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

Thursday, July 31, 2014

What if Charles Darwin Had Never Been Born?

Sometimes, i's interesting to spend time speculating on "what if" in a fantasy world. Maybe Chuckie had never been born. Or perhaps he continued his studies in theology and became a Bible-believing pastor (theology was his only formal schooling, after all). It could be that he would continue his apprenticeship and become a medical doctor. Imaginably, he pursued is one-time interest in taxidermy with John Edmonstone. Or he could have run away and left no news. At any rate, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, plus The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and other things would not have been written. Perhaps Alfred Russel Wallace would have been the one to write his version of evolution and become a hero to God deniers.

Maybe...perhaps...imaginably...could be...could have...it's like reading evolutionary science, yes?

There are people who think that Charles Darwin was a brilliant scientist who deduced evolution. Actually, he compiled and popularized it, since various evolutionary concepts masquerading as science were floating around during his time. Evolution itself is an ancient pagan religion, and Darwin made it look respectable.

I think it is probable that someone else would have published something similar and garnered the fame that Charles Darwin has today. Concepts like social Darwinism would likely still exist, since people were happy to take evolution and give "scientific" respectability to racism, abortion, eugenics and other evils of society. They would find a way to pretend that the Creator of the universe was not necessary.

There's a book about the world without Darwin that has some interesting speculations.
A new book tries to imagine how different the world would be, had Darwin as an individual not lived to promote his particular views on evolution.

With a title reminiscent of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent book and movie, America: Imagine the World Without Her, Peter Bowler just published a book on a different counterfactual note: Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin. Ana Marie R. Almeida reviewed the book in Nature under the headline, “Darwin Who?”

Bowler feels that the world would be quite different had Darwin not lived, even though many evolutionary beliefs were already popular in Europe and America. He doesn’t buy the “in the air” thesis, Almeida relates; Darwin was a special guy with a unique combination of interests and abilities. Had he not lived, other evolutionary ideas would have become dominant, but Darwin made evolution much more confrontational than other thinkers.
Imagine yourself reading the rest of this article. Make that fantasy a reality by clicking on "Darwin: Imagine a World Without Him". What if it was Chuck was born Charlotte Darwin and she just ran away?

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Baffling Seahorse

One of the more common expressions uttered by proponents of evolution is "evolutionary advantage". Essentially, they see an organism's particular characteristic and "explain" it in terms of some kind of evolutionary advantage. Sometimes this explanation is somewhat plausible, but many times, they are humorous; almost as if you were to say that short people have the evolutionary advantage of not having to stoop to pass through doorways. This is why some of us claim that they see evolution almost everywhere (blessed be!), but are mainly the products of imagination. In addition to the nonexistent whys of evolution, the hows are also missing; no fossil record, and so forth.

Pixabay / katja

Finding any evolutionary advantage to the seahorse is extremely unlikely. It is a fish that has many unique characteristics in addition to the obvious horse shape. No other fish spends most of its time swimming upright, its eyes work independently, the father does the birthing... Here, take a look:
With a bosom it can puff up like a pouter pigeon and a coat of coloured armour, it intrigues most people. It is 10cm (4 in) of riveted beauty, tail tightly curled around sea weed as it floats vertically in its green and watery world. It is the only fish that swims upright, and achieves this by having a special bubble inside its bladder. Sensitive cells at the top of the bladder detect when the bubble is in the wrong place and the animal moves until the bubble feels right. It will then be straight up again.

If you can imagine trying to turn any other sort of fish into a sea horse, you will see why no scientist has been able to suggest any evolutionary advantage for an animal to swim like this. After all, to stand up while you are swimming forward makes swimming a lot harder—like a horse without legs in a wrong world. Without the bladder it can’t move fast either. If the bladder is punctured, it sinks helplessly to the bottom and will die if the wound does not heal.
To read more about this work of the master Designer, click on "The Sea Horse".

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Dinosaur Feathers Part 2 — What a Stupid Concept

In our last installment, we saw that Darwin's Desperate Cheerleaders are ignoring facts from paleontology and geology, and trying to make an ancient bird into a feathered dinosaur. This post has two more items that need your investigation.

Megalosaurus, a bird-hipped dinosaur
Some Darwinists are so intent on determining the origin of flight that they see feathers in all sorts of dinosaur fossils. It has been speculated that dinosaurs had feathers, and then branched into two kinds: Lizard-hipped (which allegedly evolved into birds) and bird-hipped (which did not allegedly evolve into birds, despite having an advantage in the hip department). I actually laughed when I read that. Things that look like feathers to some enthusiastic scientists actually have almost no resemblance to them. Here are two articles that show why the feathers are from the land of imagination. First:
The media have jumped all over a discovery of fuzz on a small ornithischian dinosaur, ignoring the evolutionary problems. 
No sooner had we published the previous entry about true feathers on an imaginary dinosaur (7/24/14) when another paper came out in Science Magazine announcing “feathers” on a real dinosaur. The media spin machine immediately went into high gear:
The discovery of a weird dinosaur, Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus, looking something like a cross between a chicken and a fuzzy kangaroo according to the artist’s imagination, was announced in Science Magazine. The authors, however, preferred the phrase “featherlike structures” instead of feathers throughout the paper. The only times they spoke of “feathers” per se, they qualified the word as interpretive:
You can read the rest by clicking on "Featherlike Structures Are Not Feathers", and remember that there is another strong article waiting for you below.

