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

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

More Modern Evolutionary Racism

Although Darwinists try to distance themselves from the racism inherent in evolution, they still use racist and evolutionary assumptions in their research.

Darwinists try to distance themselves (or even deny) the racism in evolution, although that is well established. So what do evolutionary anthropologists do? Use more racism in their "research". The basic presuppositions are that evolution itself is a fact, and certain ethnic groups are less evolved than white people. In this case, the logic goes further downhill.
A case of scientific racism? An anthropologist studied living Kalahari Bushmen for clues to the evolution of cognition.

Human beings are long, long past any evolutionary stage anthropologists could claim they were going through 400,000 years ago when our ancestors allegedly learned to control fire. (Michael Balter in Nature asserts that date, even though evidence of cooking goes back millions of years in the evolutionary timeline; 6/17/09.) So what are anthropologists doing listening to the campfire stories of living tribesmen to draw inferences about our evolutionary past?
To read the rest of this article, click on "How the Scientist Got His Just-So Story". 


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

Monday, September 29, 2014

Of Mice, Men and Evolutionary Assumptions


The misnamed "language gene", FOXP2 (forkhead box protein P2), is essential to language development and is a factor in learning. (Since it is found in many creatures, I wonder why Basement Cat doesn't learn not to get under my wife's feet so she won't get stepped on.) Experiments with "humanized" FOXP2 in mice showed some improvement in some tests but not in others. The research helped advance scientific knowledge about how this protein (encoded by the FOXP2 gene) operates.

At this point, we move from observational science into evolutionary presuppositions. The main assumption is that evolution happened, then the assumption that humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor. The difference between humans and chips with this gene is two amino acids. (Interestingly, evolutionists only care about chimpanzees, and ignore the fact that gorillas have the same gene, but gorillas are not "closely related" to humans.) This gene is only three amino acids in difference between humans and mice. Yet somehow, evolutionary scientists are thinking that the gene mutated from the alleged divergence between humans and apes, and we are the fortunate ones. There is no evidence or models for such mutations. Such extrapolations are unjustified and ignore other possible explanations — such as how the Creator designed them that way.
We adults envy the ease with which children can learn new languages. How do they remember what all those words mean and even how to pronounce them? How babies learn to speak is equally amazing and is still not fully understood. Genetically engineered mice now offer a clue to these mysteries. Evolutionists also believe they may explain how humans evolved the gift of gab.

“The Language Gene”
The gene FOXP2 is so clearly related to speech and language that it has been dubbed “the language gene.” FOXP2 is a regulatory gene found in humans and many animals—including primates, mice, birds, and fish. About 700 amino acids long, the protein FOXP2 encodes in humans differs by only two amino acids from that of chimps and by only three from mice. Some animals with defective FOXP2 gene are rendered unable to vocalize properly.

Only humans, of course, have the ability to use language, and FOXP2 is necessary for normal human speech. FOXP2 regulates many other genes, so how do we know this? Several members of a Netherlands family with severe difficulty forming words properly as well as problems putting words together and understanding speech were found in 2001 to have a defective FOXP2 gene. Now mice with a humanized FOXP2 gene have revealed a likely role for FOXP2 in learning to produce and understand the spoken word.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Mouse Memory Enhanced By Humanized 'Language Gene'".


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

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Evolution and Dumbing Down

The feeling that everyone else on the road is not smart enough to drive is most likely a product of your imagination. And admit it, you've had times where you've done less than spectacular things when tired, distracted or whatever.


There are studies indicating that IQ is indeed dropping (as we've seen before). While taking care of ourselves physically and mentally can help us to some degree, there is no way of staving off the overall genetic decline. This is another indication of the truth of the Bible, that everything is going downhill.
Are we dumber than our grandparents?

Social psychologists are tracking IQ scores and noticed a decline in the last decade after a steady rise since the 1950s. Some wonder if the recent downturn reflects genes that have been eroding all along. Are we evolving stupidity?

The concept of eroding genes—steadily but slowly marred by new slightly harmful mutations that occur every generation—has its proponents and detractors. New Scientist consultant Bob Holmes wrote, “The most controversial explanation is that rising IQ scores have been hiding a decline in our genetic potential.”

Holmes reviewed IQ score trends from Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Denmark, the UK, and Sweden. They show similarly rapid rises in postwar test results that peaked in the 1990s, and have steady declined since then.
You're clever folks, so you know how to finish the article by clicking on "Are We Evolving Stupidity?
 

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

Friday, September 26, 2014

"Bad Design" Claim about the Vas Deferens Refuted

Some evolutionists claim that certain physical features are poorly designed. The vas deferens has had this accusation. Not only is it expertly designed for embryological development, but is efficient from biological, engineering and fluid mechanics viewpoints.

Some evolutionists like to justify their beliefs in evolution and natural selection by claiming that a feature (such as the human eye) is the product of "bad design", so EvolutionDidIt. The "carrying away vessel", the vas deferens, of many males is one such feature that people like Richard Dawkins will regard as poorly designed. He made mistakes that someone with his training should not have made, and also went beyond his expertise to say that he could have done better. (Unfortunately, his disciples accept his words and spread them around in their efforts to negate creation science and Intelligent Design.) Dawkins' alternative designs do not withstand examination.

