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

Friday, January 31, 2014

A Honey of a System

The presuppositions of evolutionists can be startling at times. They proclaim "EvolutionDidIt", even when there is no mechanism, evidence or credibility for the claims.

For example, take the honeybee. The more we learn, the more amazing it is. The navigation becomes more and more complex the more we learn, all the way down to the genetic level. Since humans share some of the same genetic material, they invoke the viciously circular reasoning of homology and claim that "it's deeply conserved in evolution". Their communication "waggle dance" is not really understood, but still, "It's evolution wot done it!"

It makes far more sense that the evidence indicates the Creator, who used similar elements and mechanisms for similar purposes in similar organisms. Designers do that kind of thing. Ask an engineer.
The uncanny ability of honeybees to remember and communicate the location of sweet nectar has been the subject of ongoing investigations—both navigational and genetic.
“The more we find out how honeybees make their way around the landscape, the more awed we feel at the elegant way they solve very complicated problems of navigation that would floor most people—and then communicate them to other bees,” says Professor Mandyam Srinivasan of the Queensland Brain Institute.
Bee hive yourself, and go read the rest of "Honeybees Navigate with a Map of Polarized Light".

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Bizarre Analysis of Grand Canyon Age

A new method of determining the age of the Grand Canyon is doing more harm than good. The Evo Sith are still clinging to their interpretations of uniformitarian geology, but the evidence indicates a global Flood. This latest method gives widely differing ages for different sections of the Grand Canyon.
A new method of determining the age of the Grand Canyon is doing more harm than good. Evolutionary scientists are still clinging to their interpretations of uniformitarian geology, but the evidence indicates a global Flood.
Image Credit: US Geological Survey
Some evolutionary scientists are now saying that because there are differing ages in the testing methods, there must be several different canyons that were united later on. Like with radiometric dating, there are assumptions, interpretations and other pitfalls with the data. This will probably raise more questions than answers. If they took of their Darwin spectacles and used the Noachian Flood perspective, scientists would have more consistent and believable results.
Is the Grand Canyon old or young? Both, geologists are now saying. The latest theory, though, is unlikely to end the 140-year debate.
As if on cue, the leading science news outlets simultaneously issued stories about the Grand Canyon’s age. This is because they are all in cahoots with an “embargo” process that doesn’t let the public learn about a paper till all the talking points and artwork are ready. PhysOrg, New Scientist, National Geographic, Live Science, the BBC News, Science Now and Nature News were all ready with the same line, differing only in minor details, headline and wording.
The basic ideas are these: There’s been a 140-year controversy about the age of Grand Canyon. Recent theories have battled between ages of 5 million years up to 70 million years (11/29/12). American geologists publishing a new paper in Nature Geoscience used helium thermochronometry throughout the canyon and got dramatically different results from place to place. They decided that parts of the canyon are young, 5–6 million years old, some are middle-aged, 15–25 million years old, and some are old, 70 million years old. The canyon, they surmise, consists of five “paleocanyons” (draining different ancient rivers) that were joined together 5–6 million years ago by the Colorado River. So that’s the official word—for now. But will it satisfy the warring parties?
You can finish reading "Grand Canyon Age Changes Again".

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Creation, the Global Flood and the Delaware Tribe

After I posted this, questions and objections were raised. I did some further digging, and all I got was biased "This is a fake!" material, plus some "This is real, we're the Natives!". Since I'm not comfortable with it, down it goes. -Cowboy Bob

Monday, January 27, 2014

Marvels of Young Mercury

Evolutionary planetologists used their observations filtered through presuppositions and assumptions, giving us a view of the planet Mercury as a big chunk of rock. Some of those assumptions made sense, since Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun.


Credit: MESSENGER Teams, JHU APL, NASA
When it comes to cosmology and cosmogony, however, Mercury is a rather recalcitrant messenger. Instead of being a hot ancient rock, it is showing signs of a much younger planet than was previous expected. This is no surprise to biblical creationists, but causes discomfort to evolutionary scientists. Especially when creationist predictions are affirmed.
In 2011 the Messenger spacecraft began orbiting Mercury, using its suite of sensors to study Mercury’s chemistry, magnetism, atmosphere, geology and landscape. Being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury is subject to space weathering (heating, micrometeoroid bombardment, radiation, and solar wind interaction) of extreme intensity so evolutionists anticipated Mercury would be “an old burned-out cinder”. But the evidence reveals otherwise, calling into question Mercury’s supposed age of millions of years.
Here are just some of the evolution-contradicting findings.
You can read the rest of this bad news for evolutionists at "Mercury: More Marks of Youth". 