To continue, not only are some evolutionary scientists and the wild-eyed sensationalistic press seeing feathers on dinosaurs, or unjustifiably turning dinosaurs into dino-bird things, feathers on dinosaurs are ridiculous. It is like paying for "being hit on the head lessons", what a stupid concept. There would be no advantage for scaly dinosaurs to grow feathers. Nor is it feasible for the huge transformation to evolve from walking to flying. These scientists want to prove evolution, but have tunnel vision and act in a very unscientific manner by elevating their presuppositions above their ability to actually find explanations for what is observed. Of course, the best explanation is that evolution did not happen and that the Creator designed living things, but that wrecks their paradigm. That would mean that God is the Creator, not some pantheistic force of Evolution.
A new dinosaur fossil discovered in China supposedly indicates that it had feathers. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the fossil of the Yutyrannus huali, the “beautiful feathered tyrant,” was the largest yet found of the now famous Chinese “feathered dinosaurs.” The technical description published in Nature claimed that a “gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of China” was recovered. But do these fossils really reveal former feathers, or does another interpretation, perhaps something as simple as decayed skin fibers, better explain them?

Below its headline, the Christian Science Monitor qualified the “feathered” label: These “feathers” are actually just “feather-like features,” or “simple filaments.” Similarly, the Nature text described them as “filamentous integumentary [skin] structures.” Real bird feathers are complicated, with semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, but the fossil’s filaments apparently did not have these features. If the word “feather” just means “filament,” then could any filament—like a hair or plant fiber—not also be called a “feather”?
To read the rest, click on "Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?"

Monday, July 28, 2014

Dinosaur Feathers Part 1 — Ineffable Twaddle

The Question Evolution Project, sometimes people use artists' conceptions as proof of evolution. The chill out lemur was fooled.

Bringing you exciting news using my unregistered assault keyboard from a hidden location. Fundamentalist evolutionists are going to go haywire again when their dogmas and presuppositions are exposed.
"What ineffable twaddle!" I cried, slapping the magazine down on the table, "I never read such rubbish in my life."
"What is it?" asked Sherlock Holmes.
"Why, this article," I said, pointing at it with my egg spoon as I sat down to my breakfast. "I see that you have read it since you have marked it. I don't deny that it is smartly written. It irritates me though. It is evidently the theory of some arm-chair lounger who evolves all these neat little paradoxes in the seclusion of his own study. It is not practical. I should like to see him clapped down in a third class carriage on the Underground, and asked to give the trades of all his fellow-travelers. I would lay a thousand to one against him."
"You would lose your money," Sherlock Holmes remarked calmly. "As for the article I wrote it myself."

— from "A Study in Scarlet" by A. Conan Doyle
Are you familiar with the mostly-vanished phrases "horse feathers" or "hogwash" as expressions that something is nonsense? Not as colorful as Dr. Watson's expression just above, but saying "dinosaur feathers" may be a fun alternative.

They seem to love trying to say that dinosaurs evolved into birds, even though the evidence is against them: dinosaurs ate birds, and modern birds are found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. Also, not all evolutionary scientists are united in the dinos-to-birds concept. The sultans of spin are so locked into their paradigms that they simply go around the evidence because they "know" what they believe is true. They are constantly seeing things that are not there, such as feathers on dinosaurs, or believing prehistoric birds (which have feathers and all the mechanisms of real birds) to be dinosaurs. The ever-loyal press love to publicize anything sensational.

Here are two articles about the wishful thinking of evolutionists to make something into what it isn't.
We’ve reported “imaginary feathers” on dinosaurs over the years, but this new fossil bird could fly.

Scientists and reporters have lost any hesitancy to call fossil birds “dinosaurs.” This is evident in a BBC News article by James Morgan, “Four-winged dinosaur is ‘biggest ever’,” and the Nature Communications paper on which it is based, “A new raptorial dinosaur with exceptionally long feathering provides insights into dromaeosaurid flight performance.”
You can finish reading the first article by clicking on "Real Feathers Found on Imaginary Dinosaur". Then come back for the next one.

