew Quigley to kill off Aborigines?) Some people thought that blacks were "less evolved" than whites, so they should be treated like the inferiors that they considered to be.

Biblical principles, genetics and medical science give a far different perspective than the fantasies resulting in evolutionary presuppositions.
It is a sad fact that there is a large gap in social stability and opportunities between Australia’s Aboriginal people and the rest of the society there. But why is this so? A reader wonders whether the evolutionist sentiment that Aboriginal people are ‘less evolved’ is correct. Even today it is hard for many to escape that sentiment—that these indigenous people ‘can’t help’ their poor living conditions because it’s just ‘natural’ for them. CMI’s Dr Carl Wieland shows that this simply does not fit the facts, and situates Aboriginal people, their skills, their sins, and their struggles, within the One Human Family of Adam and Eve.
You can read the letter and response at "Aboriginal cannibalism?—and our One Human Family".


 

Monday, December 30, 2013

Fresh Tissues Refute Deep Time

People like to say that "Science is self-correcting". Well, "science" is not a living entity, but people mean that scientists will make adjustments for new data and even discard theories and hypotheses if they are falsified. It amazes me that people will cling to a "theory" when the evidence is against it. I am referring to evolution. Instead of trashing the thing (which should have been done over an 'undred years ago), they hide evidence, make excuses, ignore conflicting data, proceed from presuppositions, conduct bad science (including outright fraud) and more.

Tyrannosaurus Rex Holotype specimen at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh
Wikimedia Commons / Scott Robert Anselmo
When anomalies were found in 1966, they were discarded because they did not fit with evolutionary presuppositions. Various soft tissues in dinosaur bones have been found, and excuses have been made. More discoveries, more excuses. Now that blood and soft tissues have been found in Tyrannosaurus rex fossils, Mary "Iron Maiden" Schweitzer did some controlled, unrealistic and highly publicized experiments that do not prove much.

Bob Enyart's "Real Science Radio" has a two-part discussion of the many irritants to evolutionists and proponents of "deep time". These are documented not only by creationist scientists, but also by their secular counterparts. Unfortunately, the secularists refuse to admit the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to a young earth and recent creation.

Something in the narrative stood out to me. Bob Enyart has been on dinosaur digs. You can smell the bones. They do not smell like rock, like they should if they were so many millions of years old. Someone who calls himself "Australopithecus" said, "Bob, if you’ve been on a dinosaur dig with people who think that dinosaur bones that they excavate smell like bones, then they’re either lying to you or mentally ill". I can't help but point out that this guy is using the False Dilemma ("Either/Or") Fallacy and sneaking in some ad hominem remarks, but is uninformed about other people's observations; his own secular scientists say the same thing. Later, he was abusive again and said, "...you'd know that if you understood what you read..." Disputing the interpretations of the evidence is expected in scientific procedures. Calling someone a liar simply because you do not like what they are saying is contrary to the true spirit of scientific inquiry. I wonder if "Australopithecus" knows about the dog that can sniff out fossils.

You can hear Part 1 of "RSR Reports on ICR's Fresh Fossils List" here, and "ICR's Fresh Fossils List Pt 2" is here. The audio links are located like so:


Saturday, December 28, 2013

Audio-Video Podcast 10 — Appeal to Motive Fallacy


The "Appeal to Motive" Fallacy (a form of the "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" is considered. People pretend that they know why someone makes certain statements, holds a particular view or takes a course of action. But this is just an attempt to attack the person and avoid the topic. The MP3 version can be downloaded here.

Friday, December 27, 2013

Refusing Chromosome Fusion

Evolutionary Visigoths have raided real science and rational thought. A huge part of the problem is their own presuppositions, biases and barbaric scientific practices that have actually hindered scientific progress for a long time. For example, DNA. Using bad science, people have perpetuated the myth that "humans and chimps are 98 percent similar in DNA" (the number varies, depending on who you talk to). That has been refuted

Then, using evolutionary presuppositions, the difference between the numbers of human and ape chromosomes was assumed to be due to "chromosomal fusion". This was "proved" because of sloppy science — the so-called fusion was in something they considered a "pseudogene". Why was it called a pseudogene? Because they could not see any evolutionary purpose for it, so it must not be important (not true, pseudogenes are actually very important). Once it was decided that DNA should be more completely sequenced, the problems with the chromosonal fusion began to be revealed. It does not exist.
Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope. However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.
Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2. However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”) The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.
Go bananas for a few minutes and read the rest of "New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion".