Not only is the vas deferens expertly designed for embryological development, but is efficient from biological, engineering and fluid mechanics viewpoints.
The vas deferens is an important part of the male reproductive system. However, some anti-creationists have recently criticized its route for being too indirect, thus something which no engineer would design. However, anatomists have already given good reasons for this structure, including the increased flexibility of the testes to move toward and way from the body to regulate temperature. Critics have also overlooked engineering considerations, providing enough length to build up power and to mix the essential ingredients of semen, and to avoid ‘ovalling’ (kinking in a soft pipe when bending).
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Vas deferens — refuting ‘bad design’ arguments".
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Lithium and Other Problems Require Major Cosmology Reconstruction — Again


Secular cosmology keeps needing repairs. Once they think they have something figured out, actual scientific data ruins their ideas. Observations (such as lithium content) are interfering with the Big Bang again, so new stories will need to be made up. If they did not have faulty presuppositions in the beginning, they would not have so many problems, would they? After all, the logical conclusion is that the universe was designed, not a product of an inexplicable explosion. You can read more about some of the new problems by clicking on "Big Bang’s Lithium Problem Gets More Problematic". Also, you can read "Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test".
 

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

"Walking" Bichir and Evolutionary Fantasy


Once again, proponents of evolution are conflating "change" and "adaptation" with "evolution", and then extrapolating changes as evidence of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. Experiments done on bichirs, a fish that can move across land for short distances, produced modifications (you can have them in your aquarium, but watch out that they don't eat your other fish). Great, we have true experimental science in action. 

The assertions about evolution are entirely unwarranted, however. And no evidence of the multitude of changes that evolution would require. Backward assumptions are not evidence, they are fantasy. Unfortunately, proponents of evolution believe such unfounded conjectures to be the evidence that they desire. Another explanation that is conveniently omitted is that this is an example of the ability to adapt that was programmed into the bichir by the Creator.
Could a popular African air-breathing aquarium fish—the bichir—hold the key to mysteries underlying our presumably pre-terrestrial past? These fish aren’t lobe-finned like the ones evolutionists think evolved into terrestrial animals. Nevertheless, University of Ottawa evolutionary biomechanist Emily Standen and her McGill University colleague Hans Larsson decided to raise some bichirs out of water to see what would happen.

The bichir (or “dinosaur eel”) is a ray-finned fish that has both gills and lungs. Lungfish are lobe-finned fish with both gills and lungs. These fish pop their heads above the surface for air to supply or supplement their oxygen needs. Both gills and lungs appear very deep in the fossil record, so evolutionists debate which evolved first. This research focused on walking, however, not breathing.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Fish out of Water Said to Rise, Lift up Their Heads, and Walk".
 

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

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Why So Few Human Fossils?

The question arises, "Why do we see very few human fossils in the rock strata?" There are many reasons for this, and one key is what is fossilized. The overwhelming majority are marine organisms including an abundance of clams. Land-based creatures are far fewer, and there is an extreme scarcity of human fossils — most of which are very incomplete.


Oso, Washington after March 22, 2014 mudslide / US Navy photo
Despite uniformitarian assertions, fossils are the product of catastrophic processes and burial. The Great Biblical Flood of Noah's time was an extremely violent, global event. The tragedy in Oso, Washington helps illustrate why human fossils would be scarce.
The human population in Noah’s day was extensive, likely numbering in the multimillions. With the exception of the few people on the Ark, this entire population was annihilated by the Flood. Since the Flood also deposited nearly all of the sediment that later became Earth’s geologic strata in a single year, one would think that at least some of the bodies would have been buried and preserved as fossils.1 So, why don’t we find more human fossils in Flood strata?

Human remains are scarce in the fossil record, but so are all land-dwelling mammal, bird, and reptile fossils. The overwhelming majority of animal fossils are marine invertebrates. We find innumerable clam fossils but very few mammals. Why is that? Terrestrial vertebrate animals have a lower fossilization potential than marine organisms, which often have hard outer shells. When a mammal fossil is found, it usually consists of a piece of only one bone. Whole-body mammal fossils are extremely rare. The hydraulic forces that simultaneously deposited sediments and dead animals were typically strong enough to be highly destructive. Muddy sediments moving at great speeds generate powerful shear forces. Few animal bodies would have remained intact.
Some people may find the graphic descriptions to be unsettling. If you wish to continue, read the rest of this article by clicking on "Human Fossils: A Present-Day Flood Example".
 

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

Monday, September 22, 2014

Mormonism and Biblical Creation

Various religious groups that identify themselves as Christian do not have a high view of Scripture, reinterpret for their own purposes and even reject it altogether. Most cults reject biblical creation, and I had sounded an alarm that a Sacred Name cult on Facebook was hiding under the guise of a creationist Page! Indeed, theistic evolution requires disdain for the written Word of God, taking the Pelagian heresy beyond what Pelagius would have envisioned. Often, evolutionists act like cultists in their pursuit of eradicating God. Cults twist the Scriptures (if they give them credence at all), and "liberal Christianity" is heading down the same road as these cults. Some are ambiguous about their belief in evolution.


Pixabay / Mormon Temple / SteeveMeyner
Mormonism gives mixed signals that confuse adherents. Their entire philosophy is ultimately materialistic, and their concept of becoming gods themselves is a form of evolutionary thinking. On one hand, they are on record for opposing goop-to-gods evolution, but more recent writings and teachings are promoting it.
The knock at the door was followed by a familiar sight as two smiling, formally dressed young men with name badges said “Hello”. Their identification as Elder such-and-such confirmed my notion that they were Mormons.