Glad you to have you back! There is some overlap between the two articles, but both cover different aspects of the subject. This one is a bit longer and more detailed:
Biological aerodynamic engineering was in high gear long before modern birds evolved, evolutionists believe, based on analysis of some really long tail plumage. A fossilized, high-performance, feathered microraptorine called Changyuraptor yangi is making headlines as the longest-feathered “feathered dinosaur” on record. It had “four wings” (sort of) and a long tail featuring a sleek, aerodynamic design and quill-like feathers about a foot long. Counting the tail, Changyuraptor was about four feet long and weighed around nine pounds.

Paleontologist Luis Chiappe of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, lead author of a recent report in Nature Communications, told the Washington Post, “I’ve never seen anything like it. It is a stunning specimen and it was stunning to see the size of the feathers. This is the dinosaur with the longest known feathers—by far. There is nothing like this by a very good distance. The feathers were one-fourth the size of the animal. It’s just wonderful.”
You can finish reading by clicking on "“Feathered Dinosaur” Featured Long Tail Plumage, Evolutionists Say". I wish I could get paid government grant money for indulging in my imagination. Don't you? At any rate, the evidence is clear that birds and dinosaurs were created separately, and one did not evolve into the other. These scientists are driven by ideology, not a search for real knowledge. If you want to keep going, click on "Dinosaur Feathers Part 2 — What a Stupid Concept".

Saturday, July 26, 2014

What About that Frink Dating Method?

No, the Frink dating method has nothing to do with the romance and marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Frink. Rather, it is the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio method postulated by Douglas Frink. Like other methods used to try to determine the age of items, it relies on several assumptions about the dating process.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
SPA Archaeologist Jeremy Decker records a piece of fire-cracked rock, one of a series of artifacts showing where prehistoric people built a hearth.

Also, the OCR method is calibrated with carbon-14, another dating method that requires many assumptions. But at least Frink points out difficulties in his process that need to be worked out instead of rushing in as a hero of science. So this, too, is not a reliable method to conjure up long ages for the sake of evolution.
MM from Australia asked about a new dating method called “oxidizable carbon ratio” (OCR) dating, which was brought to his attention by a friend.
It is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates (see article How dating methods work). The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past. We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation.

Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always. There is no other way. Further it must be assumed that the parameters have not varied over the ‘life’ of the sample. Because these are assumed, we cannot have any confidence that the calculated age is correct. Thus, scientists always compare their calculated result with what they think the answer should be. If their calculated age does not agree with expectations they will explain it away and look for something else to give them the age they need. The article How dating methods work gives one example of how unwanted dates are explained away. Radioactive dating anomalies gives other examples.
Unless you have a date tonight, you can finish reading by clicking on "Oxidizable Carbon Radio Dating".

Friday, July 25, 2014

Putting Down Two More Evolution Fictions

One problem that creationists have is that we have to deal with Darwin's Drones who want to negate what we have to say with proof of evolution. (Some are more reasonable and simply want to give what they consider to be evidence of evolution, not "proof".) Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do not have a problem with evidence, because what Darwinists have to offer in defense of their worldview is weak.

Evolutionists present evidence for their beliefs. But it is often outdated and discredited. Here are two more "evidences for evolution" that should be buried and forgotten.

Have you ever seen a creationist haiku on a tombstone before?

The most frequent problem we have is when evolutionists present what they consider evidence, and it has been dealt with by creationists already or even discarded by evolutionary scientists. They seldom do their homework. Unfortunately, these things keep popping up and are even in textbooks and so forth. We often know their material better than they do.

This article presents two items that are touted as evidence for evolution that should be buried. One is a claim that since some members of a Turkish family walked on all fours, it is evidence of evolution (which was based on circular reasoning and ignoring other explanations). The other is that claim that God designed the human eye poorly (scientifically shredded here, among other places), so it must be evolution. This claim is ridiculous on the surface because it admits that evolution is lousy at design. I encourage you to read "Two Evolutionary Evidences Debunked".

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Altitude, Tibetans and Genetic Variations

People who are not used to spending time far above sea level often get altitude sickness because the the air is thinner and their bodies have to work harder to get enough oxygen. Invaders of and travelers to Tibet need to use extreme care at "the top of the world". Not only is altitude sickness unpleasant, in such extremes, it can be fatal. So how about them Tibetans, huh? Tibetans did not simply get used to the altitude, they thrive in it.

freeimages / absyss
We've learned that the Neandertals and Denisovans got around, as traces of there genes are in many places. It turns out that the Tibetan people have a genetic variation that is only found in one other people group, the Denisovans. Of course, scientists saw evolution where it does not exist. When the evidence is examined without evolutionary presuppositions and biases, it actually points to something that secularists do not want to hear: The dispersion of humanity from the Tower of Babel.