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Searching a Dry Lake Bed on Mars for Life

The Curiosity rover on Mars is going to work on analyzing what appears to be a dry lake bed. It has been named the Yellowknife Bay formation. The thinking is, if there was water, there may have been microbes. Various minerals found appear to be friendly to such life there. Other conditions on Mars, however, are not so friendly.
NASA / JPL-Caltech / MSSS
What if some kind of life is actually found there? As we have seen, evolutionists (and especially their press) will probably make the wild leap of faith masquerading as logic: Life on Mars, therefore, evolution on Earth. Of course, they would need to demonstrate how life evolved there. It would be quite a task, since molecules-to-man evolution has not been observed here, nor is there a plausible mechanism for such a thing.
Curiosity, the eighth Mars landing in the ongoing quest for life on the Red Planet, has found in the dry mudstone of Gale Crater’s Yellowknife Bay the chemical elements ordinarily associated with living organisms. Brushing away the ubiquitous red Martian dirt in what appears to be a dry lake, Curiosity’s robotic instruments found gray mudstone with a composition suggesting past conditions friendly to microbial life. While neither microbes nor organic compounds have been found, researchers believe they are looking in the right place.

Looking For Life In A Martian Lake

When Yellowknife Bay was first noted to resemble a dry lake bed, researchers anticipated it would be a “candy store of targets” in Curiosity’s search for Martian life. Now that its geochemistry is being analyzed, they continue hopeful since it appears the past conditions were habitable. Thus far, however, no evidence of life has been found in this apparent lake on Mars.
You can read the rest at "Can Lake on Mars Support Life?"

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Happy Christmas — A Look Back 45 Years

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the Apollo astronauts did a live television broadcast from near the moon. They read the first ten verses of the Bible. (Naturally, atheopath Madalyn Murray O'Hair filed a lawsuit. Atheists protest a lot of things Christians do that threaten their worldview. Intolerant lot.) This is still a popular event all these years later.

So I will let this video (which has some great music) be my Christmas greeting to you. May the Creator of the universe, who humbled himself and took on the form of a child, died for our sins, was bodily raised on the third day, become a very real part of your life. Have a blessed Christmas!

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen



Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Dinosaurs, Birds, Evolution and Desperation

It is acknowledged that members of the media will run off with sensational science stories and exaggerate information, sometimes even making claims of which the scientists themselves are unaware. This brings two questions to my mind. First, should science publications show some restraint? Second, should they do some checking to make sure they are not contradicting their own worldview, even if scientists did make off-the-wall speculations?

Image sources: Wikimedia Commons / PD / US
morgueFile / dee37
In this case, evolutionists are up to their old tricks, imagining a connection (homology) so they can bolster their belief system even though the connection is unwarranted. Plus, claiming that birds evolved from hadrosaurs...oh, my. Never mind that they are continuing the mythology that dinosaurs evolved into birds, because dinosaurs ate birds, and bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils. Then they have to explain how a fleshy appendage lasted for an alleged 65 million years. But like the rest of evolution, why let the facts stand in the way of a good, profitable story, n'est-ce pas?
An apparent fleshy appendage on the head of a hadrosaur does not mean it is an evolutionary link to birds. A specimen of Edmontosaurus was discovered with impressions of what might have been a fleshy appendage, about 8 inches tall, on the skull. Most of the science news sites could not help likening the feature to the cock’s comb of a rooster.
You can comb the rest of this brief article at "A Dinosaur Is Not a Rooster".

Monday, December 23, 2013

Haeckel — Worse Than We Thought

People say that "science corrects itself". (But "science" is not an entity, so right away, they are guilty of the fallacy of reification.) This is not completely true. When it comes to evolutionism, proponents will resort to various tricks to keep their worldview going despite the evidence.

There are anti-creationists who insist that creationists (especially biblical creationists) are "liars" and "fact deniers". Their basis for such accusations? It is primarily because we do not believe in the atheistic, old-earth, evolutionary interpretations of the evidence. Further, we promote evidence that refutes evolution and affirms a young earth. This is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry.


