Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Haeckel, Fraud, Deceit and Evolutionary Education

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material. Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks (as you can see in the articles here). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students. The end justifies the means, ja mein herr? One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years.


Let's not let false similarities deceive us.
And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud.

It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsense in the textbooks!

I learned about the following article and video from a friend of the ministry. It is by E. van Niekerk, who has studied zoology and completed a degree in engineering.
For more than a century, one of the foremost bastions of Darwinian evolution has been that embryos of different animals pass through a similar stage in which they resemble one another very closely. Although embryologists had long known this to be false, a bomb exploded in 1997 when an embryologist actually published real photos of embryos, showing many more differences than previously thought. The embarrassment to the evolutionary community was severe. But now a historian has made a serious attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel by revising both the history and the science around his claims.
You can finish reading "Countering revisionism—part 1: Ernst Haeckel, fraud is proven", (Part 2 about Haeckel is here if you wish to see it now) and then see this video:
 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 28, 2013

Evolutionary "Science" and a Missing Continent

If there is a formerly undiscovered continent in the Indian Ocean, cherry-picked data from radiometric dating and uniformitarian assumptions are a lousy way to prove it. But then, an ancient Earth is imperative for evolution, and must be justified, yes?

morgueFile/embalu
By examining zicron in sand from Mauritius, bad "science" has led to the amazing conclusion that there was once a continent in the Indian Ocean, which is now submerged. Never mind the more prosaic data, it's more entertaining (and sensationalistic) to produce tendentious interpretations of a limited amount of other data. Perhaps Atlantis moved?
The lost city of Atlantis has been the source of much legend and folklore for centuries. The search for archaeological evidence for this missing city has continued even today, but mostly by amateurs and fortune-seekers. Now, scientists are making claims of a missing continent lurking deep beneath—not the Atlantic, but—the Indian Ocean.
A group of European scientists have announced the "discovery" of a small continent in the middle of the Indian Ocean that doesn't exist on any known map. What is this proclamation based on? It's based on the age estimates of some beach sand and a belief that the "absolute dates" the researchers determined are reliable and factual.
The scientists sampled beach sands on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, a volcanic paradise 550 miles from the nearest continental crust (i.e., Madagascar). They found 20 zircon grains in the basaltic sand and had them dated using uranium and lead isotope ratios.
You can read the rest of "Outlandish Claims for Missing 'Continent'", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Evolutionism is a Very Old Religion

Earlier, I posted some material on the origins of the belief system of evolution. Now it is time to go into more detail, and I have three items for your perusal and edification.

Evolution has roots in pagan religious beliefs which had nothing to do with science. For that matter, people treat "science" as some sort of entity. They will say things like, "Science will solve the problem" (fallacy of reification). No, maybe someday scientists will solve the problem. There are methods to obtaining and processing data in scientific disciplines. All of it is philosophy! The requirements for doing things a certain way, the presuppositions and worldviews for determining data, the conclusions reached — all based on philosophy. So, watch out when someone refers to "science" as some sort of life form, or even a deity.

A friend of the ministry shared a link to this video. It is rather long, but can be downloaded for offline viewing, and definitely worth your time.

Next, Dr. Cornelius Hunter has a discussion on the Gnostic nature of evolutionism. Although it is an ancient religion, the elements still exist when dividing the spiritual and material into separate realms that must remain separate from each other.
Evolution professor John Avise ends his book, Inside the Human Genome, with a gnostic crescendo. The National Academy of Sciences member writes:

This welcome sentiment—that the evolutionary sciences and religion both have important and complementary roles to play in philosophical discussions about the human condition—has been expressed in many notable statements

Avise then provides several quotes, including this from Michael Zimmerman’s The Clergy Letter Project:


We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
And this from Francis Collins:

Science’s domain is to explore nature, God’s domain is the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.
Gnosticism is sometimes viewed as an ancient belief, but the division of the material and the spiritual into separate realms is alive and well in evolutionary thought.
Nor is this merely a recent fad. Avise could have quoted from, for example, Baden Powell, mathematician at Oxford and Anglican priest who wrote In 1838 that scientific and revealed truth are of different natures, and any attempt to combine and unite them would “infallibly injure both.”
You can finish reading "Here is How Gnosticism Informs Evolution" here. But there's more.