Extreme Elevation

Despite living all their lives in the low oxygen tension of the Tibetan plateau at an altitude above 13,000 feet, Tibet natives do not develop extremely elevated hemoglobin levels with associated increased blood viscosity like immigrants and long-term visitors do. Therefore, they have a lower incidence of related cardiac complications than people who move to their extreme elevation, and they also have fewer pregnancy complications and deliver healthier babies than women who have moved to the region.
At extreme elevations, our bodies are equipped to respond to chronically low atmospheric oxygen by synthesizing extra oxygen-carrying hemoglobin. This increases the oxygen-carrying efficiency of our blood. For this reason, runners sometimes train at higher elevations to gain a competitive edge. Within limits, this response—mediated by a transcription factor produced by the gene EPAS1—is a good thing. But too much of a good thing is not so good.
If the blood becomes too hemoglobin rich—a problem seen in some people who move to Tibet—then the heart can be overworked due to elevated blood viscosity, and cardiac complications can ensue. The blood of Tibet’s natives does not reach the excessive hemoglobin levels found in non-natives, naturally stopping the synthesizing process before dangerously high hemoglobin levels are reached. Biologist Rasmus Nielsen of University of California, Berkeley, and his team have learned that Tibetan natives’ genomes have a variant form of EPAS1, and this variant limits the physiologic response to chronic atmospheric oxygen deprivation.

The Height of Variation

The researchers concluded that natural selection must have selected strongly for Tibetans carrying this genetic variant, easily explained considering non-natives living on the plateau are at increased risk for difficulties with childbearing. The question was: where did Tibet’s native populace acquire this genetic variant of EPAS1? After looking for matching genetic patterns in databases worldwide, the team found the Tibetan version of EPAS1 in only two Han Chinese people in the database and in Denisovan DNA.
To finish reading, click on "Denisovan Gene Gave Tibetans Their High-Altitude Tolerance".

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Radiation and Birds

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is a wide area around the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. Because of radiation, it is very highly restricted and controlled by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine. Scientists are granted limited access to perform studies.

One of the areas of research involves DNA damage in birds. Some of them are actually resistant to radiation! This indicates more of the biological intricacies that the Creator designed in his creation, and does not support evolutionary ideas.
It has been 28 years since Chernobyl's nuclear power plant suffered a catastrophic meltdown in Ukraine. People are still not permitted to live near it because radiation levels remain dangerous, but plants and animals long ago pioneered the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. A new study revealed surprising hints that certain birds' internal biological tactics cope well with the harmful radiation.

Publishing in the journal Functional Ecology, European scientists described results from analyses they began in the 1990s.1 For starters, they measured amounts of the two main feather pigments from 152 birds of 16 different species: phaeomelanin and eumelanin.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Birds' Built-In Defenses Fend Off Radiation".

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Further Depletion of Accretion Hypothesis

Secular scientists have several suggestions supposedly explaining the start of the planets. None of them work. Every naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe and the planets has serious flaws. Interestingly, even though what is observed in our own solar system baffles evolutionary cosmogonists and cosmologists, they seem to think that the accretion speculation (the most popular) will hold together.

Artist's concept of Kepler in the distant solar system.
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech

So the absurdity is extrapolated to exoplanets. However, the exoplanets are making things worse, not better, for evolutionary ideas about the universe. Really, the evidence supports recent creation by the Designer.
Astrophysicists, are being ‘knocked into a cocked hat’ by the results from the planet-finding Kepler space observatory. Almost a thousand new ‘exo-planets’ have been confirmed and another four thousand candidates are waiting to be assessed.

So what’s the problem? Well, the original theory of planet formation was derived to explain the only system we knew of at the time—our own. When others were being discovered astronomers expected them to be at least somewhat like our own. That hope has been dashed. The more planetary systems we find, the more our own world stands out as the exception rather than the rule. Naturalism is no great friend of novelty—it likes to see one theory explain all. Weird worlds require weird explanations, and the more the weirdness mounts up the less and less explanatory power remains in the conventional theory. They now have a “mess of models, which have grown almost as exotic and plentiful as the planets they seek to explain.”
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Planetary formation theory in chaos". 

Monday, July 21, 2014

Finding Anti-Creation Facebook Fakers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

EDIT: Please also read this related, more recent article, "Faker Alert for Facebook".

Enemies of creation science are not content to deal with the topics. Instead, they want to "protect" what they call "science" (which includes equivocating "science" with "evolution"), attempt to outlaw the its teaching in schools, misrepresentation, ridicule and other ways to silence us.