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 14 — Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the Well is a surprisingly common informal logical fallacy. People will try to influence others before someone has a chance to be heard. It can include other fallacies such as the ad hominem ("to the man"), genetic (based on the source of information) and others. It is subtle and common, and frequently experienced. Libel, slander, idle gossip and so on all can lead to poisoning the well. Atheopaths, anti-creationists and other assorted trolls use this attempt at manipulation as a matter of course.

The MP3 can be downloaded here.


Saturday, January 25, 2014

Hitler and Question Evolution Day


We know that Hitler was an evolutionist, and no, he was not a Christian. Other tyrants were atheist evolutionists. (Today's vitriolic evolutionists are scary in their own right.) Some of those re captioned Hitler things are hilarious, and I had to try my hand at it when I got the inspiration to have him upset about Question Evolution Day. It's nice that there's a template for it. Takes some time to get it right, though. Oh, and the actor that played Hitler? Excellent work. So anyway, this video is just under four minutes.





Friday, January 24, 2014

The Dating Game, Assumptions and Creationist Tactics

A few months ago, I was included in a reply to mail from "Haywire", one of my spammer-stalkers. (He is blocked, but I was included in the reply because he was attacking me as well as other creationists.) This served as my introduction to John Heininger. 

"Haywire" was commenting about John's "tactics". John replied, "I always relish people who can appreciate "my tactics"... I hate to think that I go to all the trouble of devising clever tactics that no one appreciates or notices. So, I have again reattached "The Dating Game Assumptions" article in PDF format for you to share around." I was given permission to reproduce it, and did some minor editing of formatting, a couple of typos and such.




HOW TO PLAY THE DEEP-TIME
"ASSUMPTIONS" DATING GAME

How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth! 

ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don't have any solid facts to prove your "assumptions". As noted by New Scientist in The Dating Game, "Figuring out the age of the universe involves a SERIES OF ASSUMPTIONS about its geometry, expansion rate and composition." [Emphasis made]. However, knowing exactly how and when the universe was formed involves even more assumptions. As acknowledged by Kiri Bielby in The Coreshine Effect, "Astronomers know very little about the beginning of star life. . . . So when it comes to the birth of a star astronomers have been left in the dark - literally" (Cosmos Issue 36 December 2010 p.16) 

Of course, based on all these assumptions, everyone and his dog knows that the universe is 13.57 Billion years old, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years - and, by extension, the solar system is not much older. These dating ASSUMPTIONS are really 'rock solid', and send the Bible "literalists" into a spin, placing them into an impossible position to defend. As unverifiable "assumptions" can be dreamed up to cover any and every situation. Which is why "explanations" of "unobserved" past events, using unverifiable "assumptions", work so well. As "explanations" as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved historical past allow endless variation and flexibility.   

How the dating "assumptions" game is done:

Of course, the key dating element is "assumptions", and the key word is "time". Which you will "assume" has been uniform and constant throughout all "time". 

The Tools:

First, get your bag of unverifiable naturalistic presuppositions, inferences, predictions, explanations, conjecture, and speculations out. Then get your Uniformitarian "assumptions" clock machine ready. 

Now its dating "assumptions" time.

THE METHOD: First make some preliminary "assumptions" to exclude anything other than "natural" causes. As these will destroy your entire dating assumptions and methods. So, you  start with the unproven "blind faith" assumption of philosophical naturalism and godless materialism. And this unsustainable unproven "belief" will be your equivalent of the creationists revelational authority. Which you no doubt already regard as absolute.  

1. Assume that God does not exist, and never created anything. 
2. Assume that God was never involved at any time, in any way. 
3. Assume it's "impossible" for God to create a fully functional universe. 
4. Assume that the natural material world is all that exists, or can exist. 
5. Assume that the universe made itself, and naturally formed everything. 
6. Assume that "science alone" can determine the true nature of ultimate reality. 

Note: Of course, you need to know that the above "assumptions" are based on the "blind faith" beliefs, and the unverified ideological assumptions, of "metaphysical" naturalism. And that the belief that science alone is the only source of knowledge and truth is the definition of "scientism", not science.

Now, add your Uniformitarian cosmological "time" assumptions. 

7. Assume that "time" has been UNIFORMLY CONSTANT throughout all of time. 
8. Assume that Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not relate to time. 
9. Assume that Relativistic Time Dilation plays no part at any time, at any place. 
10. Assume that Cosmological Relativity never affected "time" in any way. 
11. Assume that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, including the rapid inflation of the universe, which all scientists conclude happened in less than a second.

Now, add your "unalterable" Uniformitarian geology clock time "assumptions". 