Interestingly, those who call us "liars" are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, promoting not only bad science, carelessness (by people who should know better), deception and even outright fraud. Worse than this, shoddy research and dishonest pronouncements in attempts to rehabilitate dishonesty and bad research prove the accusers to be the liars, not us!

In a previous post, we heckled Haeckle's blatant fraud in embryonic recapitulation. And it is still in textbooks today. While creationists make honest mistakes, they are not in the habit of defending untruths. Nor are we in the habit of trying to make up our own "facts" to promote a fundamentally flawed worldview.

Perhaps one reason people keep Haeckel in the spotlight is because his pseudoscience has been used to justify abortion. After all, why worry when it's not human, but just a fish, right?

E. van Niekerk continues the exceptional analysis of Haeckel's material, and demonstrates that not only was there more problems with his stuff than we knew, the attempts to rehabilitate, excuse and even reinstate him (by people who know the facts) are misleading at best. For example, the blatant proven fraud is brushed aside in this Wikipedia article.
Ernst Haeckel is well known for his fakery of embryos in the tailbud stage of development. There is also the earlier issue of where Haeckel illegitimately reprinted the same woodcut three times, alleging these three illustrations represent different animals, while drawing conclusions from the (artificially created) similarities. One historian makes a serious attempt to excuse Haeckel, yet further analysis shows Haeckel’s deception is even worse than was previously thought.
You should delve into "Countering revisionism—part 2: Ernst Haeckel and his triple-woodcut print".

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Audio-Video Podcast 9 — The Straw Man Fallacy


The last podcast before Christmas! It's just under eight minutes, many of us are busy this time of year, no need to be lengthy.

Continuing our series on informal logical fallacies, we examine and give examples (two, in the Atheopath Follies) of the "Straw Man Fallacy". The MP3 version can be downloaded here.  

The straw man is a favorite among evolutionists and atheists, but is actually just a distraction. Don't fall for it. Be better than they are. 

Apologies for the replacement microphone. I'll have to replace the replacement, this one makes it sound like I have a cold.


Friday, December 20, 2013

Stromatolites Confound Evolution, Affirm Creation

Some evolutionists postulate that stromatolites are an instance of the earliest life forms on Earth. (There are astrobiologists who hope to find the same things on Mars.) Unfortunately for them, the things they consider to be evidence in favor of evolution cause more problems than they solve.

Some evolutionists postulate that stromatolites are an instance of the earliest life forms on Earth. Actually, they foul up the evolutionary timeline and give support to the Genesis Flood model.
Wikimedia Commons / Didier Descouins
Not only are microbially induced sedimentary structures remarkably the same today as they were in their multi-billion-year alleged history, they foul up the evolutionary timeline. And give support to the Noachian Flood model.
Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) in ancient Australian Archean rock match marks made by modern microbes.
Strolling along the Dresser Formation in Western Australia, geobiologist Nora Noffke noticed that ancient Archean rocks were tattooed with familiar markings. The marks were identical to those made by mats of modern microbes as they interact with sediment that accumulates on top of them. Noffke is an expert on such microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS). Her subsequent study, published in the journal Astrobiology, has implications for the origin of life on earth and for the search for life on Mars.
. . .
The cell structures of the microbes themselves are not preserved in MISS. Instead, MISS are “large scale structures that the microbes constructed before they died,” explains coauthor David Wacey of the University of Western Australia. “We see tufts and wrinkles and — when we look down the microscope — we see filaments tangled in sand grains. We are also seeing organic material which are the actual microbes but they are decomposed to the point that we cannot see an actual cell. You just see a mass of carbon-rich material.” Still, these are “possibly the oldest signs of life on Earth,” Wacey says.
You can finish reading "First Life on Earth", here. You may be interested in a much more technical article as well, "Survey of Microbial Composition and Mechanisms of Living Stromatolites of the Bahamas and Australia: Developing Criteria to Determine the Biogenicity of Fossil Stromatolites".



Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Taking the Bite out of Shark Evolution

We often hear about "consensus" among evolutionary scientists. Well, not really. There is often dispute or even a complete absence of explanations as to how a critter evolved. For example, the shark. Evolutionary scientists do not know how teeth evolved, let alone the evolution of shark teet. Or the jaws. Or the eyes. Or...

stock.xchng/natashaw

As usual, creationists do not have to come up with amazing tales that do not hold water.
During a recent visit to Florida’s Clearwater Marine Aquarium, I peered into a tank containing a host of animals, including a sleek and formidable shark, and thought of evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Let’s test this statement by taking a closer look at prominent evolutionary research on the shark—teeth to tail.
You can sink your teeth into "Shark Origins: An Evolutionary Explanation".



Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Fantasies Presented as Science

In olden days, Art Linkletter had a presentation called "Kids Say the Darndest Things" (Bill Cosby had a go at it for a few years, too.) There should be a show called, "Scientists Say the Darndest Things". There is some weird stuff that is actually published and presented as "science". What is stranger yet is that some people are receiving it as if to say, "Yahyuh, yahyuh, that makes good sense!"

But perhaps I should not be surprised. There is a great deal of misinformation spread around as science, and people are not being taught to examine it. Rather than think critically, they are being conditioned to accept the proclamations of scientists without question. If people were trained (and even allowed) to examine evolution with contrary evidence included, there would be far fewer evolutionists in the world.

Creationists do not need to resort to desperation or fabrication to fool people because science supports creation, not evolution.
Things no one could possibly ever know are being reported by science journals and news sites as things worthy of scientific faith.
Here are some far-out speculations coming from science sites recently:
  • Asteroid that killed dinosaurs might have sent life to Mars (BBC News).
  • A roundworm’s mind may be the first step toward understanding the human brain (Live Science).
  • One-way breathing may have evolved 270 million years ago (Live Science).
  • An ancient “fig wasp” lived 100 million years before figs evolved (Science Daily).
  • A meteor may have delivered the building blocks of life to Europa (Space.com).
  • Exoplanet hunters may find ET by glut of alien corpses (New Scientist)
  • Life was possible in the early universe in the cooling glow of the big bang (Nature News).  This weakens the Anthropic Principle and the need for a multiverse.
Keep the faith, baby! Never mind observable science. You can read the rest at "Extreme Speculation Presented As Science".

Monday, December 16, 2013

Evolution, Age of the Earth and Deceitful Education

Evolution requires an old earth. Most of the scientific evidence supports a *young* earth, but evolutionary propaganda ignores that. Worse, they put bad science in textbooks and deceive students.The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com)
have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects.

It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination.

The book Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati can be read online. It was written as a response to the indoctrination handbook Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science by the US National Academy of Sciences. But I want to focus on one particular aspect: The age of the earth. Proponents of the General Theory of Evolution require huge amounts of time, mistakenly believing that given enough time, anything can happen. So they ignore or excuse away all of the abundant evidence for a young earth and propagate the bad "science" used to establish their article of faith that the earth is very old.
For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
If you're willing to drop your uniformitarian presuppositions and learn something, take a look at "Refuting Evolution chapter 8: How old is the earth?" If you're a biblical creationist, this information should prove very useful when dealing with Darwin's Cheerleaders.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Audio-Video Podcast 8 — Fallacies of Assertion and Prejudicial Conjecture

Another attempt at manipulation is to use the Fallacy of Assertion, as well as Prejudicial Conjecture. They are very similar, and rather sneaky. Also includes another edition of the Atheopath Follies. The MP3 version can be downloaded here.


Friday, December 13, 2013

Journey of an Astronomer

Instead of doing exploring how real science refutes evolutionary hypotheses and affirms biblical creation, we're going to look at the personal story of a scientist. Some atheists make the assertion, "You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country", but they cannot explain how they became atheists in "Christian" countries, nor can they explain Christians in countries that are atheist, Muslim, Hindu or have other religions.


CreationSwap / Nichole McMaster
My dear friend Ruby Faraday is probably one of the least likely people to become a creationist astronomer. Born in a Muslim country, raised with occult influences, victim of abuse, sometimes mocked for her dreams. Yet, the truth of the Word of God came through to her, and she worked hard to achieve her goals. And she still works toward her goals.
I was born in a Muslim country and raised by non-Muslim parents, so how did I become a Christian Creation Scientist? Perhaps I am the first of my kind; perhaps I am not. But I’m definitely not the last. I know there are others like me out there but I do not know how to reach them. The ones I know are from predominantly Christian countries.