In addition, they use other nefarious tricks. Earlier today, I helped sound an alarm about fake Facebook accounts impersonating Creation Ministries International and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (which have since been removed after action from CMI). This is nothing new, since there are often warnings made about impersonations of Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort and other Christians and creationists. (It happens to "regular" people and ministries as well as the "big names".) Atheists and evolutionists are not content to have anti-Christian and anti-creationist Pages, forums, sites, Weblogs and so on, but have to resort to fraud. "Good without God"? No, what they are doing is lying, and it is illegal as well. One atheopath criminal extends his evolutionary jihad to the Intelligent Design community as well; the comments at this link are very interesting. Edit: In my opinion, the many atheists and evolutionists who know about this stuff going on and do not raise objections are giving tacit approval.

This is written specifically about Facebook. I do not have knowledge about such things on Google Plus or other social media, but believe that Twitter is low risk.

"But Cowboy Bob, what's the harm in taking a friend request?"

Too many people are careless in that. Some "friends" can access your information and see your other friends. (My wife had a "friend" say that she had problems with her account, so she made a new one and sent new friend requests. Then my wife was spammed.) I recommend doing "friends only" for most posting, and not letting the public see who your friends are. Carelessly "friending up" people is one of the causes of identity theft.

How can we tell if someone is trying to fool us? While nothing is foolproof, there are some things to keep in mind. First, two graphics. The fake Creation Ministries International, followed by the real one:

Click for larger. Older style Page format, not an indicator of deception, though.

Click for larger. Newer style Page format, not a guarantee that it's genuine, though.
Here are some things I found in my explorations of fake Pages and troll accounts:
  • The Page is fairly recent; CMI shows several years in its Page's history
  • Check the number of "Likes", as fake Pages are usually pretty low in Likes; CMI has over 36,000
  • Page activity may be sparse or have several posts loaded up within a short time, but the time stamp can indicate when things were posted
  • Sometimes fake Pages and those pretending to be real people have spelling errors (for instance, Jonathan Sarfati may be written as Sarfatti)
  • Content that is inconsistent with what you would expect from the real Page
  • Criminal impersonation of personal timelines are often very new, with little history
  • Check for mutual friends, there may be few or none at all
  • Trust your instincts, especially if you've been around Facebook for a while
While there is probably very little harm in liking a Page, it gives them attention and publicity through your own timeline. Making friends with fakers is very risky, as I described above.

"What if I turn down a friend request or do not like a real Page?"

If it's a real friend, he or she may respect your caution and is unlikely to dislike you for not responding in a hurry (some "friend"), so take your time. If the Page is legitimate, you can probably check it out later. I've long maintained that haste is one of Satan's tools. Even if you don't believe that Satan exists, you can accept the principle that rushing into things without due consideration can be disastrous. The more important the issue (including money you have to spend), the more important it is to take your time. Free bonus helpful hint from Cowboy Bob.

What this all comes down to is to be cautious, take your time, check for indicators like those mentioned above. These atheopaths do not respect you, your beliefs, God, the Bible or the law. 

Triceratops Evolution Wrongly Assumed

Evolutionary geologists and paleontologists have found several triceratops fossils in one area. Based on their erroneous presuppositions, they stated some things as facts that are not facts at all. What they do know is that there are many triceratops skulls with some variation in a great deal of rock.

Triceratops' skulls have evolutionary scientists making some wild speculations. The science actually supports Noah's Flood and rapid burial, not evolutionary slow and gradual processes.

These secular scientists are presuming age of the rocks in which the triceratops gang was buried, and that it took millions of years to do it. They also assume that variation is the same as evolution, but have no explanation for how or why this alleged evolution occurred. But we have come to expect circular reasoning from evolutionists. There are two huge problems for them. First, the geologic evidence is for rapid burial. Second, actual science refutes their position and supports the Noachian Flood that biblical creationists believe.
Triceratops skulls entombed in Montana’s Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation tell a story, but not the tale of being trapped by the sands of time! The nature of the rock layers in which the skulls are trapped is actually exactly what Bible-believing geologists would expect to see—even in their finest details—as a result of catastrophic burial of herds of these giant herbivores during the global Flood, only about 4,350 years ago.

A Matter of Time

Meticulously excavated rock layers containing over fifty Triceratops skulls reveals two distinct varieties of Triceratops—supposedly spanning about 2 million years, evolutionary paleontologists say. Scientists from the Museum of the Rockies took several years to complete the work, which they interpret as a record of trends in Triceratops snout evolution. In reality, excavating the skulls took much longer than it did to bury their massive owners in the first place.
To finish reading about the horns of a dilemma for uniformitarian scientists, click on "Hell Creek Formation Tells a Tale of Triceratops".

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Another Uniformitarian Geologic Icon Evaporates

Once again, secular scientists have used their presuppositions to force-fit information, then proceed to do a half-hearted job at explanations — then leave it. The explanation is accepted and then put into textbooks with a truckload of other semi-investigated findings. Later, some other scientists decide that something needs another look, and the whole thing needs to be retooled. Given the track record of evolution and old-earth devotees, bad information is likely to remain uncorrected in textbooks for many years, if ever.