The fallacious, arbitrary claim of certain atheopaths that "children are born atheist" is not only patently absurd, but belief in God is actually the natural state of humans. (This helps explain the worship of "science", because people need something to fill the void that was made when God was evicted from their minds.) The Gnostics elevated man to the status of God, and tried to cast God into Hell. Didn't work, he's still here. 

Evolution is a pseudoscience that intends to make man into his own creator.
Today all people whose faith in God the Father is genuine face a seemingly insurmountable problem with what seems like an overwhelming weight of evidence that evolutionism is true and the Genesis account of creation is false. Mockers and scoffers abound, scornfully accusing the faithful of believing in “an invisible being in the sky and that a dead guy from 2000 years ago is coming back soon…instead of believing in reality,” as one scoffer said recently.
However, the real issue here is not “superstitious, backward Christianity” vs. “enlightened reason and science” but about one creation account (Genesis)  vs. another creation account (Darwinian evolution).  The truth of this claim can be seen in the following quotes:
You can read the quotes and an extremely interesting article at "Darwinism: Devilish Gnostic Myth Dressed Up As Science". People sure do resort to complicated but futile ways to avoid submitting to the Creator who gave them life!

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Is There Sea Water In Your Blood?

USFWS/Jerry Reid
Every once in a while, uninformed proponents of evolution resort to using the "proof" for their view that, since we have certain elements in our blood that are also in the sea, we must have evolved from the sea. Not only does such an assertion smack of desperation, but the "facts" we are given about the mineral concentrations are not similar at all. (It is as if someone with the attitude similar to, "I am a physicist, therefore, I am qualified to prove evolution and disprove the biochemists, medical doctors, biologists, geologists, paleontologists, mechanical engineers, botanists and all the other disciplines in creation science" wrote the falsehoods of the alleged sea-water-to-blood similarities.) There are other insurmountable difficulties with these pretend similarities as well. It strikes me that this idea is contrary to evolutionary thinking, which requires huge changes and adaptations in organisms. So why should our blood reflect our alleged sea origins?

Then there is the amazing complexity of human blood, as well as the great dissimilarity to the blood of actual sea creatures...
Sometimes evolutionists claim that our blood has very similar element composition (sodium, chlorine, etc.) to seawater and this they attribute to our ancestors evolving in the oceans eons ago. Various popularisers of evolution have made this claim. For example, Robert Lehrman, in The Long Road to Man (Fawcett Publications, 1961), said:

“One human characteristic, a chemical one, harks back to our ancestry in the ocean … the percentages of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iodine, chlorine, and other minerals in human blood salt coincide with those of sea water. Our ocean–living ancestors developed cells adapted to the chemical environment of sea water. When they left the ocean, they took a part of the environment with them in the form of a fluid that bathes the cells; later it was incorporated into the blood stream.”
Studies of blood reveal how incredible it is!
The argument has not been used widely of late, but it still surfaces from time to time.
There are major problems with the argument:
You really should finish reading "Red-blooded evidence —Refuting the evolutionary ‘sea-water’ argument".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 24, 2013

Getting the Picture on Photosynthesis

As you probably remember from your basic science courses, photosynthesis is the process where plants process sunlight and make food. This video explains a bit more in a couple of minutes:


Dry Lake, San Gorgonio Wilderness/San Bernardino National Forest
Carol Underhill, USDA Forest Service
Recently, more details of the speed and efficiency of the process have come to light (heh!). The process is truly amazing, and, as usual, evolutionists put on their Darwin Spectacles to give praise and glory to "nature" and "evolution" as if they were intelligent deities. The transformation of sunlight to food gets all the way down to the level of quantum physics!
The magic of light capture by plants is so small and fast, its secrets are only now being understood.