12. Choose only a naturalistic clock, and ignore all the conflicting dating methods. 
13. Assume only slow processes involved throughout all of time. 
14. Assume initial conditions, set time at zero. 
15. Assume that there were no major factors or catastrophes involved. 
16. Assume nothing else has ever interfered with clock. 
17. Assume the clock was always same gradual speed. 
18. Assume that you know everything about what happened in the past. 
19. Assume that there is nothing you don't know about how things age. 
20. Assume your uniformitarian dating methods and results are confirmed. 
21. Interpret all data to conform to deep time, even though this is false.
22 Ensure the same "assumptions" apply to all your dating methods. 

Note: Of course, you well know that this is like asking people around you for the correct  time, and they all give you vastly different answers. So, pick the one that fits with your deep time "assumptions", even though you know that the clocks indicating a young earth would be more trustworthy. This is because while decay rates can be rapidly "increased" or "accelerated" by internal and external factors, they can never be reduced or slowed down.  

The ASSUMPTION Dating Game Outcome:

You can now ASSUME that it all happened by natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God. 

And ASSUME that God is no longer needed to account for the universe or anything else, as it all happened by itself naturalistically. 

Thus, you can ASSUME that the universe and earth are "really" old.

More important, you can now ASSUME that you know exactly how the universe and everything else formed, including all living creatures, and even the Hawaiian Islands. Even though you have no way of ever knowing whether it happened that way, and not some another way. As it's impossible to "observe" something that happened millions and billions of years ago in the distant past. 

None-the-less, these "assumptions", together with multitude of unverifiable "assumptions" underlying philosophical NATURALISM and DARWINISM, will enable you to engage in elaborate mental gymnastics and verbal semantics to show that the "inferences" underlying your many "assumption" are fully supported by all the other "unverifiable assumptions", including all those above. 

NOW FOR A "TIMELY" WARNING!

You will need to know that if any of the above assumptions are wrong - you're dead. 

As you CANNOT prove that God does not exist or was not involved - YOU'RE DEAD! 

You're dead empirically because:

Unobserved and unrepeatable past events can never be verified by the scientific method. Thus, your hypothetical naturalistic "assumptions" will always be based on unverifiable "inferences", as there is no possible way of ever establishing that "unobserved" past events happened a particular way, and no other way. 

Your dead philosophically because:

The delusion of NATURALISM is founded on an unrealistic and unachievable quest! As it is impossible to achieve a Theory of Everything while ever unresolved mysteries and issues still exist, as they do, and invariably will. Said philosopher Jean-Paul Sarte, "A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd." Meaning, all your godless assertions and deep-time dating assumptions are meaningless and absurd.  

Thus, it is impossible for you to ever establish that life and existence is solely the result of natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God and other transcendent realities. As your insights will always be "limited" by "finite" human knowledge and understanding. Meaning, that you will never ever be in a position to know, that you really know, that you really know. In which case all your naturalistic assumptions have no rational or scientific foundation. 

NOTE: If you ever establish that you can empirically scientifically verify ALL the above deep-time dating assumptions, then the young-earth creationists may start to take you seriously, until then have a good day.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

More Confirmation — No "Junk DNA"

Secular scientists declared sections of DNA to be "junk" — leftovers from our so-called evolution. Actually, it was from evolutionary assumptions and bad science that caused this. They did not see what they were looking for, so they did not bother to investigate further and wrote it off. Creationists rejected the "junk DNA" designation. After further investigation, creationists were proved right, it's not junk

Further genome studies add to the problem for evolutionists. More functions are found that are very complex and essential for life. Although evolutionists want to live in their fantasy world and pretend that there is no Creator, their own studies clearly show that the opposite is true. It would be in their best interests to find out what our Creator has to say.
It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are teeming with functional activity—and a new study shows they are actually required for life.
The genome of humans and other animals is composed of more than just DNA sequences that produce proteins—there are also many other types of sequences that do not code for proteins. The non-protein-coding genes are diverse, with some being very short and others being quite long. In fact, the long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are actually very similar to protein-coding genes in their regulation and genomic structure. These lncRNAs are found all over the genome, in between protein-coding genes as well as inside them. Some even overlap protein-coding sequences.
Click here to read the rest of "Mouse Study Shows 'Junk DNA' Is Actually Required".

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Tiktaalik Tall Tales

Tiktaalik is back in the press. This alleged transitional form of fins-to-limbs evolution has already been dismissed. But since science is not a friend to the Evo Sith, they keep trying to zombify creatures that are dead to science and then let evolutionary speculations run loose. Rikki-Tikki-Talik is put forward as evidence of evolution, but there is no serious examination of the evidence, no mechanism for evolution, no believable conjecture as to how it happened in the first place. This is what passes for evolutionary "science".