In this case, the so-called Messinian salinity crisis. This involved having the Mediterranean Sea dry up repeatedly over millions of years, but the evidence does not support the claims. Also, the scientists partially left their own presuppositions to invoke the word "catastrophe", which was not well received by other uniformitarian geologists. Further investigation is warranted, and biblical creationists need to give this project serious examination as well.
Researchers on the deep-drilling ship Glomar Challenger made a startling discovery back in the early 1970s. They discovered that the Mediterranean Sea is underlain by a thick ‘evaporite’ below hundreds of metres of sediments or sedimentary rock. This ‘evaporite’ is around one kilometre thick and covers about 2.5 million km2, based on seismic data. In the middle of the deeper basins, it could be as thick as 1.5 to 1.8 km. This ‘evaporite’ is one of many examples of ‘saline giants’ that have long been a problem for uniformitarian geology because of the lack of a modern analogue. For a while, there was considerable controversy over the meaning of Mediterranean deposits, but Kenneth Hsü and colleagues concluded that the ‘evaporites’ were formed when the Mediterranean Sea dried up in the past. This is called the late Miocene Messinian salinity crisis. It is very well accepted by uniformitarian scientists today. Hsü has even bragged that future generations of school children will be taught the Messinian salinity crisis as gospel truth.
You can read the rest of this hard geologic truth by clicking on "The Messinian salinity crisis questioned".

Friday, July 18, 2014

Heidelberg Man Can Hit the Road

As we observed in the last exciting episode, the "mosaic" of human evolution is more like a scattered jigsaw puzzle. Part of the problem is from making conclusions based on incomplete evidence. Another problem is insisting on evolutionary presuppositions even though the evidence does not fit.

Imagine this scenario. You go to an auto mechanic because something just isn't right. The mechanic says, "There are several possible causes for this. I'm going to pick one and make repairs based on that one and ignore the rest". Would you trust that mechanic? Me, I'd go to my usual mechanic, who looks at the possibilities and reasons to the best conclusion.

Heidelberg Man (Homo heidelbergensis) was one of the alleged ancestors for various branches of humanity's evolutionary tree. This bad boy was another one with several possible variations scattered over a wide area. Now the debate has increased beyond his place in evolutionary history — he may not have even existed, even in the eyes of evolutionists. Which is well in keeping with the biblical creationist worldview.
Is “Heidelberg Man” a non-person? Some anthropologists are now claiming that so-called Homo heidelbergensis is nothing more than “a paleoanthropologists’ construct.”

Artists loved to portray this guy as a a hairy, stocky, beetle-browed ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans that lived supposedly 800,000 to 200,000 years ago. Trouble is, he may never have existed. Homo heidelbergensis may have been little more than a paleoanthropologists’ invention, a report by Michael Balter states in Science Magazine. He attended a private meeting in southern France where researchers on both sides debated the status of this alleged human ancestor.
To finish reading, click on "Good-bye Heidelberg Man: You Never Existed".

Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Jigsaw Puzzle of Human Evolution

To hear the popularizers of human evolution tell it, the progression from simpler life forms through apelike ancestors all the way to modern humans is a well established mosaic, except for the occasional missing link, and it is all "settled science" and the scientific consensus.

The reality is far different, and more like a jigsaw puzzle with scattered pieces. There are false starts, former transitional forms that have been reclassified as fully human or fully ape, embarrassments and frauds. Settled science and consensus? There is considerable disagreement within the evolutionary community. All they have is the presupposition that evolution occurred, then try to force the evidence into their monkey scheme. So, this "mosaic" is nothing of the kind. The fanciful tale is that bits and pieces of bones that are widely scattered, and ancient humans supposedly evolved various traits, and then here we are. The truth of human origins is not found in imaginative paleontology (i.e., making stuff up) evolutionary thinking.
In a new comprehensive review of humanity’s story, evolutionary anthropologists tell their tale of how hominins1 in many locales progressed up the evolutionary ladder by using whatever useful traits they each possessed to cope with intense wet and dry seasons in ancient Africa. Something as simple as long legs was a step up. The sum of all those traits represents the gradual evolution of the human condition.

Oh What a Tangled Web . . .
Based on the analysis published in Science, our evolutionary story just became even more indecipherable. Evolutionist Chris Stringer of London's Natural History Museum, comments:
To find out what Chris said and finish reading the article, click on "Piecing Together Human History, One Adaptation at a Time". 

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Morality, Atrocities and Evolution

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Going to make you think about some deeper things today, and linking to three articles. Plus a bonus song at the end.

People have criticized creationists for pointing out the fruits of evolutionary thinking. Some have said things like, "Evolution is just biology, nothing more". When I hear something like that I wonder if that person is uninformed, disingenuous or something else. The fact is that ideas have consequences, and evolution is not just biology, geology, cosmology and other things, but a worldview. Evolution is treated like some kind of entity that has goals and makes decisions, which is consistent with its ancient pantheistic pagan roots.