Wanting to ‘cut to the chase’ as soon as possible, after a brief introduction I said (something similar to), “Gentlemen, you have come to my door to convince me of what you believe. I’ll just be honest. I am a born–again Christian and I am going to try and convince you of what I believe. Would you mind if I asked you some questions?” They indicated they were fine with questions.
You can read the rest by journeying over to "Mormonism … rooted in evolution? — How the Mormon belief system is ultimately materialistic".

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

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Vestigial Organs and Whale Sex


One of the tired canards of evolution is that the whale has vestigial hind legs and a pelvic girdle. This means they are leftovers from its alleged (and preposterous) evolutionary past where it something flopped from the sea onto land, evolved, then turned around and evolved further into a whale. Yeah, that's science. People believe this, and promote it as if it could kill off belief in the Creator:


Part of this guy's elephant hurling session. Click for larger.

So-called vestigial organs have been an embarrassment to evolutionists. They declared various organs and such to be useless leftovers from an evolutionary past, and then (like "junk" DNA) uses have been found. So some are actually redefining the word "vestigial" to sidestep the issue. As usual, evolutionary thinking has hindered actual science. Things were declared useless, they were not studied. Creationists have always maintained, in the correct scientific attitude, that things have a purpose, we just may not understand them yet. And proven right. In this case, the pelvic area of the whale is extremely functional.
The old Darwinian idea of “vestigial organs” has proven to be a hindrance to science once again: this time in the case of whale pelvic bones.

Are the shrunken pelvic bones in whales vestigial legs? That’s been common understanding for years. Scientists and students in Los Angeles decided to investigate, according to PhysOrg:
You can read the rest of the wild thing by clicking on "Whale Pelvis Is Not Vestigial". ODD ADDENDUM: Last Saturday's post was written about a week early and scheduled — just like this one. Ian Juby's "Genesis Week" had material dealing with that subject. It happened again this week!



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

Friday, September 19, 2014

Little Things Frustrating Evolution


The process should be simple: Do some gene sequence stuff on some "simple" organisms and plug them into the evolutionary tree. But yet again, organisms do not cooperate with evolutionary scientists. Not only are they more complicated than originally thought, they are recalcitrant as well. It makes much more sense to admit that there is a Creator than to force-fit something into an imagined evolutionary pigeonhole.
A newly discovered genome for the unicellular chromosome-morphing ciliate Stylonychia lemnae has been published, and it’s breaking all the evolutionary rules. It exhibits a repertoire of unbelievable complexity and gene sequences that we’ve never seen in the schema of life.

Protozoa are an elaborate group of unicellular organisms that have a nucleus and are mobile. However, the extreme diversity and complexity within this group of one-celled critters which has been divulged by modern ultrastructural, biochemical, and genetic techniques, makes them an unruly and uncooperative bunch to neatly place on the evolutionary tree of life. Hence, the common term “protozoa” is no longer being used in official taxonomy circles.
You can read the rest of the baffling situation by clicking on "Ciliate Genome Reveals Mind-Bending Complexity".

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

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Biblical Flood Best Explains Erosion

Gradual erosion over long periods of time, based on the consistency of current rates, do not give an adequate explanation of what has been measured. There are four reasonable methods for calculating continental erosion, and they indicate that a great deal has occurred. Extrapolating current rates backward and coming up with figures in the millions of years is unrealistic.

Standard uniformitarian geology does not adequately explain the huge volume of continental erosion. Using the Great Biblical Flood as a starting point gives far better explanations.
Devil's Tower from East Side, PD, 1890

When using the Noachian Flood as a starting point, things make much more sense. There are many factors that uniformitarianism fails to explain, and in fact, this methodology raises many questions. Biblical creationist Michael Oard explains.
Massive amounts of sediments, many kilometres thick, with buried plants and animals, were laid down early in the Great Biblical Flood (often called Noah’s Flood). These were cemented into sedimentary rock and the organisms were fossilized. Then the mountains and continents rose up and the valleys and ocean basins sank (Psalm 104:6–9). This caused the Flood water to rush off the continents, sometimes at high speed. This is called the Recessive Stage of the Flood, and probably started about Day 150, nearly midway into the Flood. It would have resulted in enormous erosion of vast areas of the continents. The results of this erosion are clearly visible in every landscape around the world..
To read the rest of the article, click on "Massive erosion of continents demonstrates Flood runoff".


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

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Creation Science and Impact Craters

Watch a video or glance through a picture book of the solar system, and you will see that many of the planets and moons show an abundance of impact craters. Secular cosmogonists have various hypotheses that fail to explain what is observed today, and creation scientists have their own hypotheses. Remember, scientists are not "neutral", they have their worldviews and presuppositions by which they operate.


Impact craters on surface of Saturn's moon Rhea, NASA / JPL
The article linked below has a creation scientist's perspective. He examined scientific papers regarding when the impacts occurred, probably during the fourth day of creation week. Creation scientists hold to their foundation in the Bible, but it is not just "GodDidIt" as many anti-creationists gleefully accuse. Rather, they want to know how God did it, and sometimes divine intervention is the best logical conclusion of the evidence ("We should hold to what Scripture reveals without compromise but yet not expect Scripture to explain all the details of how God created. This is why we can explore various possibilities logically and scientifically to see where they lead us). Like their secular counterparts, creationists will propose models and hypotheses, disagree, discuss and attempt to work things out. Wayne Spence, the author of this article, changed his own impact hypotheses after evaluating the work of other scientists. In addition, he contributes some questions and items for consideration. It is really quite interesting to see scientists work out theoretical science and theological stuff. Unlike the secularists, they are willing to be wrong and not as likely to simply assert poorly thought speculations as scientific conclusions.
The hypothesis that impact craters took place in the solar system on the fourth day of creation is evaluated. Both biblical and scientific aspects are considered. After seriously considering Faulkner’s proposal I am acknowledging the fourth day impacts hypothesis as a valid option for creationists. I am prepared to adjust my view of impact cratering to allow 1) for impacts before Noah’s Flood, 2) to allow for God protecting earth from impacts, and to allow 3) that God could have used impacts to form and shape solar system objects. Furthermore, this view has advantages over secular planetary science in explaining elemental abundances in the solar system.
To read the article, click on "Evaluating The Day Four Cratering Hypothesis". 
 