Lightning is slow compared to photosynthesis. A press release from the Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) explains how “antenna proteins” capture photons of sunlight and ferry the energy to reaction centers:
To finish reading, visit "Quantum Secret of Photosynthesis Revealed".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 21, 2013

Like a Sturgeon...

When watching some of those "Let's see if we can find the real creature" shows on TV, a couple of sea monster sightings were dismissed as sturgeons. While I was not convinced that a real mystery had been found, I thought it was simplistic to blame a fish. (Sort of like when UFOs had been dismissed as the planet Venus, which was not visible at the time of the alleged sighting.) Later, I learned that sturgeons (which are a bit high in cholesterol) can grow to an impressive size. Ugly, too.
fws.gov 
But never mind about that now. 

Evolutionists want to claim that they are "living fossils". You know, those things that have not changed much in the alleged "millions of years" from what we see now, and the impressions they made in the fossil record. And yet, they contradict themselves. Darwin's Cheerleaders are carping that the sturgeon does not cooperate with the expected rate of change. Nor do they change enough. But they "evolve" too fast. (Note the bait-and-switch on the word "evolution", which is grossly misapplied.)

There is speciation (expected in the creationist models), but not a shred of evidence of molecules-to-man evolution; you must remember this, a fish is still a fish. A sturgeon is still a sturgeon. They did not care about the evolutionary presuppositions that they are wrecking.
Sturgeon, thought to exist in only around 29 species worldwide, have long been considered living fossils. But now a study published in Nature Communications has dubbed them winners in the race for rapid evolution in defiance of accepted evolutionary principles.
Molecules-to-man evolution, which has never been observed, is generally assumed to be a process requiring a series of changes over millions of years. Darwin coined the term “living fossil” to describe living organisms that have remained unchanged for millions of years. But rapidly appearing variations in an organism, such as those that may ultimately produce new species, are often cited as examples of rapid, observable evolution.
Within this framework, the authors of “Rates of speciation and morphological evolution are correlated across the largest vertebrate radiation” point out:
Perhaps learning the truth is giving you a haddock. Nevertheless, you should reel in the rest of "Sizeable Sturgeons Set Evolutionary Speed Records?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Pseudogenes and Pseudoscience

Some people have difficulty learning. For example, with the "junk DNA" fiasco, scientists put on their Darwin spectacles, examined a section of the genome, declared that things they didn't understand were "junk" — and were embarrassed by creationists, who said all along that it was not junk.



A similar thing happened with pseudogenes. They look sorta like genes, but they're not really genes. So they're not important, right? Actually, they are important. The PTEN pseudogene is much more complicated than anyone imagined. Perhaps if they removed the evolution glasses and did not act so hastily, evolutionary scientists might get closer to the truth sooner.
Not only have many pseudogenes been proven to be highly functional, a recent study has unveiled mind-boggling complexity behind the PTEN pseudogene, showing that it functions both forwards and backwards as part of an intricate gene network.
Pseudogenes were once thought to be nothing but genomic fossils of broken genes littering the genomes of plants and animals deposited over eons of evolutionary history. However, as scientists begin to unravel the complexity of the genome, they are discovering that pseudogenes are not so "pseudo" after all.
One of the most widely studied pseudogenes in humans has been the "PTEN pseudogene." It is an unprocessed pseudogene, meaning that it has all of the same DNA features of a regular protein-coding gene, except that it lacks the ability to code for a protein due to specific changes in its sequence. The PTEN pseudogene is an important player in human health because of its ability to regulate another gene with which it shares similarity with called simply PTEN. Together, and along with a host of other important genes, they control cell growth. When the PTEN pseudogene gene is disrupted, the outcome is often cancer.
You can learn more by reading "Bewildering Pseudogene Functions Both Forwards and Backwards". 
  

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

How Was Evolutionism Created?

Where did evolution come from? The minds of men. But Darwin (who was not a great scientist — his only degree was in theology) plagiarized others, including his grandfather Erasmus. Various proposals of evolution cropped up throughout history, and it can be found in ancient pagan Greek religious beliefs. People seem to be desperate to find excuses to deny the Creator his rightful place.