Scientists are not dispassionate and totally objective automatons. Using materialistic presuppositions, evolutionary scientists attempt to find the human soul and the source of free will in the brain. But processes of evolution cannot account for logic, the soul, free will — or morality. Making morality a utilitarian result of evolution removes the true basis of good and evil. I suggest you read the first article of the day, "Thank Evolution that Nothing Is Evil (or Good)".

To change direction a bit, the Evo Sith will use the vague phantom of "religion" (usually when attacking Christianity) and say that Christians have done lots of evil in the world, so evolution is not to blame if people misuse it. This kind of view shows a lack of deep thought. When people purporting to act in the name of Christ (or simply have called themselves "Christian"), they are acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
This correspondent, Jeff D. from the USA, objects to our article Darwin’s bodysnatchers: new horrors: People deliberately killed to provide 'specimens' for evolutionary research. But these are tired old canards that Christians do bad things themselves, and in any case, the Bible has nasty things in it. Although we have addressed these claims many times on our site already (see related articles below), we thought it was worthwhile to answer these claims, using both new and old material. Thus the letter is printed first in its entirety, then re-printed with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati interspersed.
To finish reading the second article of the day, click on "Christian vs evolutionary atrocities".

Evolutionists have attempted to find morality by studying primates. Since we supposedly are related to chimpanzees, watching chimps gives them the idea of how our morality developed through evolution. Makes sense, right? I didn't think so. Yet, animal morality has only superficial resemblance to human morality.

Atheism and evolutionism are incoherent and lack the necessary preconditions of human experience; they do not have answers for the questions of life.
Prominent primatologist Frank de Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center has, on the basis of his observations of primates, shared with the world his answer to the question, “Where did morality come from?” De Waal is an atheist but doesn’t mind it if other people cling to religious ideas because he believes religious ritual strengthens community ties. His book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, asserts that morality evolved as humans evolved. He further holds that humans eventually invented religion in order to codify a blueprint for moral behavior.

De Waal, having observed chimps and bonobos for years, says that they display empathy, fairness, altruism, grief, and guilt. De Waal writes, “Some say animals are what they are, whereas our own species follows ideals, but this is easily proven wrong. Not because we don't have ideals, but because other species have them too.” Thus in the usual approach taken by evolutionists in explaining biological similarities, common designs are claimed as evidence for evolution rather than for a common Designer. Thus, de Waal believes that apes possess the “basic building blocks” for morality, those “seeds of morality” that flowered in humans evolving from ape-like ancestors.
To continue reading the third article of the day, click on "Where Did Morality Come From?". Only biblical Christianity deals with the big questions. That, I believe, is why evolutionists hate God and the authority of the Bible. God is the Creator, and he makes the rules. Not us.


Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Hyenas Are No Laughing Matter

People who get their information about hyenas from children's stories and people who get information about creationists from atheists get the same result: fiction. In reality, hyenas are not cowardly scavengers, but relentless hunters with immense stamina and great speed. Strong, too. (Well, except for the one called the aardwolf, which is a kind of hyena but much smaller and eats creepy-crawly things.) And that noise some of these man-killers make that sounds like laughing? It isn't.

Pixabay / valerieBaron

The hyena is also an irritation to evolutionary classification. Where to put it on the failed tree of life? It has been considered in the dog family, the cat family and related to civets, having some characteristics of both cats and dogs. This creature is another testimony of the Creator — and neither the hyena nor its creator is to be trifled with.
Many people in the west are accustomed to thinking of the hyena only as a scavenger, as in The Lion King. Actually, three hyena species (the spotted, brown and striped hyenas) are both hunters and scavengers. The fourth species of hyena, the diminutive aardwolf, is insectivorous. As hyenas are primarily nocturnal animals (but may remain outside their lairs for a few hours after sunrise), most hunting or foraging for food occurs at night.

A spotted hyena gets most of its food by hunting, usually alone, and can bring down an adult wildebeest up to three times its bodyweight. But when hunting in packs of typically 10 to 25, they can kill prey as large as the giraffe and the African Cape buffalo! They do not use stealth. Hyenas are endurance hunters who doggedly chase the selected prey until a weaker member of the herd becomes winded and lags behind—then they close in for the kill. Their large hearts (10% of their bodyweight) provide them with the stamina to maintain a speed of 40–50 km/hr (25–30 mph) for over five kilometres (3 miles), and 60 km/hr (35 mph) for short distances. An adult hyena can eat 14 kg (30 lb) of meat in 10 minutes. A group of 23 hyenas has been observed to completely consume a full-grown wildebeest in just 13 minutes.
To read the rest of this surprising article, click on "The hyena—a creature we love to hate". 