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

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

What Evolutionists Call Science

Creationists are doing it wrong. The big money is in making up wild stories about evolution, and not even having to give plausible models or explanations.

Creationists are in the wrong business. We want to promote critical thinking, show the folly of evolution, and promote the truth overall. Although the rewards are out of this world (literally), the big money is in evolution. Insist on your materialistic evolutionary prsuppositions, do some experiments, ignore obvious questions, feed the material to the gullible press, and you're doing well.

Experiments in how flight evolved, how patterns on creatures came to be, the symmetry of physical forms, figure out where butterflies belong on the evolutionary tree — great stuff, and you don't even need to give a plausible model or explanation for how the alleged evolution happened, let alone why. Take a look at "Darwinism is a Constant; Just-So Stories Are Variables".


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

Monday, September 15, 2014

Who am I Trying to Reach? Glancing at Stats

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is quite a bit happening in the realm of creation science (I have posts scheduled for over a week ahead right now!), but once in a while, people like some personal glimpses and behind the scenes information, so here you go.

The other day, the pastor and I were discussing my online creation science ministry. He asked, "Who is your audience?", and, "Who are you trying to reach?" The easy answer would be, "Anyone who wants to read it", but that is rather simplistic. I pondered these questions and realized that there are several answers.

Some people use the Web as an occasional information and communications tool. They send out e-mail, newsletters, Weblogs, and they look up information when they need it. Then there are those of us who spend a great deal of time online, trying to make information available in our areas of specialty to the first group, and to people who "live" online. (There are also blogs where people write about whatever they feel like for friend, family and followers, such as my first blog.)  The social media aspect of the Internet has people with different priorities.




Who is my audience? That is actually difficult to say, since people can pretend to be someone else, being bold and beautiful behind a keyboard. Statistic recorders for sites are famous for being inaccurate and incomplete; some "hits" on the site are simply not recorded. (I have had friends write to me to discuss specific things I wrote, but their visits did not show up on the stats report.) These counters cannot be entirely accurate for various reasons including changes in software, browsers and so on. Another reason my stats are incomplete is because I make this blog available through RSS feeds so people can subscribe and read it without actually visiting the site. (Some sites will use RSS more like an announcement service, only give you a sentence and a link because they need people to come to their sites for revenue and other purposes. Since the only revenue here is mine going out, I am more interested in getting the information out there than in getting site hits.) Site stats cannot give much information about people, but I can keep track of stalkers and other regular visitors, and have fun seeing where all people come from. Perhaps the major online ministries can obtain better user data, but I am just a guy running an online ministry out of his apartment using an unregistered assault keyboard.

Facebook is a bit different. Page owners are furnished with "Insights" that break down the audience into groups. I have no idea if they are accurate or not, and have not spent time learning the intricacies. It is my understanding that a Page can have thousands of "Likes", but few of them regularly visit the Page. For The Question Evolution Project, there are over 3,200 Likes right now. The potential audience is large, but the Insights for last week said that it had 2,600 in the "Post Reach". There were only 461 "People Engaged" (yet that same column said 1,400 "Post Clicks", which seems to contradict the engagement part). By the way, the Likes rise and fall. In fact, I'd rather that people who click "Like" for the Page and then realize that it is not for them after all would be honest with themselves and un-Like it.


I have numbers. Big deal. Those statistics that may or may not be accurate. What about people? It gets more interesting here (but Facebook's numbers are subjected to what people furnish about themselves; that 22-year-old college girl from Kalamazoo, Michigan could actually be a 34-year-old truck driver in Austin, Texas). What I see on the report supports what I've heard about trends in general, that young males are more interested in origins material than females. 32 percent of my audience appears to be males between the ages of 18-34, with only 11 percent of females in that age range. Still, 43 percent from 18-34 covers quite a few people. Add in the men and women in the 35-44 age range, and it goes up to 66 percent.

The overwhelming majority of Page readers are from English-speaking countries, and most of those are from the United States. But I have readers from countries where English is not the official language, but they speak it quite well (as can be evidenced in their comments).

But this does not really tell me that much about people, it tells me about groups. Such material may be useful for retail marketing purposes, but those of us in creation ministries (hopefully most of us) have higher goals. Am I communicating? I am uncertain. As I said before, people will Like a Page and then forget it for the most part (some people will Like literally hundreds of Pages). Ever heard of "Lurkers"? They were given that name in the early days of the Internet, reading bulletin boards, Usenet and such but seldom being active. Lurkers exist today, reading various things but seldom speaking out.There are lurkers in social media (or is that anti-social media in their case?), and this applies to Christian and creationist groups as well. I know that there are regular readers and supporters who have seldom or never contacted me, but I have seen their electronic footprints — thanks for the support!