Science was the province of Christians, who established scientific methodologies. Unfortunately, with the geology of Lyell (a lawyer), Hutton and others in the 1800s, plus bold pronouncements that the Bible is wrong or misunderstood, the one-sided rewriting of history, science and theology had begun.
A press release titled “The Evolution of Creationism” in a geology journal is just asking for a spoof.
The Geological Society of America (GSA) posted the following press release on its publication, GSA Today:
Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and how it has changed over time. This curiosity has produced a rich legacy of science and philosophy and impacted and influenced religion and theology. In the November 2012 issue of GSA Today, David Montgomery of the University of Washington examines both the history of geology and of biblical views regarding Earth’s origins.
Montgomery’s main premise is that throughout most of the past several hundred years, scientists and theologians engaged in extensive collaboration regarding issues like Earth’s age and origin. The common bond that sustained this rich exchange of ideas was a respect for reason and a trust in the scientific process.
As modern science evolved, so did many shared questions and struggles regarding how to best understand Earth’s age as well as how new scientific findings harmonized with or conflicted with theological understanding as conveyed in works such as the Bible. These questions and struggles persist into the present, most notably in geology, where vast differences in the answers to such fundamental questions as “how old is this planet?” both correlate and contrast with some religious beliefs.
You can read the rest of the press release, the commentary and the parody, at "The Creation of Evolutionism".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 17, 2013

An Example of Evolutionary Bias

Are scientists completely objective and unbiased? Not by a long shot. They're human and have the same avarice as we do — perhaps more so.

Biases. Preconceptions. Presuppositions. We all have them. It's all a part of being human. The belief that scientists are completely dispassionate, assembling data and following where the evidence leads is very naive. Evolutionists have already decided that evolution is true, and that makes it much more difficult for them to accept the evidence that refutes evolutionism and affirms creation. Their belief system heavily influences their interpretations of the data — often with absurd results.
Are scientists always objective? Do they always interpret the evidence with an open mind? Some time ago I experienced first-hand how a scientist’s beliefs affect the way he looks at the evidence.
Whilst a geology student at university, I needed to identify a fossil. After consulting the Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils I had tentatively identified it as a belemnite of the genus Hibolites. However, paleontology was not my specialty so I sought advice from an expert.
The research paleontologist at one of the major universities in our state was the obvious choice.
You can finish reading "Fossil flip-flop", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Audio Saturday: Dobzhansky's Deception

In an earlier post, the claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was shown to be a false claim. Now we can examine how Dobzhansky's article was bad science and worse religion. Bob Enyart was published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly, and his radio show did a four-part discussion of the paper.

Here is a hint on where you look for the free audio on each page (click picture for more bigness):

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.
Part 4 is here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 14, 2013

Do the Math - Cicadas Did

Magicicada: Wikipedia/Bruce Marlin
Although I am reluctant to bug you with this, but it is about time for the 17-year periodic "Magicicada" to appear. Would you like to hear them? Good.


After 17 years and when the temperature is 64 degrees Fahrenheit, they burrow up from the ground in huge numbers to wreak vengeance upon the living. All right, so the part about vengeance is exaggerated, but it does sound like a kind of science fiction or horror movie device, what with waiting for the right time, temperature and all. It is eminently logical to see that they are the product of a Master Designer, but people foolishly give undue credit to evolution.
Entomologists study insects and spiders. They regularly discover examples of mathematical genius hardwired into various tiny-brained arthropods. And as young students know all too well, math doesn't come easy.
Science writer Seth Borenstein recently wrote an AP article describing why residents of the United States' east coast anticipate an impending insect invasion—at least in rural areas. This spring marks 17 years since a particular brood of a unique kind of red-eyed cicada, called "magicicada," last emerged en masse. And yes, the name reflects the way these insects seem to "magically" appear at the same time after 17 years of living underground as larvae. When the ground temperature reaches precisely 64 degrees, magicicadas in "Brood II" will tunnel upward, crawl up the side of a nearby tree or structure, squeeze out of their molted exoskeletons and then fly around each in search of a mate.
When Brood II emerges together, some estimate they will number up to a trillion cicadas. Of course, their onboard precision-computing equipment makes this all possible. Some kind of internal miniscule chronometer precisely measures the passage of years, and a tiny thermometer monitors the soil temperature. These nifty devices would be useless unless they had the ability to communicate—according to appropriately engineered software—with a central processor. Only then can the organism attach meaning to the data input, and act accordingly.
To finish reading, you can fly over to "Cicadas Make Great Mathematicians".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, June 13, 2013