Tiktaalik roseae
By Ghedoghedo (own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

What makes matters worse for evolutionary scientists is that what they find does not even fit their own speculations. As we keep telling you, evolutionist (and their wild-eyed press) keep spinning yarns and telling stories and passing it off as science. Then people who do not know how to think critically (or simply want reinforcement for their preconceptions) will not only accept this "science", but pass it off as refutation of creationists. This is how the clown car of evolution works.
Discoverer of a putative ancestor of tetrapods thinks it came with rear-wheel drive.
Neil Shubin of Your Inner Fish fame (1/16/08) did some more digging, and found the rear fins of his iconic fish-a-pod that made headlines in 2006 (see 04/06/2006, 05/03/2006, 10/20/2006).  Publishing the new findings in PNAS, he says that the rear hip bones of the creature he named Tiktaalik roseae provide insight into the great transition from swimming to walking:
At first glance, the origin of tetrapods (limbed vertebrates) from finned precursors seems an almost insurmountable transition between life in water and life on land. If the basis of comparison were living taxa alone, then the anatomical and behavioral differences among finned and limbed vertebrates could appear vast: for example, fin structure and function differ dramatically from those of limbs.  Fossil evidence, in particular vertebrates from the middle and late part of the Devonian period (393–359 Mya), offers intermediate conditions that bridge this gap.
Shubin and team compared the hip bones of swimmers he feels were ancestral, like Eusthenopteron, and later landlubbers, like Acanthostega, to show evolutionary progress toward tetrapodhood.  The story, however, is not one of simple progression.  For one, Tiktaalik appears to be a “mosaic” of “derived” (evolved) and “plesiomorphic” (primitive) features.
Although the size and general robusticity of the pelvis is derived relative to other finned forms, aspects of the general architecture of the girdle are plesiomorphic .…
Plesiomorphic features of Tiktaalik can be interpreted as highlighting a functional difference with limbed forms ...
Another complication from the new findings is a falsification of the “front-wheel drive” theory of the transition. 
You can finish reading "Tiktaalik is Back, This Time with a Hip Twist".

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Making "Nutcracker Man" Dance

Give evolutionists some scraps of bone and rock, call an artist and stand back. Using their preconceptions, imaginations, speculations, guesses, commitment to naturalism and a boatload of logical fallacies, and you get something to put in a museum to promote an evolutionary worldview. As a bonus, it's promoted as science. (Know the difference between fantasy sports players and Darwin's Cheerleaders? Fantasy sports people are based in reality.) For example, look at "Nutcracker Man".


"Nutcracker" courtesy of artur84 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
First, Mary Leakey found a skull in 1959. Bits and pieces were found over the years, then more parts were found recently. Although there is dispute, this critter that apparently swung from trees is alleged to be an example of evolution in action. Actually, it is an example of fantasy evolution sports and a creature that became extinct. All the storytelling and imagination in the world cannot make Nutcracker Man dance to the tune of evolution because reality gets in the way.
Like Mr. Potato Head™ toys with missing limbs, Paranthropus boisei—aka “Nutcracker Man”—has long been built from a couple of skulls and a good bit of imagination. For years, fragmentary body parts attributed to “Nutcracker Man” have fueled assertions about how it lived. Whether those bones actually belonged to Paranthropus boisei, however, has remained a matter of dispute. (Experts have provided “a sustained and compelling deconstruction of previous claims of postcranial [body] fossils of P. boisei,” researchers of the latest study on PLOS-One explain, declaring them all “dubious.”)

An Arboreal Body For P. boisei

Newly discovered body parts have now enabled anthropologists to build a more realistic body for Paranthropus boisei. Recovered in the same region of East Africa as the original skulls, the new specimens include pieces of two arm bones, two leg bones, and nine teeth. The teeth seem to have come from a single individual, a reasonably close match for Paranthropus boisei, so the limb bones found with them presumably came from it too. The resulting new body-for-boisei does not, however, fit the lifestyle previously imagined for Paranthropus boisei. Rather, the parts seem to have belonged to a powerful creature well-equipped for arboreal life.
You can swing over and finish reading "Building Nutcracker Man from the Ground Up".


Monday, January 20, 2014

Evolution, Racism and the Bible

Bigotry has been around for millennia. That is, about as long as there has been fear and hatred of people who are different. Sometimes it is so shallow, people are despised for living in the next town! (Personally, I think that bigots pick an excuse to hate someone so that they can build up their own weak egos by putting down others and then feebly trying to justify it.) Perhaps racism is faster and easier than other forms of bigotry. No particular ethnic group has a monopoly on receiving discrimination or racism. And no, labeling someone a racist because you dislike or disagree with them is a cheap way to manipulate emotions.