Many people are motivated to only speak out to be negative. When I asked to speak to a store manager a while ago, the manager had a tense look when I said, "I'd like to mention the cashier on lane six." "Oh?", she said tensely. "Yes, she was very skilled and personable, and she saw a problem with something we were buying and had someone bring us another one". "Oh, thanks!" Similarly, I started to talk to the apartment complex manager about the head of maintenance. The same look of dread that the store manager had, then the relief when I said that the maintenance man really knows his stuff. No, I'm not special, but this illustrates the fact that people are mostly motivated to speak out in the negative.

When I mentioned that people get bold behind keyboards, this is especially true of anti-theists and anti-creationists. People will say things online that no rational person would dare say to someone's face. Many do not know what creationists and Christians actually believe and teach (and many anti-creationists do not understand evolution very well), but they "know" that we are wrong, and must tell us so.

By the way, I do have a Twitter account, but have no idea how many people read it.

Who is my audience? Because of the psychology of people on the Internet for giving feedback and writing letters, it is difficult to tell. While I've had some enthusiastic support, I've had to deal with theistic evolutionists badgering me to compromise on the written Word of God, militant atheists going on barrages of ridicule, Christians who do not know the importance of our foundations in Genesis, cultists, Moslems, Hindus, creationists who think this is a competition — quite a variety. My readers are all sorts of people, but I can only guess as to who comprises the majority.

The other part is something that I have refined since this Weblog began: Who am I trying to reach?

As I said another time, I began this venture by believing that if I simply present links to creation science articles, people would see that creationists do have something to say after all. But this is not about intellect, it is a spiritual battle. If it was simply about intellectually examining the evidence, evolution would have been abandoned long ago and everyone would be biblical creationists. I keep saying that for every evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device (excuse to deny). The hard truth is that people want to believe in evolution. Not only is Genesis the foundation for all major Christian doctrines, the main principle is there: God is the Creator, he makes the rules and we have to find out what he has said in his written Word.

There are several kinds of people that I want to reach.

First, I want to help equip and educate Christians so they can understand that evolution is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and that science is on our side despite the protestations of Darwinists. Christians need to rely on the authority of Scripture, and see the foundations of our faith that go back to Genesis. These in turn can learn more about what and why they believe the Bible, and teach others the truth for the glory of God.

Second, I am hoping this site will be a resource for homeschoolers. There is a tab at the top of the site with links to creation science and Intelligent Design materials (though I tend to disagree theologically with ID proponents, who generally do not go back to the Bible).

Third, I am trying to plant seeds in the minds of unbelievers. Sure, they rail against creationists and many even resort to outright libel, but they cannot honestly deny that creationists do use science and have support for our position. Perhaps one day they will begin to question evolution and seriously examine what has been presented as "science" and "truth", realizing that evolution is seriously lacking.


People who are curious, bored or whatever can feel free to read along (heh, as if I could stop anyone if I wanted to). Perhaps they will learn be educated about biblical creation as well.


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

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Dinosaurs Keep Getting Bigger

Creation, Creation Ministries International, Creation Science, Dinosaurs, Evolution, Flood, Ian Juby, Institute for Creation Research, Paleontology,

Remember when the Brontosaurus was considered an actual dinosaur and not an amazingly bad mistake by paleontologists? Too bad it never existed, the name meant "thunder lizard". Imagine, he would not be sneaking up on anybody. "Oh, here comes Bronto, pretend to be startled when he says, 'Boo'!" The more digging they do, the more they dig up larger dinosaurs.

Excavation took four field seasons from 2004-2009, and is the latest contender for the world's largest dinosaur — and may be a juvenile. Surprisingly complete for something that size, but it also gives some testimony to rapid burial (such as in the Great Biblical Flood). It also has no signs of being a transitional form, where it is evolving into something else. But that is not a surprise for creationists. 
Scientists described a new and remarkable fossil skeleton of a giant titanosaur, a group that includes the largest creatures ever to have lived on land. Dinosaur enthusiasts of all backgrounds want to know how big it was and what it may have looked like. Because this specimen is nearly 45 percent complete, it gives more details than any other fossil of its kind, as well as some details that confirm the biblical creation model.

This specimen was so large that probably nothing could stand in its way or even threaten it. For this reason, the researchers publishing in the journal Scientific Reports named it Dreadnoughtus schrani, after the Old English word "dreadnaught" which means "fear nothing."
To read the rest, click on "New Giant Dinosaur from Argentina". ADDENDUMS: Then, if you want more, you can read "Dreadnaughtus!" at CMI. Ian Juby also has a segment on the big critter on "Genesis Week".



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

Friday, September 12, 2014

Origins and Forensic Sciences

Origins science is essentially a forensics science. Scientists use evidence that is available in the present, apply scientific methods, use modern equipment and so on in order to reconstruct what happened in the past. Indeed, advances in these areas, especially DNA, have helped police solve cold cases (or "historical cases") that had been mostly forgotten for many years.



Operational science deals with things that are repeatable, testable and observable. (Anti-creationists will often blur the distinction and equivocate "evolution" with "science", but that is misleading and dishonest.) Proponents of both evolutionism and creationism will use forensic methods in their attempts to explain what went on in the past. There are some key differences between the origins sciences of creationists and evolutionists.