The Word about the First Bird

fws.gov
A new candidate for the first bird that allegedly evolved is in the limelight. Not only is there doubt that the critter is actually a bird, but there is another problem: archaeopteryx. Although this failed "transitional form" has been classified as a true bird, some evolutionists tenaciously cling to the idea that it was something else. The timeline of bird evolution has to be rearranged yet again — unless the new guy is not real, then they can continue with their existing chaos of bird evolution guesswork.
Feathers are ruffled in the evolutionary community because the newest candidate for the world’s first bird upsets the currently popular claim that Archaeopteryx was not a bird at all. Pascal Godefroit and colleagues can only achieve bird-status for their non-feathered fossil if the slightly “younger” and clearly feathered Archaeopteryx can be called a bird. While evolutionists worldwide argue over just how the evolutionary history of birds should be adjusted this time, some seek to snatch victory from the jaws of inconsistencies by proclaiming that the fuzziness of dinosaur-bird definitions actually proves that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
The conundrum concerns the chicken-sized Aurornis xui. Aurornis is said to have originated in Liaoning province's Tiaojishan Formation. Aurornis was found by a farmer, acquired by a fossil dealer, and sold to Yizhou Fossil & Geology Park. Since the scandalous appearance of the Chinese “Archaeoraptor,” a forged feathered dinosaur that National Geographic in their November 1999 magazine hailed as the dinosaur-bird “missing link,” paleontologists analyzing fossils obtained from Chinese farmers and fossil dealers often include in their papers a statement declaring faith in their fossil’s authenticity. The article in Nature concerning Aurornis—whose Latin name means “dawn-bird”—contains just such a statement of authenticity in its supplementary materials. Nevertheless, the fossil is so perfect that some have suggested that Aurornis is a forgery.
To finish reading, you can migrate to "Is the Dawn of the Early Bird Too Good To Be True?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

How Do You Prove Evolution is True? Manipulate the Data, of Course!


Despite the attempts of the Evo Sith to "explain" evolution, when the data are examined by people who are not trying to influence people to believe the evolutionist worldview, the actual facts come to light. The "Tree of Life" is still tenaciously grasped, even though it should have been discarded years ago. DNA analysis? Well, be disingenuous and filter the data. Then, fiddle with it. When there isn't a creationist or ID proponent around to call you on it, then present it as "truth". (Of course, when the dishonesty and bad reasoning are pointed out, the whistle-blowers are told, "You're a liar!", or, "You don't understand evolution!" They keep using that word "liar"... We know more than those people want to believe, and we don't like being played for fools.) They'll persist in believing their failed evolutionary worldview, even though it is full of errors, conjecture, guesswork and fraud.
One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.
These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.
Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
You can finish reading "Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Blasting Cambrian Explosion Explanations


We are constantly being told that the fossils prove evolution. However, even though many ambiguous fossils are put forth as "transitional forms", knowledgeable paleontologists admit that they do not exist, despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders. In addition, the "Cambrian Explosion" (where fossils of all major groups of animals alive today, and many that became extinct) has been a falsifier for Darwinism since Papa Darwin published his speculations; evolution should have been discarded for lack of evidence shortly after it was popularized.


stock.xchng/dyet
The facts do not stop people from believing, however. People believe in evolution despite the evidence, and, with an attitude that is contrary to science, will refer to Darwin deniers as "liars" (possibly because they are terrified that they will realize that there is a Creator and they are accountable after all) and give "Science of the Gaps" excuses.