People rightly point out that racism did not begin with evolutionism. However, Darwin gave a veneer of scientific respectability to racism. Some people believe that there are "less favored" groups who did not evolve as well as others. Contrast that with what the Bible says about races. Big difference. Genetically, the differences between us are quite small. Which should be no surprise to those of us who believe the Bible.
The increasing spread of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation to the way people often treat each other.
Sadly, people rarely recognize that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained in their psyche have often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary thinking.
One of the prevalent evidences of man’s inhumanity to man is racism. Put simply, racism is prejudice against people of other ‘races’ for that reason alone. Stereotypical rules are applied to demean individuals based on their cultural background, skin colour, appearance, or accent.
You really should finish reading "The fallacy of racism".

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 13 — Insufficient Evidence


The MP3 can be downloaded here.

People tend to "fill in the blanks" in their minds when they do not have enough material to reach a conclusion. That is just human nature. In the case of evolutionary science, however, evidence that is contrary to goo-to-you evolution is often ignored or even actively suppressed. That is manipulation and keeps people from examining all the facts.


An article on insufficient/suppressed evidence is here. A video was described in the podcast video, that appears below, just before the podcast.







Friday, January 17, 2014

Are Blind Cave Fish Proof of Evolution?


My wife and I had some blind cave fish in an aquarium. They were good-tempered and went well in a "community tank". We seem to have a fondness for various tetras. 

Anyway.

Tinkering with a protein called HSP90, some effect was found on their eyes and sockets. However, typical of evolution's proponents, results were attributed to (wait for it) evolution! But this is not only question begging, but the Fallacy of Exclusion.

It seems that practically anything can be used as proof of evolution. Of course, things observed can be interpreted in other (and more sensible) ways, but people who have evolutionary presuppositions, they tend to have tunnel vision when interpreting the evidence. In addition, it is playing fast and loose with disingenuous definitions of evolution.
How do fish that can see make the switch to blind cavefish, and should that process really be called “evolution”? This transformation fascinates biologists. Picture the scene—a normal-looking fish lays normal-looking eggs, but its hatchlings look like something from science fiction. Thin, pale-pink skin covers not just their bodies but their shrunken eye sockets as well.
MIT biology professor Susan Lindquist helped test the role a protein called “HSP90” plays in Mexican tetra (also known as blind cavefish) embryos. She has been studying the protein’s dramatic effects in plant, yeast, and fruit fly development, giving her a hunch that it might be working in fish, too.
Publishing in the journal Science, the team found that environmental cues somehow communicate to HSP90 in developing fish and that the protein does indeed control genetic variation for the size of tetra eyes and their sockets.
You can finish reading "Blind Cavefish Shed Light on Creation", here.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

"The Rain" by Chris Skates and Dan Tankersley — Book Review

"The Rain", Chris Skates and Dan Tankersley
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
How I came across this book, I am uncertain. I think it was mentioned in a comment someone made. The Kindle price was right, so I gave it a try (sorry, could not find an EPUB for the Nook). One evening, I was looking for a diversion from the science and theology material and decided to give this a try.

Glad I did.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6.5-8, NASB)
I suppose it could be considered "historical fiction". The Bible does not tell us the names of Noah's wife or of his sons' wives, nor do we know what happened what went on while they were cooped up in the Ark. (It was over a year — do the math.) But they were real people, and had personalities, desires, fears, anguish, hope and all those other things that people have. They also had the promises of God, just like we do.

The biblical details are not neglected. I was reading with a critical view, wondering, "What about..." Later, "Oh, there it is!" 
Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Genesis 7.23-24, NASB)
The Rain has a bit of back-and-forth to it, beginning at the start of the Flood. Noah's son Japheth is giving his narrative. We are also given flashbacks and other third person material, and these trade off. Instead of being confusing, Chris Skates and Dan Tankersley add depth to the story. They gave the characters believable personalities, including fears, flaws and faith. We also share their anguish at the deaths of the people who rejected Noah's message, who were mocking them and worse. Uncertainty about the future, but also faith. It is written in contemporary language, and that adds to the readability as well.
"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24.37-39, NASB)
My regular readers may recall that I am not overly fond of Christian fiction because much of it is pretentious, unbelievable and even sappy. The Rain is none of those. It is about people, and very human. The publisher says that the print version is 254 pages, which seemed about right. I did not get bored, and I doubt that you will, either.
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. (2 Peter 3.3-10, NIV)

Monday, January 13, 2014

Camel Design and Evolution

Time and again, we see animals and organisms that have special features that help them to survive, and even thrive, in their special environments. This time, we'll focus on the "ship of the desert", the camel. (They have a reputation for being ill-tempered, but how would you feel hauling cargo over long distances in the hot sun? Just a thought.)