Scientists have their presuppositions based on their worldviews, but evolutionists have many unfounded (and even discredited) assumptions that they employ. The origin of the universe and of life itself only happened once, so they obviously cannot be repeated and observed, and there is no control group for comparison. Police forensics have past and present results, methods and so forth by which they can make comparisons, and they also rely on the testimony of witnesses (which are often conflicting). Evolutionary origins scientists have no witnesses to things that happened in the allegedly distant past. Creation scientists have the reliable testimony of the Creator in addition to scientific methods and logic.
The trial of South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pretorius, charged with the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, has received a great deal of international media coverage recently. The judge1 in the case allowed the proceedings to be open to live television coverage, unusual for the South African criminal court system. This provided an insight into the nature of forensic interpretation which is also of relevance to the origins debate.

Both the prosecution and defence called expert witnesses to offer testimony on their behalf. Various forensic experts presented evidence on the trajectory of the bullets and the order in which they struck the victim, the source of screams heard on the night of her death, whether loud noises heard by neighbours were from gunshots or a cricket bat striking the bathroom door behind which the victim was cowering, the period before death she had last eaten based on her stomach content, and various other items of evidence relevant to the criminal investigation.
To learn more, read the rest of the article by clicking on "The Oscar Pistorius trial and the role of forensic bias: Conflicting interpretations of forensic evidence". 


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

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Finally Found a Home in the Failed Evolutionary Tree of Life for a Cambrian Worm?


Paleontologists have been baffled for many years by a fossil. It looks like something that someone may imagine in a drug-induced state, but it is real. How to classify it has been a problem, but a new fossil discovery that is more complete gave evolutionists hope that they know where to put it in the "Tree of Life". But are they doing anything more than guessing and putting it where they want it to be? Linking it to modern creatures because of similar features is not a guarantee of an evolutionary relationship.
Hallucigenia sparsa may look like a sci-fi alien but it is very much a resident of earth—the earth of the past, that is. This tiny fossil has been a real paleontology puzzle.

While the best-preserved fossils now show this little animal had seven or eight pairs of claw-tipped legs matching two rows of conical spikes on its back, the original fossils only showed one row of legs, and confusion has long clouded attempts to reconstruct, much less classify, this animal. Evolutionary researchers from the University of Cambridge now believe they have definitive proof of not only what this animal was but also what it evolved into and consequently where it fits on the evolutionary tree of life.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Wormlike Evolutionary Misfit from the Burgess Shale Finds a Home".


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

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Lots of Bangs, No Order


Secular astronomers, cosmologists and cosmologists have a fondness for collisions, explosions and so forth. The Big Bang, the alleged ultimate explosion, supposedly gave rise to the incredible complexity in the solar system all the way down to the tiniest parts of cells.
 
Has anyone ever seen order come from an explosion? These scientists are speculating that impacts on primordial Earth and things that go bump in space made other things happen. (Since they like things that go boom so much, perhaps they would be useful in designing video games.) Creationists do not need to resort to such flights of fancy. For a glimpse of some of their guesswork passing as "science", click on "Impacts: Creators or Destroyers?"  

Edit 9-18-2014: Some people are complaining that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was a very rapid expansion of space-time, which continues today — but not all science departments are in agreement on that faith-based assertion. Okay, let's rewrite that "meme": Do I want someone working on my car that believes that the ultimate source of the universe is something that people made up, then kept tweaking and redefining over about fifty years, which has no evidential support, and has scientific evidence refuting it? That's the Big Bang.



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

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Big Bang Blahs

Evolutionary science (whether cosmic, biological or something else) has its share of attention seekers. But then, that's where the grant money lies — if you come up with the Next Big Thing and help convince people that evolution is true. So often, some sensational announcement is made in scientific fields (frequently distorted and exaggerated by the science press, of course) and people get all excited. Some Christians who base their faith on "science" and evidence are shaking in their boots as if some announcement will prove evolution, disprove the Bible or negate God's existence. When they send me inquiries, I remind them that our faith is based on the written Word of God, not the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, and to just wait a while. As expected, the excitement fades and embarrassment for science sets in after further investigation. There is nothing in true science that is a threat to creation science or anything Christian.


PD, modified from an image from NASA / WMAP Science Team
Take the Big Bang. Please. It is a Frankenstein's monster, with parts tacked on over the years because it is unscientific; this is not your grandfather's Big Bang. Inflation theory? Bubble universes? Proof announced before the evidence is analyzed? Oh, boy. To see what I'm going on about, I suggest that you click on and read "Another Big Bang Blunder".




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

Monday, September 8, 2014

Does Egyptian History Discredit Biblical History?

Although the Bible has a proven track record of historical accuracy, there is a growing effort by anti-theist revisionists to make it appear wrong. Much of this is based on the argument from silence fallacy, such as, "There is no historical evidence of the ancient Hittites, so the Bible authors made them up!", but the biblical record has been vindicated time and again. Their presuppositions against the Bible are showing.


Pixabay / Paukner
Egyptian history is treated in much the same way. Despite the accuracy of the Bible as history, some presume that it is incorrect regarding ancient Egypt. One claim is that Egyptian history goes back further than the biblical timeline of Creation, therefore, the Egyptian records are correct and the Bible is wrong. This myopic view has many serious problems, including ignorance of Egyptian culture, religion, record-keeping methods and more. Another assumption is based on evolutionary thinking, that ancient humans were stupid, evolving brutes (they needed help from space aliens to build the pyramids, for example), yet Egyptologists keep finding examples of intelligence; the hieroglyphics were specialized, and not for the common language. Many assumptions are made that are discredited with further examination.
Egyptian chronology can be a challenging subject for biblical creationists. That’s because the secular, majority view about these chronologies extends further back than an objective reading of the biblical chronogenealogies allows for creation: a little over 6,000 years ago. These chronologies are hotly debated among Christians and secularists alike, with the consensus being increasingly challenged. Moreover, some of the incredible Egyptian monuments like the great pyramids on the Giza Plateau have dates ascribed to them that would have them being built before the earth-reshaping Flood of Noah’s time around 4,500 years ago. Following a strict biblical chronology, Egyptian civilization cannot predate creation, nor can the pyramids be pre-Flood constructions.