Dad inherited pagan beliefs and was a tyrant – a man of facts who took pride in his family. Mom was the polar opposite – a woman of compassion and of God. Love brought them together and it was the love for the family that kept them together. Mom didn’t have much support when she married dad. Grandma was a non-believer and many things were done in ways which were displeasing to God. A month after my birth, I was offered to the pagan goddess to signify the birth of the first-born and years after that was sent to live with my grandmother.

During the first month of my birth, Mom prayed to the Lord and asked Him to use me. This prayer is the start of my journey.
You can read the rest of "God, Astronomy and Me", here. By the way, English is not her first language, but she uses it more gooder than lotsa native English talkers. She's actually familiar with several languages.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Evolution, Ignorance, Geology and Everything

Secular scientists have a great deal to say about life, the universe and everything. But do they really know all that they pretend to know? Not really. Evolutionary pronouncements are ever-changing piles of speculations that are often riddled with bad science and even fraud, but fundamentalist evolutionists cling to their faith despite the evidence, not because of it. They do not want to admit that there is a Creator because that would mean that we should learn what he has to say.


Satellite Image of Earth's Interrelated Systems and Climate / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
Once in a while, an evolutionist admits that their views are loaded with difficulties. Of course, the faithful scream, "Quote mining!", but such charges are usually spurious. Especially when there are several in one article.
There’s not much data, and there’s a lot of doubt and debate. That’s what a geologist admits about theories of early earth history.
In "The Conversation", Craig O’Neill says “Keep a lid on it.” On what? “The controversy over Earth’s oldest rocks.” It’s not that O’Neill, a lecturer in geodynamics at Macquarie University disbelieves in the standard picture of a slowly evolving earth billions of years ago. It’s just that he’s painfully aware of the difficulty of teasing out a picture from the meager and often contradictory evidence from which they draw their conclusions.
The “lid” is a reference to one controversy – whether the early earth had a stable crust instead of plate tectonics from the beginning. That particular debate masks a more general issue: how do geologists know what they claim to know? Consider O’Neill’s admissions:
You can read the admissions and commentary at "What Do Geologists Know About the Early Earth?

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Science as Savior?

Time and again, we run into acolytes of Scientism as the way to know truth and morality. Atheists will tell Christians, "We will replace you, and your kind will be gone in a hundred years", forgetting that this foolishness has been stated for a very long time. I remember seeing a news clip where someone was expressing her faith in science, "Scientists will come up with a pill or something".

Science has severe limitations, and scientists acknowledge this fact. Some people view mathematics as the ultimate, purest form of science, but there are uncertainties there. (Ironically, many insist on materialistic presuppositions, but math is transcendent of matter.) Medical science has had many advances, but some things are remain incurable. Technology has given us many things to improve our lives, and also to destroy them.

Why have faith in "science"? Perhaps it is to replace the God who is there and will hold us accountable.

[Link removed, I learned that the organization holds theological views that I cannot endorse.]

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Intelligence, Crows and Evolution Storytelling

It appears that scientists may be giving up the notion that cranial capacity is a measure of intelligence that has been around a long time. For instance, in "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his brilliant detective Sherlock Holmes use this belief:
"For example, how did you deduce that this man was intellectual?"
For answer Holmes clapped the hat upon his head. It came right over the forehead and settled upon the bridge of his nose. “It is a question of cubic capacity,” said he; “a man with so large a brain must have something in it.”
That evolutionary assumption has been disproved.

Now they're studying the intelligence of birds, a field that had been dismissed because of the same assumptions. (How about quantum mechanics used in their navigation?) It turns out that crows, ravens and the like are much more intelligent than had been previously suspected.

morgueFile/jpkwitter
What began as a nice narrative about the studies of crows, their learning skills, testing and so forth turned into more baseless evolutionary propaganda.While people plug into their worldviews to interpret data, explaining the evolution of intelligence through speculation, storytelling and assuming there is only one possibility is not "scientific data". But people still believe this stuff and tell others about how evolution works, even through there is not a shred of observable evidence in this part of the narrative.