Time and again, we see animals and organisms that have special features that help them to survive, and even thrive, in their special environments.The camel has long-distance and hot weather survivability that show its amazing design. This alone is evidence against evolution and in favor of the Creator's design.
morgueFile / lisasolonynko
Evolutionists have proof of the evolution of the camel. They have a mostly unchanged fossil that they have dated to be very old, and then assert that it evolved. No evidence, no mechanism, but it evolved because they said so. That's evolutionary "science" for you. But more than that, the camel has long-distance and hot weather survivability that show its amazing design. This alone is evidence against evolution and in favor of the Creator's design.
It is a dry, hot, day in the desert. There is no water in sight. The wind is thick with sand, and the dunes continually shift underfoot. These conditions, which would spell death for most mammals, prove no problem for the camel.

This unique creature, referred to throughout history as ‘stupid’, ‘recalcitrant’, ‘obnoxious’, ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘vicious’, has played a vital role in the life of mankind because of its ability to cope with the harsh conditions of the desert.

This tolerance is made possible through a number of incredibly specific features possessed by the camel. Extra-long lashes protect its eyes from airborne sand; sensitive muscles in the nostrils close enough to protect its lungs; wide pads on its feet make walking on sand easier; and a thick coat of hair protects the beast from both the midday sun and cold desert night temperatures.

However, while these features are fascinating, it is the camel’s ability to survive for long periods without water (up to several weeks if leafy plants are available), and its ‘hump’ for which it is best known. Arabian camels usually have a single hump, while Bactrian camels from central Asia have two.
You can read the rest at "Camels — Confirmation of Creation".

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 12 — Atheopath Proves Us Right!

Piltdown Superman, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, The Question Evolution Project, Question Evolution Day, Piltdown Superman Podcast, Darwin, Evolution, Creation Science, Atheism

An atheopath attacked changed my plans. Got up this morning with the full intention of giving another talk about one of several informal logical fallacies that I've been wanting to present. Instead, we had vapid mail.

The third annual Question Evolution Day is coming February 12, and this bastion of logic inadvertently proves us right. It's amazing how rocket surgeons like this think they're so frightfully clever, but it's easy to dismantle what passes for logic on their home world. This episode has an extended version of the "Atheopath Follies". The MP3 version is available to download here.

Before I show you the video, I want to tell you that Jimmy Cretin came back and tried again:



Friday, January 10, 2014

Imagine Evolution

Question Evolution Day, Evolution, Creation, Creation Science, Darwin, The Question Evolution Project
Just sit right back and you'll hear some tales that are supposedly traced to Darwin's fateful trip. But the weather starts getting rough when you realize that Darwin's Cheerleaders are substituting imagination for facts and then passing this off as actual science.

They begin with their presuppositions that evolution is true. Then, using their evolution spectacles, they view data as evidence of evolution. But they are often guilty of the fallacies of exclusion and of suppressed evidence. That is, there are other explanations other than "EvolutionDidIt" for the (often tiny) data that are observed. But that does not stop some people from shutting down their thought processes and enthusiastically embracing that stuff as science. Then they wonder why so many of us question evolution.

You can see some splendid examples of what I'm going on about at "Evolutionary Tales Are Constructed Out of Imagination, Not Data".



Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Nobody's (Super)Fault But Mine?

This is a deep article. Well, the topic is hundreds of miles deep. Specifically, the powerful earthquake in the Pacific Ocean near Kamchatka in May, 2013. Scientists speculate that faults at such depths are caused by a sequence of events, including frictional melting and cold plate subduction, leading to out-of-control expansion of ruptures and subduction.


The powerful earthquake on 12 November 2013 near the Kamchatka Peninsula supports creation science global flood models.
NOAA.gov / Wikimedia Commons / PD
The earthquake was powerful and huge, with a tremendous velocity in the rupture itself. The details of this quake support models and papers by Drs. Tim Clarey, Steve Austin and John Baumgardner. What is seen is strong evidence for superfaults in the global Noachian Flood!
A magnitude 8.3 earthquake recently struck deep below the Sea of Okhotsk in the Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone just south of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula and 950 miles north of Japan. It ruptured along a 110-mile-long fault about 378 miles below the surface where the Pacific Plate is being subducted, or pulled down, beneath the ocean crust. Though it’s been hailed as the largest deep earthquake ever recorded, the Okhotsk upheaval pales in comparison to the earthquake activity suspected during the great Flood. However, it does provide an excellent model of what may have transpired at the time of that catastrophic event long ago.
What perplexes scientists the most is the earthquake’s great depth. Publishing in the journal Science, Lingling Ye et al. noted, “The occurrence of earthquakes in the depth range from 400 to 720 km [250 to 450 miles] (the mantle transition zone) has long been enigmatic, given the immense pressure exerted by the overlying rock mass on any fault surface.”
You can get shaking over to "Runaway Subduction and Deep Catastrophic Earthquakes".