This article (although lengthy) does not attempt to solve any of the seeming problems in aligning Egyptian chronologies with the biblical text with any great detail. But for the average layperson trying to understand Egyptian history, it is often a case of ‘Where do I start?’ ‘How do we align such things?’ There are so many names, dynasties and dates bandied around with seeming authority that it is a confusing topic to investigate. Also, without some background or a framework to help the Christian gain some perspective on the issues, it is difficult to be discerning about any information that claims to solve the many mysteries that Egypt presents—and there are dozens of those from Christian researchers alone! Hopefully this article will help us realize that the issue is not as cut and dried as the secular community sometimes presents it. Nor does Egyptian civilization falsify biblical history as the skeptics would like us to think.
You can read the rest of this very interesting (but long, so get comfortable) article by clicking on "Egyptian chronology and the Bible — framing the issues: Do the dates ascribed to the Egyptian dynasties falsify the date of biblical creation?"


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

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Is Orbital Tuning Useful for Calibrating Ice Core and Deep Sea Sediment Dating Methods?

One method to check on age of the earth results in ice cores and deep sea sediments is "orbital tuning". This is based on huge numbers of assumptions and circular reasoning.

Scientists generally want accurate results. Unfortunately, secular scientists are using fundamentally flawed presuppositions as their starting points. These include an ancient earth, evolution, uniformitarianism and so on. Ice cores and sediments in deep seafloors are touted as excellent examples for an old earth, but these calibrations are loaded with assumptions, and cross-referenced with other assumption-laden methods. One of the most amazing examples of bad reasoning is the use of "orbital tuning" to support the other methods. Creation science Noachian Flood models explain observed data far better than relying on secularist fudge factors.
An apparently strong argument for an old earth is the seeming agreement between multiple (and supposedly independent) dating methods which yield “millions of years.” Uniformitarian scientists claim that chemical clues within the seafloor sediments tell a “story” of climate change over millions of years and that this “story” agrees well with expectations of the astronomical (or Milankovitch) theory of Pleistocene ice ages. Yet secular scientists routinely use the astronomical theory to date the seafloor sediments in a technique called “orbital tuning.” Of course, this argument is circular, since the astronomical theory of ice ages is simply assumed to be correct and is used as a framework for interpreting chemical clues within the seafloor sediments. Secular scientists have recognized the circularity in this argument and have attempted to guard against it by using “independent” checks on the orbital tuning method. However, these checks are not truly independent, as they all assume the old-earth, evolutionary paradigm. Moreover, the different dating systems are calibrated to one another: dates assigned to the seafloor sediments are used to date the ice cores, and vice versa. In fact, the dating of the ice and seafloor sediment cores is a gigantic exercise in circular reasoning.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Circular Reasoning in the Dating of Deep Seafloor Sediments and Ice Cores: The Orbital Tuning Method". There is also a caution for creationist researcher.


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

Friday, September 5, 2014

Creationist Researchers Shows Human-Chimp DNA Similarity Much Smaller Than Believed

Evolutionary scientists used their presuppositions, studied some DNA, ignored the rest, and then said that the parts they did not understand were arrogantly declared "junk" left over from our alleged evolutionary past. Things became interesting when DNA was properly studied, and the "junk" DNA turned out to have vital functions.


Further research into "junk" DNA and human-chimp genome similarities show that the similarities are actually much smaller than we were told.

With sloppy science, preconceptions and so forth, evolutionists declared that the human genome was 98% similar to the chimp genome. Creationist researcher Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has delved more deeply into the human-chimp genetics argument and found that the former "junk" gives further evidence against our alleged relationship to chimpanzees.
It was once thought that the areas between protein-coding genes located around the genome were vast purposeless wastelands of alleged “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are literally teeming with functional activity that is key to life. Not only are these areas functional, but they are also proving to be more organism-specific than other types of DNA and thus provide an important clue in understanding what makes the human DNA blueprint distinct from that of other creatures. I just published a new comprehensive study showing that these areas of the human genome are vastly different compared to the chimpanzee genome, further confounding the tired evolutionary dogma that we evolved from a chimp-like ancestor.
Don't monkey around. To finish reading, click on "Human lincRNA Regions Vastly Different from Chimpanzee".


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

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Having a Blast With the Cambrian Explosion

The "Cambrian Explosion" has always been a problem for evolutionists and a pleasure for biblical creationists. Now the problem has become worse for secularists.