The "problem" of the Cambrian Explosion is no problem at all for biblical creationists, because a sudden appearance without transitional forms in the fossil record is predicted by Noachian Flood models. Still, evolutionists try (and fail) to offer plausible explanations. God forbid (heh!) that you hear the truth.
An intelligent design advocate is publishing a book this month that uses the Cambrian Explosion as evidence against Darwinism and for I.D.  Two major evolutionary paleontologists have also published a book about the issue.
Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt, is officially released next week.  Chapter 4 will tell about the uproar caused at the University of Oklahoma in 2009 when Meyer and Wells scheduled a panel discussion after a showing of Illustra’s film Darwin’s Dilemma about the Cambrian fossil record.  Darwinists at the university attempted a pre-emptive strike by issuing announcements that the event was religiously motivated.  In the Q&A, though, the university’s professors and museum curators could not produce any unambiguous fossil as a credible ancestor to any of the Cambrian animals.  Meyer’s book, updated with the latest findings since then, examines all the putative fossil ancestors and evolutionary exlanations for the Cambrian explosion, and assesses the issue’s relevance to the Darwin-ID debate.
Meanwhile, two leading evolutionary paleontologists have just come out with a pro-evolution book about the sudden appearance of virtually all animal phyla at the base of the Cambrian.  Written by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, experts on the Cambrian fossil record, the new work, The Cambrian Explosion The Construction of Animal Biodiversity, was reviewed by Christpher J. Lowe (Stanford) in Science Magazine this week: “What Led to Metazoa’s Big Bang?” was his suggestive headline.  His first paragraph states the problem in such a way as to furrow the brows of Darwinists and make creationists or ID advocates grin, “We told you so.”
Unless you're petrified, you can read the rest of "Cambrian Explosion: Evolutionists Have No Answers", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 10, 2013

Lunar Magnetism Further Refutes Evolutionary Cosmology

stock.xchng/raven2663
Cosmologists have their presuppositions about the age of the universe. When the observed data persist in troubling their beliefs, they do not abandon their erroneous ideas. Instead, they are "challenged" and try to explain the facts with unworkable conjectures. Biblical creationists do not have anywhere near the same amount of difficulties with their models.
The story of the rise and fall of the moon's magnetic field constantly energizes planetary scientists. Simply put, under secular magnetism models, the moon is too small to have maintained its charge as long as evolutionists imagine and as strongly as its magnetic clues indicate. Secular scientists face a grave challenge in reconciling the moon's magnetic signatures with billion-year age assignments.
The latest foray into this collection of highly charged lunar dilemmas resulted in a team of scientists selecting a solution that, in the end, still failed to fit all the facts.
And here are a few of these relevant facts from the article, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):
  1. The moon has a feeble magnetic field today.
  2. Moon rocks retrieved by the Apollo missions contain remanent magnetism that records an ancient lunar magnetic field that was once as strong as the earth's is today.
  3. The most popular secular theory attempting to explain planetary magnetism involves a dynamo caused by differentially rotating molten fluids near the core. But the fact is such a dynamo would wear down millions of years before the age assignments evolutionists attach to the moon's days of high magnetic field strength.
To find out the difficulties with these ideas, you can finish reading "The Moon's Latest Magnetic Mysteries", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 7, 2013

Beauty and Design in Nature Testifies of the Creator

Malicious Advice Mallard foolishly praises evolution instead of God.
"Malicious Advice Mallard" gives malicious advice.
Some people relish their intellectual and spiritual blindness. They say, "Prove to me that God exists!", or, "Give me evidence for creation!" The simplest approach is to simply look at nature. The amazing beauty, design, complexity and wonder — it is astonishing that some people are willing to suspend their own sensibilities to pretend that God does not exist, and indulge in the ever-changing whims of evolutionary philosophies.