Monday, July 14, 2014

Clover, Cyanide and Evolution

Evolutionary biologists try to observe, make sense of and explain evolution. Obviously. They want to see it, it's their job. Unfortunately, much of what is called evolution is nothing of the kind. This conflation is misleading, since it implies that the small changes that biologists find are support for molecules-to-man evolution.

Pixabay / JamesDeMers

For example, some forms of clover have a defense mechanism of releasing low-potency cyanide when being munched. Others are missing the gene for this. Not just a mutation, but completely missing. Therefore, evolution. Not hardly.
Clovers come in a wide variety of sizes, and some of them hold interesting surprises. Plant biologists have been studying one trait in particular, and it keeps showing up—or disappearing—in peculiar patterns. Do these patterns illustrate evolutionary changes or does something entirely different switch off this trait?

The trait under scrutiny involves clover-leaf tissue that releases cyanide when crushed. If an insect begins munching, it gets a mouthful of bad taste—not enough to kill, but enough to deter the eater from its clover feast.

The plants use an ingenious system to deploy this poison, only when needed, while protecting their own tissues. Under ordinary conditions, cyanide is safely bonded to sugar molecules that are sequestered in secure pockets inside each plant cell. The enzyme that separates the cyanide from its sugar lies outside that pocket. When an insect chews the clover leaves, the cyanide-sugars and enzymes mix—like bending and shaking a plastic glow stick—and this releases the poisonous cyanide concoction.
To finish reading, click on "Clever Clover: Evidence for Evolution?

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Are Scientists Objective and Honest?

It has been said here several times that scientists are people. They have biases, errors, carelessness, and are prone to avarice like other people. Perhaps more so, since they wish to promote their perceptions of truth from their worldview. Secular scientists have more pressures, because they are trying to get the "next big thing" to bolster evolutionism and get that funding money.

Pixabay / WikiImages
Many people have idealized and unfair concepts of scientists. They see them as working strictly from the facts and will "follow where the evidence leads. Sure, many try to be objective and seek scientific truth, but secularists start from fundamentally flawed presuppositions.

Not only incapable of logical thinking, but placing scientists on a ridiculous pedestal.
If people did their homework, they would learn that scientists have been reluctant to admit the truth, committed outright fraud, allowed false conclusions to run unchecked (then blame the science press), have falsehoods in textbooks, refuse to adjust their paradigms in the harsh light of reality, and more. This is one of the reasons biblical creationists emphasize that people should learn to think critically instead of taking the proclamations of scientists by faith.

Scientists who are Christians generally want to glorify God, and not just assert (as atheopaths falsely claim) "GodDidIt", they want to know how God did it, and do science stuff like other scientists.
In 2005, Dr Mary Schweitzer published in Science what could be described as the scientific discovery of the century. When interviewed by 60 Minutes she described her internal reaction to her amazing discovery, “I didn’t want to tell anyone.” The interviewer fed her a possible motivation for this unusual reaction, “… you would be ridiculed, right?” She responded, “Yes.”

A scientific breakthrough that one does not want to report … What is that all about?
To finish reading, click on "Science: The unreliable historian".

Friday, July 11, 2014

Grave News About Pterosaurs

A graveyard of pterosaur bones is expected to yield a great deal of information. However, secular paleontologists are insisting that they were not buried by a catastrophic Flood, despite what the evidence indicates.
Even when the evidence is against them, Darwin's Drones continue to preach their worldview. Nobody in evolution can explain the pterosaurs. They were reptiles capable of powered flight (as opposed to simply gliding), and some were enormous. Perhaps it is a good thing that they are mostly (if not completely) extinct today.

A large number of pterosaur bones were spread out in a massive burial area. This is exciting for paleontologists, who believe they can learn details about the creatures. However, they waved aside the possibility of a catastrophic burial, and said that they were buried individually. This is despite the obvious flood markings of the strata, and the fact that the pterosaurs were well-preserved.

No explanation is offered to how they evolved, even though a potential wealth of information is becoming available. The best thing to do is to drop the failed evolutionary paradigm and examine the biblical creationist Flood models, which give a far better explanation of what is observed.
Despite 200 years of study, evolutionists know almost nothing about how pterosaurs evolved. A fossil graveyard in China adds to the mystery.

Picture thousands of pterosaur bones mixed together in sandstone, mudstone and breccia. That’s what has been reported in Current Biology this month: disarticulated skeletons from individuals of all ages, and even pieces of eggs. While promising to shed new light on pterosaur ecology and life history, the fossil deposit is not helping explain where these advanced creatures capable of powered flight came from – a mystery since the first flying reptiles were discovered in 17xx.
To finish reading, click on "Everything You Wanted to Know About Pterosaurs, Except Their Evolution".