A different perspective is very helpful — especially about something as amorphous as "intelligence".
Do smart crows reveal an alternate evolutionary path to intelligence?
Crows and their cousins like ravens take the prize for intelligent avian behavior. They are more often thought of today as “feathered primates” than “bird brains.” Neurobiological research shows that birds’ brains are wired differently from primates’. Evolutionary researchers therefore believe that intelligence evolved along different routes in birds and mammals.

Crow Cognition

Corvids (jays, jackdaws, crows, and ravens) exhibit cognitive abilities that seem to rival those of primates. Their behavior is flexible enough to make appropriate arrangements for their future needs. Corvids often adjust their behavior according to the behavior of other birds of their own species. Jays recall numerous hiding places for their stashes and change hiding places to avert theft. Crows are also known for their excellent memory, remembering for years people who annoy them. Some birds, like primates, can improvise tools to get at a goodie they desire. And like other songbirds (and most pet dogs), these birds exhibit auditory learning skills.
You can read the rest at "Crow Intelligence Said to Evolve Differently from Humans". It's a just caws.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Flowering Plants Fouling Up Evolutionary Timelines

We are taught in school that, essentially, a scientific theory uses accumulated knowledge and can be tested through empirical methods. (This differs from common use of "theory", which has a variety of loose definitions.) Every so often, a discovery that threatens goo-to-you evolutionary ideas is announced.

Normally, a theory is adjusted to fit observed phenomena or even replaced. Phlogiston theory was proposed in 1667 as an explanation of why things burn (they contain the mysterious stuff), but with further research and discoveries, it was eventually abandoned. The General Theory of Evolution is the modern equivalent of phlogiston, but evolutionary scientists make guesses and conjectures to keep it going. The True Believers™ accept these stories as if they were verified facts, then claim to believe in "science" and call themselves "thinkers". Alternately, scientists and the faithful often ignore data that cause cognitive dissonance and continue to believe in evolution despite the facts.


stock.xchng/borgtex
We have both old news a new news regarding flowering plants appearing in the "wrong" part of the fossil record. Old, because it has been mentioned before, but new, because it has happened again. Fossil flowering plants ("angiosperms") are in rock layers that are allegedly a hundred million years sooner than they are supposed to be. Not only does this threaten the already rickety timeline of evolution, but it also supports biblical creation.
Another support beam has fallen from evolution’s explanatory framework as European scientists now report the discovery of flowering plant fossils in Middle-Triassic rocks—conventionally assumed to be around 240 million years old. According to secular age assignments, flowering plants were not supposed to have evolved until 100 million years later! These fossils force a shift in the ever-changing story of plant evolution.

Most paleontologists believe flowering plants, or angiosperms, did not “evolve” until the Early Cretaceous system—supposedly 135 million years ago. They often refer to the Cretaceous as a time of transition. Charles Darwin referenced the sudden appearance of fully-formed flowering plant parts in the fossil record as an “abominable mystery” in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1879, and these new blooming fossils only intensify the puzzle.
You can finish reading this article if you plant yourself at "Pollen Fossils Warp Evolutionary Time".

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Audio-Video Podcast 7 — The Genetic Fallacy


The MP3 version can be downloaded here.

I had a bit of fun with this one, so I hope it's both entertaining and informative.

The Genetic Fallacy is far too common among evolutionists and atheists, and is a bad excuse to avoid actually examining the evidence that is presented.



It is also an excuse to approve of something (similar to the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy).

But there are times it is not actually a fallacy...



Friday, December 6, 2013

Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissues, Fact and Fiction

Many evolutionists were in disbelief when the announcement was made that dinosaur soft tissues (including red blood cells) had been found. Others did not even know about it, but they were still very knowledgeable about evolution, you betcha, just ask them. Someone "Tweeted" to me that it must be old and incomplete news, or that I was simply wrong. Unfortunately for him, it was not simply an isolated incident. Yes, they have been found and caused a great deal of consternation in the evolutionary community. It did not cause creationists difficulties, however, since this discovery gives further evidence for a young earth.
Evolutionists claim that iron explains the preservation of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils. But this is preliminary and incomplete. Actually, part of the answer is in the rapid burial during Noah's Flood.
Modified from Image*After
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, discoverer of the first soft tissue in a T-Rex fossil, went to work on finding an explanation. She found one — sort of. In a previous post, the tentative and incomplete results did not stop the press from claiming victory. (Indeed, arrogant evolutionists posted comments and links on our Facebook Page as if they were shooting a rabid dog and putting it out of their misery.) Typical of proponents of evolution, people proclaimed this "answer" but did not bother to consider that it is incomplete, and Schweitzer is planning on doing further research. In addition, extrapolating the experiments from two years into sixty-eight million years is unscientific, and there are a number of biases and assumptions tainting the results.