Nobody's fault but mine
Nobody's fault but mine
If I don't keep my soul alive
It's nobody's fault but mine

The devil he taught me to roll
The devil he taught me to roll
How to roll that invisible line
Well, it's nobody's fault but mine

I've got a Bible in my house
I've got a Bible in my house
If I don't read it, my soul dies
Well, it's nobody's fault but mine

My sister she taught me to read
My sister she taught me to read
I didn't read it, lost my life
It's nobody's fault but mine

If I don't read my soul to life
Well, nobody's fault but mine
 

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Denisovans and Neaderthals Got Around

The more we learn about early humans, the more we realize that they were just that — humans. Ideas based on evolutionary presuppositions are presented of semi- or recently-evolved brutish humanoids, but evidence refutes those images. DNA does not give any indication of intelligence. Genome sequences from Denisovans and Neanderthals show the differences between them and modern humans is quite small. And just like modern humans, they traveled. They did a fair amount of breeding. And interbreeding. Which by itself indicates that they were human.

The biology, travel and similarities help affirm what we already know that was written in Genesis. If they would drop their evolutionary assumptions, these scientists could really learn something.
Like the Denisovan genome recovered from a finger bone, a Neanderthal toe from the very same Siberian cave of wonders has yielded up secrets of humanity’s past. Not surprisingly, the ancestral web evident from the genomic analysis published in Nature is quite consistent with the story of our past found in the Bible’s book of Genesis.

Human Groups Isolated but Related

The high-quality complete genomic sequence obtained from the bone — a Neanderthal woman’s toe — confirms other genetic data suggesting that Neanderthals and Denisovans had mixed with each other and with early modern humans. The extent of the intermingling of people groups seems somewhat limited, however, as we would expect in the wake of humanity’s dispersion from the Tower of Babel.
“Admixture seems to be common among human groups,” says lead author Kay Prüfer. “Nevertheless,” Prüfer, Svante Pääbo, and their colleagues write, “Our analyses show that hominin groups met and had offspring on many occasions in the Late Pleistocene, but that the extent of gene flow between the groups was generally low.”
You can read the rest at "Neanderthal Toe Said to Suggest an Incestuous Culture".

Monday, January 6, 2014

Kangaroos Give a Mob of Evidence for Creation

G'day. The kangaroo is a famous symbol of Australia, but many people outside of there do not know much about them. Sure, the occasional magazine article and television documentary, but those are usually skewed from an evolutionary perspective. (Scientists do not know how they evolved and have no support from the fossil record, but they have some faith-based speculations asserted as fact that they did evolve.) It turns out that there are several species of kangaroo. There is much more to them than many of us have realized, and the roo testifies of the Creator.

Kangaroo and Joey / stock.xchng / GcJ
That tail provides stability and is used for support in combat with those powerful feet. And don't discount the arms for self-defense, either. You want jumping? That depends if you want distance or height, one species is more likely to excel than the other. The birth and development of the joey (offspring) is also amazing. Did you know that the mother can produce different kinds of milk for different joeys? The Kangaroo is the Australian national symbol, but has become a pest. They can be very tall and strong — here, take a look.
Among the world’s most curious creatures is Australia’s amazing kangaroo. He appears standing proud and tall on the Australian coat of arms, and has been a rallying symbol for national sporting teams.
Benign of face, bottom-heavy of build, kangaroos outclass most of the animal kingdom in the long and high jump, boxing, and karate. Born a mere 1–1.5 centimetres (half-inch) long, and weighing less than a gram, kangaroos can grow taller than a man. As with most other marsupials, one of the three orders of mammals, they raise their young in body pouches. But kangaroos have another advantage—an expectant female can retain an embryo in ready reserve for months, until the conditions are right for its continued development.
Kangaroos outclass most of the animal kingdom in the long and high jump, boxing, and karate.
When it comes to marsupials, no place on earth can count a greater variety than the island continent of Australia. Of 250 existing species, some 170 of them—including wombats, bandicoots, and kangaroos live only in Australia or its immediate surroundings. All the rest, except the opossum found in the United States and Canada, are limited to Latin America.
To finish reading, hop on over to "Australia’s amazing kangaroos and the birth of their young".