I'm going to send you to a Web page that has comments and several short videos (the last video is the longest, just over eight minutes) on the wonder and complexity of nature. You'll be amazed when you read and watch at "Beauty is Truth and Truth, Beauty. The remarkable creatures designed by God reveal the tragedy of Charles Darwin's foul hypothesis! It has drained from the propagandized an appreciation for the Creator's art ..."

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, June 6, 2013

The Derping of Humanity — It's Genetic

Yeah, I know. My title and the picture will be out of date soon. A better title would be, "The Dumbing Down of Humanity is a Genetic Thing", but it's less interesting.



I believe that everything is running downhill in a kind of societal entropy, an increase in negativity. More immorality, profanity, dishonesty. Businesses are ruining themselves by being downright cheap, sacrificing quality products and customer service for a few more grotzits. Spirituality is becoming more touchy-feely and less committed to truth. Scientists are more passionate about promoting evolution than accurately dealing with the scientific evidence. Some speculate that stupidity is a product of biological evolution, so there is no hope for humanity. Many folks assume that people in ancient times were less intelligent. However, a look at the Bible writers helps demonstrate that such a claim is the opposite of the truth.

But I digress.

The subject at hand is that people are getting more stupider. (Increasing stupidity in humanity explains a lot of things, but I'll digress again.) I'm not talking about the occasional lapse or "brain fade", we all have times where we're just not thinking well.



What I'm talking about is a general ongoing condition with a genetic basis. Those of us who are assured of the Creator's plans do not need to worry about evolution's dead ends, though.
Do today’s children have lower IQs than yesterday’s? Yes, according to measurements of intellectual and emotional strength gathered from different countries and contexts. The results show the same basic decline and resist the notion that public or other forms of education are to blame. Could the cause instead lie within?
Stanford University professor Gerald Crabtree thinks so. He published a pair of essays in the journal Trends in Genetics, citing new discoveries that show why the human intellect is “surprisingly fragile.” This biblical creation-friendly notion didn’t sit well with the authors of a rebuttal paper, who countered that the human intellect is “robust.” What lies at the heart of this disagreement—bad science or bad assumptions?
Crabtree identified two fundamental processes as the main culprits. First, human intelligence uses neurons, and these cells can only function properly if their genes stay in top shape. Second, these genes are susceptible to degradation. This loss of organization occurs continually as mutations slowly, irreversibly garble genes, and the resulting errors pile up and are not corrected.
It would be smart of you to finish reading "Is Mankind Getting Dumber?"  You can supplement your knowledge by also reading, "People Not Quite As Clever Anymore". Else, derp.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

If There's A Consensus, Does That Mean Something Is True?

When people say that scientists have a "consensus", does that guarantee that they're right? Not hardly!

"Scientists agree..." "There is a scientific consensus..."

Those of us involved in presenting the truth of creation science and refuting evolution hear phrases like this quite often. They are usually proffered as an excuse to avoid hearing or considering evidence against their erroneous worldviews and presuppositions. Doing so is an attempt to shut down discussion by appealing to authority or the majority. This is counterproductive not only to a discussion, but to scientific advancement.

Does this mean that they're right — and that they remain right?


video

True scientists will consider the facts, revising their theories. They even discard them (except for evolution, which must be protected at all costs). There are times when the consensus is wrong and the paradigm must be changed.
Whenever you hear “all scientists agree” or “we now know,” it’s no guarantee a finding won’t be disputed years later.  In the following examples, CEH focuses not so much on the content of the disputed subjects as the implications for philosophy of science.
The big warmup:  One very strong consensus among establishment scientists right now is that humans are causing global warming.  Science Daily reported a survey of 4,000 abstracts of scientific papers that indicated an “overwhelming consensus among scientists,” as high as 97%, “that recent warming is human-caused” (cf. fallacy of statistics).  Yet contrary data still arise from time to time.  For instance, New Scientist reported that re-analysis of global temperatures over the last decade shows that “Earth will warm more slowly over this century than we thought it would” – diminishing some of the frantic appeals for immediate action of past years.  Apparently the rate of heating hit a plateau even with more greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere.  It doesn’t change the consensus; the new data are just “buying us a little more time to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and prevent dangerous climate change,” the article continued.  Likewise, PhysOrg spun the new data to mean that we still face a “Dire outlook despite global warming ‘pause’,” according to the study published in Nature Geoscience.  Skeptics of global warming like to point out that a few decades ago, the consensus warned that Earth was approaching a period of global cooling that would have drastic effects on human life.
What will the consensus believe about climate change in a few years or decades?  Nobody knows.  It’s instructive, though, to look at other examples of shifting consensus in science.
Yes, by all means, let's take a look at some further examples at "Scientists Can Agree on Things that Aren’t So".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Scepticus Ad Absurdum, or, Ridiculous Skepticism