Part of the preservation is iron. Another part of preservation is rapid, catastrophic burial — as is evidenced around the world. In fact, this research actually helps support the biblical account of the Noachian flood.
Iron may paradoxically be the key, claim evolutionist researchers, to preserving dinosaur soft tissue for evolution’s assumed millions of years. More specifically, highly reactive iron atoms are released from proteins when an organism dies; while the organism is alive, iron is sequestered in useful proteins, thus preventing it from participating in destructive chemical reactions. It remains impossible to demonstrate just how long such preservation has lasted, despite the evolutionist claims that iron-induced preservation could last millions of years.
Although it is somewhat technical (but not overbearing), you would do well to finish reading "Iron Key to Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissue".

 

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Genetics and Evolutionary Monkeyshines

It is almost amusing when proponents of evolution will insist that the study of genetics supports their cause. But that is the opposite of the truth. Some will use the outdated claim based on bad science that "humans and chimps are ninety percent similar" (the number varies depending on who is speaking), but better research shows a much smaller similarity.

Worse for evolutionists, gorillas are closer in DNA to humans than chimps, but that does not fit the storyline. And never mind McCarthy's idea that a pig and a chimp did the wild thing and produced humanity. He must be getting desperate. But he did say that current evolutionary thinking is fundamentally flawed. Too bad he refuses to accept the obvious, that there is a Creator.


morgueFile/hotblack
There are actually quite a few genomes that do not fit the evolutionary paradigm. It is interesting how Darwin's Cheerleaders do not bother to discuss this. Or perhaps they simply do not know.

"Real Science Radio" has an article and an audio download discussing genome anomalies — well, anomalies for evolution, but not a problem for creationists. Atheist AronRa gets proved wrong — again.
* DNA Doesn't Lie -- and that includes Elephant DNA: If you enjoy our tradition of annual Real Science Radio LIST programs you'll probably love this List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit! For the genomes march on. While of course Darwin's tree of life puts all the shrews on one branch, and animals like giraffes and elephants elsewhere, contradicting that evolutionary requirement, a genetic analysis of a particular species of shrew, the elephant shrew, shows that this rodent is closer to an elephant, genetically, than it is to other shrews! Who knew? So Bob Enyart and Fred Williams explain why on today's program!

* Genomes that Expose the Error of Neo-Darwinism: See below for details and for the many peer-reviewed journal papers and expert sources for this data.
You can read the article and list, and hear the audio, at "RSR 2013: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit".

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The Joy of Jupiter

Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system, and is second in mass only to the Sun itself. You can get a good look at it with a backyard telescope. This bad boy is huge, but has a rotation rate of only ten hours. Also, it is graced with the most known moons (that we know of) at sixty seven, and Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system. But it is mostly gas, so do not expect to land on it and meet residents that look like green and purple birds with orange beaks. The Great Red Spot is thought to be a storm. A big storm, the size of Earth, twice over.

A high-resolution image of Jupiter taken by NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL

But Jupiter also confounds evolutionary scientists. It is hot, and has a powerful magnetic field. And all those moons? They do not orbit in the same direction, many are in retrograde — which confounds planetary formation speculations and supports biblical creation models for a young system. Wait, there's more!
The planet Jupiter is a wonderful example of the creativity of the Lord. It is remarkably different from the worlds we have examined previously in this Impact series. Jupiter does not possess a solid surface but is an enormous spheroid of gas—eleven times the diameter of Earth—held together by its own gravity. The gas pressure increases with depth, eventually becoming liquid.
Properties of Jupiter
The fifth planet away from the sun, Jupiter is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium, the same gases that comprise the sun. However, the much cooler temperature of Jupiter allows the formation of molecules such as ammonia, water, and methane from various trace elements. These molecular compounds create Jupiter’s colorful cloud formations.
Jupiter is massive—the equivalent of 318 Earths! If we could put it on a scale, it would weigh more than twice as much as all the other planets combined. Jupiter is so massive that its gravity slightly, but noticeably, affects the motions of the other planets. Astronomers must factor this into their computations when predicting the precise positions of planets. Due to its large size, the disk of Jupiter is easily visible with virtually any small telescope, or even through good binoculars, despite being 500 million miles away from Earth.
To finish the article, you can jump over to "The Solar System — Jupiter".

Monday, December 2, 2013

Rock Me Slowly — No, Just Kidding

One of the ways people attempt to explain away evidence for a young earth is textbook explanations of the formation of granite. Signs in national parks tell the public that something formed over millions of years. And people believe the pronouncements of scientists, because they must be right, what with being scientists and all.


It turns out that granite does NOT form in millions of years after all. In fact, granite formation supports biblical creationist catastrophic Flood models!
morgueFile/gracey
Now we're finding out that scientists have been wrong about the length of time that it takes granite and crystals to form. (Looks like the signs in the tourist spots have to come down, huh?) In fact, the change in the explanation is so drastic, the findings support biblical creationism and the catastrophic Noachian Flood instead of uniformitarianism.
Albany, on the south coast of Western Australia, is a popular stopping-place to explore the area’s beauty. A peninsula shelters Albany from the Great Southern Ocean, and is home to the famous ‘Gap’ and ‘Natural Bridge’ rock formations. Interpretive signs in the Torndirrup National Park tell visitors what they are looking at.
One says:
“The continents of Australia and Antarctica were bound together along this rugged coastline for more than one billion years, forming part of the supercontinent Gondwana.”
You can see the coastline and the characteristic granite landscape, with its domed rock outcrops and rounded tors. But you can’t imagine a billion years of time, or how they could measure that value. Nor can you see Antarctica, 3,500 kilometres across the ocean.
Instead of millions of years, geologists now say granite plutons form in months.
To learn the rest of the hard facts, continue reading "Granite formation was catastrophic".

 

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Audio-Video Podcast 6 — The Ad Hominem Fallacy




The ad hominem fallacy seems to be the most common. It is attacking the person instead of the topic. This is very easy to do, especially when someone throws down and indicates that they are not interested in rational discourse, they simply want to negate whatever you have to say with a distraction of insulting you instead of dealing with the discussion at hand.

Edit: He kept at it. Some people do not learn.



Friday, November 29, 2013

Just How Many Habitable Planets — Really?

Still more press problems that get evolutionists excited, thinking they have a smoking gun to blow away all of creation science. They get going with a "take that!" attitude when they get (yet again) misleading information from the press based in incomplete information from scientists. But if they bothered to do a bit more reading (and thinking), these fans of evolutionism might be a bit slower to be full of glee and have their joy turn into embarrassment. Again.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
One absurd estimate for "habitable" planets in the universe reached forty billion. This "science" is based on luck and odds, not observations. It is also based on evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions. Remember, the press wants to make money on sensational claims, such as saying a planet is very much like Earth if we lived on a molten blob. The scientific community does not help much, since they want to make money and give sensational information themselves. One thing to always remember is that terms need to be defined. In this case, what does "habitable" really mean?
News media ran with a suggestion that one in five stars has a habitable planet, but they didn’t read the fine print.
Here’s how it came out in the mainstream media:
  • One in five suns has habitable world: Astronomers have estimated how many of the 100 billion stars in our galaxy hosts a potentially habitable planet.” (BBC News)
  • One in Five Stars has Earth-Sized Planet in Habitable Zone: Scientists from University of California, Berkeley, and University of Hawaii, Manoa,have statistically determined that twenty percent of Sun-like stars in our galaxy have Earth-sized planets that could host life.” (NASA Astrobiology magazine)
  • How Common Are Habitable Planets? One in Five Sun-Like Stars May HaveEarth-Size, Potentially Habitable Planets.” (Science Daily)
At least Science Daily’s headline was worded slightly less conclusively.  PNAS just issued a correction to the paper on which the claim was based.  That correction points out the huge error bars in making such estimates:
You can read about the errors and important factors they did not tell you if you fire your jets over to "Cosmic Lottery: How Many Habitable Planets?"

Labels