Saturday, January 4, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 11 — Thanks to Atheists and Evolutionists!


The MP3 version can be downloaded here.

Taking a break from the informal logical fallacies. It's time to thank the haters for their assistance! Most criticisms are emotional and childish. But what do you do when there's a grain of truth to them? Learn from them! For me, they have helped me to sharpen my arguments, repent of my misuse of images and find better ones, and more.






Friday, January 3, 2014

More Modern Dinosaur Sightings?

Most evolution believers presume that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years. But this disregards the soft tissue discoveries, archaeological evidence and even modern eyewitness accounts.

Using their worldviews based on their presuppositions, the Evo Sith generally insist that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago. Historical evidence to the contrary is rejected out of hand because it does not fit their beliefs. This is also the primary reason that the existence of dinosaur soft tissues is explained away (because it is impossible to evolutionists), often through very unscientific science and assumptions. 

The existence of dinosaurs in recent times threatens evolution itself because molecules-to-man evolution requires "deep time". Although the scientific evidence is against an ancient Earth, the evolutionary propaganda value of dinosaurs would be destroyed if they were found, or if evolutionists admitted that they existed much more recently than had been assumed. Can't have the recent creation as described in Genesis get more support, can we? Nope. That would mean there's a Creator...

I posted some material about dinosaur sightings in modern times, and it looks like even more may have been observed.
A dinosaur actually living in the world today? According to a report in Papua New Guinea’s The Independent newspaper, a ‘dinosaur-like reptile’ was seen on two occasions in the Lake Murray area, in Western Province.
On December 11, 1999, villagers travelling in a canoe reported seeing the creature wading in shallow water near Boboa.
The following day, a Seventh Day Adventist pastor and a church elder say they saw the animal not far from the first sighting.
The creature was described as having a body ‘as long as a dump truck’ and nearly two metres wide, with a long neck and a long slender tail. It was walking on two hind legs ‘as thick as coconut palm tree trunks’, and had two smaller forelegs. The head was similar in shape to a cow’s head, with large eyes and ‘sharp teeth as long as fingers.’ The skin was likened to that of a crocodile, and the creature had ‘largish triangular scoops on the back.’
You can read the rest of "A Living Dinosaur?" here.



Thursday, January 2, 2014

Spectacular Saturn

On our last journey into the solar system, we visited Jupiter, the largest planet. It has the largest mass of the planets. Surprisingly, we learn on our trip to Saturn that although it is the second largest planet, it has the lowest density. If you could find a tub of water large enough, it would float! Although other planets have systems of rings (only discovered comparatively recently), Saturn's ring system is not only striking in appearance, but amazing in complexity.

NASA / JPL / STScI
The moons of Saturn (62, they currently think) are also complex. And baffling. The second largest planet in the solar system has the second largest moon, Titan. It is the only moon with a thick atmosphere, which presents difficulties to evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists — the methane in the atmosphere should have been made to go away after a few million years, and those people claim that the universe is billions of years old. The placement, orbits and activities of several of the other moons are also fascinating.

As usual, the features of the planets and their moons defy evolutionary origins models and give silent testimony of not only the Creator, but of a recent creation.
When people peer into a telescope and see Saturn for the first time, the typical response is “Wow!” All the other planets appear as simple disks with a few surface features, but Saturn’s rich system of rings makes it look more like a piece of celestial jewelry. Composed of trillions of tiny moonlets—particles of water ice—these rings orbit Saturn, giving it a stunning, three-dimensional appearance quite different from any other planet.
Basic Properties
Saturn is a slightly smaller version of Jupiter in most respects. It is made of hydrogen and helium gas and trace amounts of molecules such as the methane and ammonia that give rise to its yellow color. As with Jupiter, colorful clouds are stretched into belts (dark-colored) and zones (lightcolored). However, Saturn’s belts and zones are more subtle than Jupiter’s.
Nine times the size of Earth in diameter, Saturn has the lowest density of any planet and, amazingly, would actually float in water. At a distance of 890 million miles from the sun, Saturn takes 29.5 years to complete just one orbit.
Powerful storms large enough to be seen from Earth occasionally develop in Saturn’s atmosphere and appear as bright regions within the belts and zones. Although Saturn has no permanent storms like Jupiter’s Great Red Spot, its intermittent storms can last for many months. A Great White Spot manifests roughly every 30 years during the planet’s northern hemisphere summer and can periodically occur in off-years as well, as it did in 2010.
You can finish the article at "The Solar System: Saturn".

Labels