According to evolutionary paleontologists, the "Cambrian Explosion" is the sudden appearance of most major phyla in Cambrian layers with no transitional forms. This has been a very serious problem ever since Darwin's time, since it falsifies evolution. The Evo Sith have attempted to make excuses, but they are weak and contrived. Further evidence from their own sources has only made the Cambrian Explosion even larger. To add to their consternation, the discovery actually supports the Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists.
At the first appearance of complex animals, vertebrate fish were already there, a new analysis confirms. 
Simon Conway Morris, an evolutionist and world authority on Cambrian animals, appeared in the beginning of Illustra’s film Darwin’s Dilemma to confirm the suddenness of the “Cambrian Explosion.” In that short period (about 5–10 million years in the evolutionary time scheme), some 20 new and diverse body plans (phyla) appeared fully formed in the earliest strata bearing complex animal fossils: worms, sponges, arthropods, crustaceans, comb jellies and more. Now, he and a co-author have published an astonishing new find from the recently-announced fossil treasure trove in Canada near the famous Burgess Shale, Marble Canyon: 100 specimens of a vertebrate fish named Metaspriggina.
You'll get a bang out of reading the rest of "Cambrian Explosion Included Vertebrate Fish".


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

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Rapid Burial of Molting Arthropod

For many years, uniformitarian geologists maintained that fossilization occurred very slowly. Students learned that a creature died, sank in water, was gradually buried and then was fossilized over millions of years. Evidence accrued that this is not the case (including common sense, since scavengers, bacteriological action and other factors would make burial unlikely). People are learning that rapid burial and proper conditions, not time, are the keys to fossilization.


An extremely rare fossil of an arthropod while molting gives further evidence that it is conditions, not time, that make fossils. It also adds support for the creation science Noah's Flood models.
Wikimedia Commons, Marrella splendens, Burgess Shale, British Columbia, Canada; Middle Cambrian / Wilson44691
When an arthropod molts, it is not exactly a slow event. Finding molted skins in the fossil record is not much of a surprise, but to find a fossil of a  Marrella splendens in the act itself is amazing, and a testimony of rapid burial. Creationist geologists maintain that the overwhelming majority of fossils are due to catastrophic processes, such as Noah's Flood. This find supports creationist Flood models.
Have you ever seen an arthropod (e.g. lobster, scorpion, cockroach) shedding its ‘skin’? You’ve got to be in the right place at exactly the right time—it’s all over in minutes. (When an arthropod grows, its exoskeleton coat does not, so the animal has to shed it while making a bigger one.)

So you can imagine paleontologists’ excitement on finding a fossil of the arthropod Marrella splendens, fossilized at the exact moment of moulting!

‘It’s basically an astounding specimen’, said paleontologist Derek Briggs of Yale University.
To finish reading, click on "Moulting arthropod fossilized in a flash!"


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

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Tyson Baffled at "Cosmos" Scrutiny


Neil DeGrasse Tyson is expressing surprise that the Cosmos series has been examined by Answers In Genesis (among others; Creation Ministries International reviewed a couple of episodes). AiG put a considerable amount of work in showing how he expressed his opinions as facts, gave incomplete information and did quite a bit of misrepresentation of Christian material. In fact, AiG wants people to watch the episodes, then use their material to learn the truth.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of TV’s Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, says he wonders why anyone pays attention to what Ken Ham says about science or about his 13-part Cosmos series. Tyson, in an interview with Alternet, suggests biblical creationists like Ken Ham and the scientists at Answers in Genesis are a small and insignificant Christian fringe group that only bothered writing weekly critiques of the Cosmos series to take advantage of media attention garnered through the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate in February:
You have to ask yourself, what are the numbers behind the people making these claims? Someone like Ken Ham has beliefs that are even crazy to many Christians.

Everyone knew Bill Nye, but almost no one had heard of Ken Ham. But after the debate [Ham] realized he had some media attention. You have to wonder—if that debate never happened if he would have even bothered covering the show at all?
Cosmos executive producer Seth MacFarlane said his new series would combat the “resurgence of creationism” attributable to “scientific illiteracy.” Recognizing this reboot of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos of the 1980s would be viewed by many and used in schools, Answers in Genesis committed to provide a timely analysis critiquing each episode. An important aim of these articles and accompanying discussion guides has been to reinforce the observational science taught in the episodes while contrasting it with the plethora of unverifiable evolutionary speculation presented as fact.
You can enrage Tyson's fanbois by reading the rest of the article. Click on "Cosmos’ Tyson Says Creationists’ Beliefs Are Crazy".


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

Monday, September 1, 2014

Evolutionists, DNA is NOT Your Friend!

Uncle Pilty wants me to remind you that we use unregistered assault keyboards in the creation resistance army against the establishment of evolutionary dogma. Let's go...

Evolution is called a theory (and many of its adherents refer to it as an incontrovertible fact), but it has very little resemblance to what Darwin popularized long ago. Today's Darwinism relies to a great extent on DNA and the amazing idea that we can have genetic mistakes causing us to evolve upward. Evolutionists will say that DNA is proof of evolution, and that they have made accurate predictions. Oh, really?


Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
Darwinists will claim that there are predictions based on DNA that are fulfilled in evolutionary theory. That is not quite right. They use logical fallacies like circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, insufficient evidence (including ignoring other possible explanations for what has been observed), and so on. The truth of the matter is, DNA is a friend of creation science!
For over 150 years, Darwin’s hypothesis that all species share a common ancestor has dominated the creation-evolution debate. Surprisingly, when Darwin wrote his seminal work, he had no direct evidence for these genealogical relationships—he knew nothing about DNA sequences. In fact, before the discovery of the structure and function of DNA, obtaining direct scientific evidence for common ancestry was impossible. Now, with online databases full of DNA-sequence information from thousands of species, the direct testing of Darwin’s hypothesis has finally commenced. What follows is a critical reevaluation of the four major lines of genetic evidence that secular scientists use to support evolutionary common ancestry.
To about four strong evidences for evolution from DNA and how they fail, click on "Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry".



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

Labels