And now for something completely different. Sort of.

We have seen that "skeptics" are often caricatures of themselves, cynically finding any possible way to bolster their evolutionary worldview and find excuses to disregard evidence for creation. Some people who call themselves "skeptics" are being dishonest with that name, as they are not open to any explanations or evidence other than what they want to see.

The article that I am going to link was given to me by a friend. It is not exactly sympathetic to Intelligent Design or to creation science. Their primary focus is on the skeptical debunkers of the paranormal. The site is called "Skeptical Investigations", and they are "skeptical about skeptics", promoting objectivity in scientific investigation. This article has several points in which ultra-skeptic atheist and evolutionists are guilty; these people often act in an irrational manner, and go against the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
The progress of science depends on a finely tuned balance between open-mindedness and skepticism. Be too open minded, and you'll accept wrong claims. Be too skeptical, and you'll reject genuine new discoveries. Proper skepticism must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Unfortunately, much of what comes out of the "skeptical" community these days is not proper skepticism, but all-out, fundamentalist disbelief. Such skepticism can be called pseudo-skepticism, pathological skepticism or bogus skepticism.
Here are the warning signs of bogus skepticism.
You can believe that this article is not only real, but makes some good points, and it would be a good idea to finish reading "Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Can an Educated Creationist Do Science?

Is it possible for someone to enter a secular university with biblical (young earth) creationist views and not have to compromise or have his or her belief system replaced with evolutionism?

Jason Petersen of Answers for Hope interviewed Jessica Roberts. She has degrees, including her recent bachelor's  in Molecular Biology, and has a master's in health science. Quite often, we have "educators" that want to belittle, intimidate, obfuscate and more to their students so they can protect their fundamentally flawed worldview. (Of course, true science and true education require actually examining the evidence.) Jessica's experience echoes many of the things creationists encounter. For her, the stakes were higher than just dealing with someone who wants to be contentious. But things went better than might be expected. 

The interview is in two parts, written and video.
Here is the written portion of the interview:

1. Why are you a Young Earth Creationist?
I am a Young Earth Creationist b/c I believe this is the most consistent view with what the Bible teaches and I see it as the most compatible with the evidence creation offers us today. When Scripture and science are laid out side by side they correlate splendidly well. If I could find no proof on earth today for evidence of rapid decay via a world-wide global flood that matched with the account in the Bible of Noah’s Flood, then I would be hard-pressed to believe in the literal 6-day time frame of creation as it so naturally reads in Genesis. (Although I will admit my faith would tenaciously hold on to it, albeit perhaps not as brazenly, because I have seen in other arenas of scrutiny that the Bible stands the test of time eventually once archaeology and science “catch up.”) But thankfully, I can boldly declare I am a Young Earth Creationist because of the ample testimony God has given us in this world He created, if we would but shut our mouths long enough to let our eyes see the truth.
2. As a Young Earth Creationist that was studying molecular Biology, did you feel pressured to reject creation in favor of evolution in class? If so, can you provide some examples?
Not so fast, Nellie. To read the rest, and to see the video part of the interview, you need to visit "Questioning Evolution: Jason Petersen interviews a creationist graduate from the University of Central Florida".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels