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

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 3

As you can see, this is the third installment in a series on radiometric dating. (Part 1, on the most common forms of radiometric dating methods, is here. Part 2, on the isochron method, is here.) Uniformitarian geologists rely on a number of assumptions to make their dating methods work. Unfortunately, the assumptions are unrealistic.

On a side note, did you know that there is a huge assumption made about the age of the earth? It is not determined from terrestrial rocks, but from meteorites! The assumption is that everything formed at the same time, and meteorites are purer than the rocks on our own world. Old son, that's circular reasoning.

Back to the main topic now. In Part 3, the Potassium-Argon dating method is examined. Although considered to be the most reliable, this method is so loaded with assumptions, it is actually unreliable and unscientific. Once again, a proper interpretation of the evidence points to a young planet.
Radioactive dating methods—many of which are quite elaborate—have numerous physical condition requirements that cannot realistically remain unaffected over millions and perhaps billions of years. Since the potassium-argon dating methods clearly appear to be unreliable, why should any rational person trust them to provide accurate dates for rocks?

In the early 1950s, scientists established theories for using the decay of radioactive potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar) as a clock for dating certain types of rocks. Called “noble” because it rarely bonds with other elements, argon (Ar) is one of the six noble gases. The others include helium (He), neon (Ne), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and radon (Rn).
To finish reading, click on "The Noble Clock: Radioactive Dating, Part 3
 

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

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Putting a Lie About Living Fossils to Rest

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while when creationists use the term "living fossils" to show flaws in evolutionary ideas, someone comes along with a comment like, "That's a term made up by YECs to attack evolution!" That's the opposite of the truth. But what if Young Earth Creationists did make up that term? Words and phrases are made up all the time. So if we did make it up, somehow it wouldn't be legitimate — but it's all right for atheist evolutionists like Clinton R. Dawkins to make up the word "meme"? Double standards, you can but we can't.

But we didn't.

The first known use of the term "living fossil" seems to have been with Papa Darwin himself. Like his successors, he used an observation and then guessed about an explanation. When people do it today, it's called "science".


PiltdownSuperman.com, The Question Evolution Project, BCSE, Charles Darwin, Living Fossils, Evolution, Creation, Creation Science

Since some people want to cling to their beliefs despite the evidence, I'm going to show you that the term "living fossil" is not just something creationists lassoed for our own use. The following sources are not creation-friendly:
In addition to the source from Darwin, you can clearly see over a dozen links to evolutionary sites that use the term "living fossils". It's not a creationist term, despite what Darwin's Stormtroopers pa-TROLL-ing the Web may try to tell you. This is a fallacy called "prejudicial conjecture"; someone heard someone else say that it's a creationist term and then s/he passed that lie around as well. It could easily have been avoided by doing a few minutes of online research.

But wait! You may very well be studying on this and wondering, "Hey, Cowboy Bob, what do creationists think about living fossils, and why does it matter to them?

I'm glad you asked. Here are some links on the matter:

So, the next time someone tells you that YECs made up the expression, or that evolutionists don't use it, you can say, "Not hardly!", and show them this link. I did the research for your convenience, and also because some anti-creationists can't be bothered to do it.


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

Evolutionary Assumptions Hinder Dolphin Electroreception Studies

Evolutionists have a fundamentally flawed worldview, and it frequently hinders real science. Like so-called "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA", if something is not understood, it is assumed to be a leftover from distant evolutionary past. Dolphins have been studied for many years, and their ability to use sonar has been known.


So, what about electroreception? Like some other animals, the Guiana dolphin can detect electrical impulses. It's those pits on the beaks that make it happen. Evolutionary scientists did not bother to research this area because of their assumptions; if they had assumed it had been created for a purpose, hey let's find out what it is, this interesting discovery may have been reached long ago.

Of course, since the discovery has been made, they use the nonsensical circular reasoning of "convergent evolution". That is, they "know" that evolution is true, but have no means of showing how dolphins evolved this ability, how other creatures evolved the same ability, but they both evolved them independently. Sure, Skippy.
Scientists have known for a while that dolphins use vision and sonar to find food and identify objects. But researchers recently discovered that dolphins also have electric sensory perception. After decades of dolphin studies, why had this incredible feature not already been discovered?

Dolphins can't always rely on their eyesight, especially when working in murky water, so they have been equipped with sonar systems that are tuned to expertly and accurately interpret whether signals represent food, friend, or foe. But sonar signals are not very effective at close range, and researchers have established that at least one species of dolphin can sense electric fields using a technique called electroreception. Animals generate weak electric fields when they use their muscles, and these dolphins can sense those weak signals in close quarters with special pits on their beaks.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Evolution Delays Discovery of Dolphin Sensory Ability".
 

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

Friday, November 28, 2014

Scientism and Blind Acceptance

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"Science" is treated by many people like a kind of pantheistic force, or even a deity. It is personified, and phrases like, "Someday, science will find a cure/pill/answer". (No, science will do no such thing. Scientists, the people who use the philosophy and methods of science, try to do that.) Likewise, scientists have a position of adoration, especially in Western cultures. This reverence for science and scientists contributes to the fallacious philosophy of Scientism, where all that matters can be reduced to, and explained by, scientific means. Indeed, attitudes of Scientism are going beyond the bounds of science.

There's a joke floating around that goes something like this: "Scientists say that most people will believe something if you begin a statement with, 'Scientists say'". There's often truth in humor, and I think many people see the truth in this one. Sure, scientists do quite a bit of good. But they are not infallible. And some do not get a voice when they disagree with the consensus.



Darwin's Cheerleaders are milking that attitude of worship, and they are playing a devious bait 'n' switch with the word "science". They confuse people between practical (observational) science and historical science, which is the fallacy of equivocation. This is frequently invoked in microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. "Evolution is science", some say. No, evolution (as well as creation science) is a belief system about the past that attempts to use scientific methods to explain what is observed. Evolution is not repeatable, testable, observable or falsifiable, like practical science.

Most atheists and evolutionists are materialists, and bring their presuppositions to the table. It goes something like, "We all know that since we're in an enlightened scientific age that there are no miracles, and belief in God is silly". They have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and have ruled out the Creator (2 Peter 3:3-7, Romans 1.20-22), even though his action is the logical conclusion drawn from the evidence. Ironically, if atheism and evolution were true, science would not even be possible.

Many people do not understand these things. I'm suspicioning that the main problem is that they are not taught to think critically by asking questions and to reason through the evidence. Things that are not conclusive, or are just speculations, are often put forward as great scientific discoveries (as we've seen here many times).

Now, the problem is amplified because sometimes scientists are the victims of their own press. A sensational story sells newspapers and magazines. Some people find it exciting to read about the "missing link" to our so-called evolutionary past. (It's interesting how many fakes, frauds, outdated items and more remain in textbooks for years after they've been disproved or rejected.) Unfortunately, too many announcements are accepted without question. Worse, bad science is spread around by Darwinoids who wish to discredit creationists — who often know more about the science than the evolutionists.


Gift idea. Click here for ordering information.

In the image at the top, two items were used in the greatly-misrepresented and badly-conducted Scopes trial: Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man (although, apparently, not as "star witnesses"). First, Nebraska Man. An entire mural was made up of Nebraska "Cornhusker" Man, Mrs. Nebraska Man, critters they lived with, the landscape they lived in, and more. The whole thing was constructed from a single tooth. Were people that gullible, and interested in what "scientists say", that they wouldn't ask for more evidence? (Some scientists did reject it, to their credit.) Later, the tooth turned out to be that of an extinct pig!

The second item in that image was Piltdown Man. This was a fake, plain and simple, that fooled evolutionary scientists for over forty years. (I disremember where, and I can't find something other than hearsay-style remarks, but I read that some scientists never placed their bets on Piltdown Man's authenticity.) In both cases, evolutionists saw what they wanted to see. The press made matters worse by going wild with the stories. People accepted what "scientists say" then, as they do now. A great deal of critical thinking is in order, not only with the fake "missing links" (of which there are many), but thinking should be done on a regular basis.

Biblical creationists have a different starting point than naturalistic evolutionists. There is abundant evidence for our position, but creationist scientists begin with the written Word of God, not the opinions of those who reject God (Prov. 1:8, Psalm 53:1). They have to modify their models just like their secular counterparts because models and evidence can change, but not the ultimate truth (Isaiah 40:8). Nor do creationists need to resort to half-hearted science or fraud to convince people of their viewpoints.




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

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Chilling Effects of Changing Mammoth Adaptation Theories

Some of us are regretting living in a cold, snowy climate for all or part of the year. A bit of contrast helps the perspective, old son. The wooly mammoth lived in the cold. While it didn't have to worry about cleaning off its vehicle and braving the roads to go to work, it's also extinct. You're not. Be thankful. Stay safe, especially if you're not ready for that face-to-face discussion with your Creator yet.



Anyway, new research has changed some theories of both creation and secular scientists. It was previously thought that the mammoths were not properly suited to cold climates. One reason for this was that because there were some actual carcasses found, skin samples did not reveal the ability to produce oil and other things needed for life in the cold and snow. Better research and better samples show that yes, they did have the necessaries for where they lived. Scientists are needing to revise their theories. Biblical creation scientists stand on the authority of Scripture. Their models may disagree on some points, but they do agree on their biblical foundation, and seem to agree that the Ice Age was a result of the Genesis Flood.
The common perception is that woolly mammoths were denizens of the cold who lived during the northern hemisphere glaciation. However, some scholars have questioned whether they were truly cold adapted. Even though they had thick hair and small ears, adaptations to cold, their hair would have needed oil to repel rain and snow. Soaked hair would be disastrous in a cold climate. As late as 1982, an analysis of woolly mammoth skin failed to find oil glands, known as sebaceous glands: modern elephants do not have these glands either. New information has discovered that the skin of woolly mammoths indeed had sebaceous glands, and therefore woolly mammoths would not have had a problem living in a cold climate.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Wooly mammoths were cold adapted".
 

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

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Hornets with Solar Panels?


Those stripes on the Oriental hornet are not there just to gussy it up so we an admire it — or avoid it. Hornets do have a reputation for stinging, as I recollect. No, the stripes were analyzed in detail, and it looks like they not only help it absorb solar energy, but they may also store and use it. Secular scientists are doing the typical thing by seeing the amazingly intricate the design and workings of the Oriental hornet, and instead of giving glory to the Creator, they bow in adoration to blind, purposeless evolution. Ironic, what they consider a product of evolution is also something worthy of biomimetics (copying nature for human purposes). They want to see if they can imitate it and get something useful for converting solar energy. Oh, boy.
Looking for some “green” technology to cut your energy bills? Maybe you should check out the Oriental hornet. Unlike many other wasp species, the Oriental hornet (Vespa orientalis) becomes most active in the heat of the afternoon. In fact, the industrious insect digs its nest most intensely when exposed to the most extreme rays from the sun. This odd behavior caught the attention of researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel.

Using atomic force microscopy (which provides three-dimensional images down to an atomic scale), the team zoomed in on the brown and yellow stripes on the hornet’s abdomen. Although the surface, or cuticle, appears smooth, it actually contains layers and layers of microstructures that appear to “harvest parts of the solar radiation.” In other words, the hornet may be a flying solar panel.
To finish reading the rest of the article, buzz on over to "Solar-Powered Hornets".

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

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Radiation and the Extinction of Life

The Teleological Argument says, in essence, that the universe (and Earth) are the products of design. Add to this the impossibility of abiogenesis (life starting by chance) as well as the constantly-refuted conjectures of Darwin's Stormtroopers to support evolution.


The chance of life forming by chance is already zero. Now we can factor in that gamma-ray bursts in space eradicate life. Earth should have been zapped. Yet, here we are by God's plan!

Cosmic evolutionists have not helped their own cause. Seems that gamma-ray bursts in space would destroy any life on other planets. Even if something conducive to life actually formed, there are so many fireworks out in space that it would be wiped out. (Another reason that SETI is silliness, the chances of finding something out there just keep getting smaller.) Using an evolutionary timeline, Earth should have been zapped in the past, and is fixing to be zapped again. And yet, here we are by God's plan.
What are the odds that life somehow self-generated? Many experiments have shown that the likelihood of just the right chemicals combining by chance in just the right proportions, orientations, and sequences to form even the simplest cell on Earth is so close to zero that some origin-of-life researchers have punted the possibility to some distant unknown planet.1 But a new study of gamma-ray burst frequency estimates has eliminated the possibility of life on other planets.

Astronomers have witnessed gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)—lasting from just fractions of a millisecond to several minutes—as the brightest explosions in the universe. The blasts' lethal energy output shreds any nearby biological molecules, whether in a functioning organism or somewhere in a planet's environment.
To read the rest, click on "Gamma-Ray Bursts Limit Life in Universe".
 

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

Monday, November 24, 2014

Evolutionists Clinging to the "Junk DNA" Faith

In discussions about subjects that have more than one definition, it is important to define your terms so you're not explaining one thing and the other party has a different understanding. Changing definitions is a form of special pleading, often called "moving the goalposts".

DNA was somewhat investigated, but since evolutionists didn't understand it, they called large portions of it "junk" —  leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past, and then plopped it on the well-worn trail of scientific incompetence. When DNA was given more thorough investigation, more and more of it was found to be very important.

On a side note, this is similar to so-called "vestigial organs" — they didn't know the purpose of some organs, so they declared them useless leftovers from evolution. Many were removed, and did harm to people because yes, they do have functions after all. After that scientific self-humiliation, the word "vestigial" was redefined. Disingenuous, isn't it?

Relying on their presuppositions of evolution hindered science mightily (and some people say it's the creationists who hold back science!), and some still want to continue to do just that. They reached into their possibles bag and pulled out some fancy redefinitions so that DNA can still have "junk"; God forbid that the biblical creationists (and other scientists) are right after all, gotta keep the faith even when it's wrong.
Having decided there’s nothing there, some defenders of the “junk DNA” concept won’t focus on it.

A press release from the University of Melbourne praises another test that concludes most of the human genome is “useless” material. A University of Oxford study led by Gerton Lunter decided that only 8.2% is functional. Writer Ella Kelly acknowledges that the ENCODE consortium came to a “bit extreme” and “drastically different” conclusions when they concluded 80% is functional, but it’s a matter of definitions, she says:
To alleviate that suspense, you can find out what she says and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Junk-DNA Defenders Refuse to Look at 'Useless' Code". 
 

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

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Big Kitty, Little Kitty — Why's the Difference?

We see the big cats and know that they're related to the little balls of fur that humans have domesticated for thousands of years. ("Domesticated", sure.) It's interesting to see the big wild ones occasionally playing and acting like house cats. Likewise, it's fun to see the house cats act big and bad, as if they were huge tigers or something. And yet, they've become companions of humans. Especially when food is involved.


Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Basement Cat

So, how did the cat kind get smaller and domesticated as a Sylvester, Felis sylvestris lybica?



Some interesting studies in genetics were conducted, as well as studying history, archaeology, animal behavior and so forth. Unfortunately, good research was hijacked again by evolutionary agendas. Since cats are primarily carnivorous these days, the speculation (bad even from an evolutionary viewpoint) is that all carnivores, no matter how different they are, evolved from a common ancestor. These people insist on seeing "evolution", even when there is no reason to expect it.
Feral felines and domestic cats are all capable carnivores. Scientists have now identified some of the genes that equip them to be great predators as well as genes that make domestic varieties content to share your affection and your home with your dog. (Perhaps I need to share this study with my dog, who is less than pleased with the arrangement.)

Geneticist Michael Montague and colleagues compared the genomes of domestic cats to wildcats. They examined the genomes of 22 different domestic cats from around the world and 4 wildcats (2 European wildcats and 2 Eastern wildcats). They also compared these cat genomes to the genomes of tigers, dogs, cows, and humans.

Don't have a hissy fit, you can finish reading the article by clicking on "How Domestic Cats Differ from Wildcats and Other Carnivores".




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

Friday, November 21, 2014

Washing Your Brain — While You Sleep!

Years ago, an American advert showed a woman saying, "I'm cleaning my oven — while I sleep!" The product was for a spray can of oven cleaner. While I was cognating on the article linked below, I vaguely remembered that advert.


Those of us with a bent for psychology know that the mind is awake when the body is sleeping. Dreams seem to be a way for the subconscious to work things out, maybe even clean and sort. In the Bible, God revealed things in dreams. (Does he do that now? Maybe, but not for adding onto Scripture.) Some scientists studied what happens while we sleep. You see, even cells have waste matter, and that gets cleaned up. But the structure of the brain is markedly different. It turns out that the brain gets physically cleaned out during the sleep process.

Scientists studying this were using the language of design, but fell short of actually giving credit to the Designer. Although they have no models, mechanisms or explanations, they still cling to the faith of "EvolutionDidIt".
What makes sleep so mentally refreshing? University of Rochester neuroscientist Jeff Iliff addressed the crowd gathered at a September 2014 TEDMED event and explained his amazing new discoveries. The words he used perfectly match what one would expect while describing the works of an ingenious designer.

Other organs rely on the lymphatic system to remove metabolic waste that builds up in the spaces outside cells, but no lymph vessels exist behind the skull. Since the brain uses a fourth of all the body’s energy, there must be some other mechanism at work to clear away brain waste. Iliff and his colleagues discovered this mechanism and published their findings in the journal Science Translational Medicine in 2012.3 In his TED talk, Iliff described his team’s findings using the appropriate language of design.
To finish reading the rest of this short article, you can head over to "Brain Bath: A Clever Design Solution".

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

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Small Stuff, Big Complexity

Many materialists like to parrot their icons by citing, "Things have the appearance of design, but that doesn't mean they're designed". Ridiculous. A basic argument for the Creator appeals to common sense: A painting has a painter, a building has a builder, a saddle has a saddle maker, and so on. With the amazing complexity in the world around us, in the heavens above, the microscopic level, it takes effort to think that there is no Designer. We all know God is there, but some people choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1.19-22). Study on this: Atheism and evolutionism make science impossible because only biblical creation gives us reason to believe in a structured, orderly, reliable universe. When atheists and evolutionists do science, they are abandoning their own presuppositions and borrowing from the only rational worldview — ours.



"Simple" cells turned out to be anything but simple, and are comparable with advanced computers — including their own specialized communications. Think even smaller. Molecules? No, smaller than that. Atoms! Even those building blocks have order, and are obviously the product of design, not chance.
The beauty and organization of God’s creation can be seen all around us in the macroscopic world. Everything we observe from plant life, stars, animals, rocks, air, and water—virtually everything—is composed of 90 naturally occurring building blocks known as atoms. Order starts with atoms and the subatomic particles that comprise them. This orderliness is not a random or haphazard assemblage of particles happening by accident or spontaneously organizing without an intelligent cause. Looking into the nature of atoms, creation is clearly seen. When God created, He brought order to the universe even in the smallest things, for God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
You can compound your learning by reading the rest of "Atoms and God’s order in the fundamental building blocks of all substance".

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

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Did Caffeine Evolve?

Some people are told by their doctors that they need to cut down on the caffeine. Then they find out that the stuff is in many things that they never expected. Coffee is probably the first thing people think of, but caffeine is also in tea, soft drinks (including some non-colas), chocolate, pain relievers use it to "deliver" the remedy as well as ease the pain, foods and snacks that try to give you a boost, ice cream, and more. Cowboys won't give up their coffee, nor will many people. But we may cut down a bit.

freeimages / humusak2
Scientists studied the genome of coffee. Since caffeine naturally occurs in so many plants, they resorted to the cop-out of "convergent evolution"; it evolved separately in several things. Even more far-fetched is the claim that "natural selection" had a hand in it. Not hardly. Why don't people laugh at these "scientific" pronouncements? If they had the sense that God gave a pack animal, they'd realize that evolution and natural selection are not explanations. Instead, it was the plan of the Designer.
Coffee—love it or hate it—it affects your life, and even your language. Whether you start your day with “Coffee, black” or take your “coffee break” at the water cooler, whether you occasionally chat “over coffee” or get frequent-flyer-miles from your coffee shop app, whether you contribute to the economic welfare of millions who depend on coffee as their cash crop, argue Brits get a better buzz from tea, or believe “Things go better with Coke™”—the key chemical in “the most traded commodity after oil”2\ has some impact on your life. Now an international team of researchers has sequenced coffee’s genome and concluded that convergent evolution produced caffeine more than once.

Caffeine is found in a dizzying variety of plants including coffee trees, tea bushes, yerba maté, cacao, kola, guarana, and even citrus trees. (The nectar of orange and grapefruit blossoms is caffeinated, as is the nectar of more familiar caffeine-producers, pleasing bees who come back for more.) The researchers sequenced Coffea canephora, the diploid “robusta” species that supplies nearly a third of the world’s coffee crop. Coffea canephorais one of the two parents of the hybrid tetraploid species Coffea arabica, which makes up most of the rest.
You can read the rest of this wake-up call by clicking on "Caffeine: Convergently Evolved or Creatively Provided".
 

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

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Astronomy, Physics, and Science Fizzles

It seems that whenever we read about studies and discoveries in historical science, secularists are running at full gallop like a cavalry charge to find out how something evolved. When the dust settles, we see that scientists need a mite more humility and a lot fewer arrogant presumptions. If they admitted that the evidence points to the Creator, I reckon they would not be surprised by discoveries quite so much.

Image credit: NASA / CXC / JPL-Caltech / STScI / NSF / NRAO / VLA
You'd think that physics is a safe trail to ride, but astronomy is full of assumptions, rescuing devices, guesses and "Oh, surprise! We're wrong again!" discoveries. Even physics itself is uncertain, especially in astronomical machinations. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are disputed ideas put forward to rescue the Big Bang and inflation. Newly-discovered stars make dark matter not matter, and other discoveries further refute cosmic evolution.
Dark matter still has “no explanation whatsoever,” and meanwhile, half of the real stars in the universe have been hiding in plain sight.

Like government accountants saying “Whoops” at finding twice as much debt in their books as thought, astronomers have stumbled upon a whole population of stars that may outnumber all the known stars in the universe. Stars flung out from galaxies constitute a “mystery sea of stars,” Science Daily says. A Caltech rocket instrument surprised astronomers with a glow they think comes from these wanderers:
To finish reading, you can click on "Astronomers Missed Half the Visible Universe".
 


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

Monday, November 17, 2014

DNA Entropy Studies Show Recent Creation


The basic concept of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution in humans is that we improved over time, and that we're still improving. Problem is, that's simply not true. I keep saying that DNA studies are no friend of evolutionary theory, and scientists are finding evidence of genetic degradation. It's interesting that secular scientists, using deep time assumptions, get diversification in humanity that charts to about the time of the dispersal after the Genesis Flood. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson studied mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA and the results show a recent creation. All results show that humanity cannot last forever, and will become extinct from mutations.
Many creationists believe that the bulk of scientific evidence for a recent creation comes from the fields of geology, physics, and astronomy and that biology and genetics have little to contribute. However, data that confirm a young creation are rapidly emerging from genetic studies performed by both creationist and secular scientists.

One of the most important finds in recent years came from modeling the accumulation of mutations (genetic code errors) in the human genome over time using computer simulations. Researchers found that this buildup of mutations can only reach a certain level before the genome completely deteriorates and humans go extinct. This process of degradation, called genetic entropy, fits perfectly with a recent creation of six to ten thousand years ago.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Genetic Entropy Points to a Young Creation". And if you have a mind to, I have something I was speculating on that I want to share below, just for what it's worth.

Some people take Genesis 2.17 as a lie from God because he said to Adam, "In the day you eat from it, you shall surely die". The Hebrew construction is tricky and has the word "die" twice. "You shall surely die" is one way to translate it, but it also renders, "Dying you shall die". That is, the dying process began, and we clearly see that Adam did not live forever, but did live for a long time.

That's established, here's me speculating some theology with a dash of science: "Adam" was not only the name of the first man, created "very good", but he was the father of humanity. He was also the federal head of mankind, and sin entered the world through him (Romans 5:17). Maybe we can extend this federal headship into physical science. Isn't it possible that God had an extra meaning in there? Not only did Adam himself begin the dying process, but humanity itself began the dying process. Just an idea, but I'll let better minds cognate on that.
 

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

Sunday, November 16, 2014

More On Anti-Creationist Bigotry

Charles Darwin, creation science, www.piltdownsuperman.com, The Question Evolution Project

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Based on evidence and observations, I reckon that it's is reasonable to conclude that anti-creationists want us silenced. Some of those tinhorns are instituting legislation to make the teaching of creation science illegal. Over the years and scattered throughout the nearly one thousand posts and articles on this site alone, there is documentation of deception, double standards, outright lies and fraud, terrible logic and more on the part of the anti-creationists — if they can't silence us through legislation and activist judges, these bigots resort to bullying and intimidation tactics.

For example, secularists organized a protest at an Answers in Genesis conference — at a church, on private property, attendance was voluntary, so it was none of their business. Their attacks on biblical Christians are escalating. In one sense, articles like this are almost immediately somewhat outdated, because new examples of atheist and anti-creationist bigotry occur daily.

At The Question Evolution Project on Facebook (there is also a version of it on Google Plus), I posted an article about the wrongful dismissal discrimination lawsuit by Mark Armitage. Someone decided to post comments insulting Mr. Armitage, and showing atheo-fascist bigotry:
"Fair Use" for education and information.

Since I am not much of a follower of sports, the next two items were furnished to me. The first one is about how an NFL football commentator made a remark about his lack of belief in evolutionism. He was strongly attacked. Second, I was tipped off about how baseball player Curt Schilling argued against evolution on Twitter. A surprisingly good article about Schilling's experience is here, and if you do a search for this topic, you'll see some amazingly vitriolic posts against him.

Because I have Weblogs and some Pages supporting biblical creation science, I have my share of stalkers and attackers. Nowhere near the level of the major creation science ministries, however! But it's to be expected (John 15.20-23, 2 Tim. 3.12). Ironically, they are increasing my rewards, as Jesus promised in Matthew 5.11-12. I dared to speak against an irrational atheopath's hero, Bill Nye the Lying Guy (that's right, I said it, see this short video on "Dishonest Debate Tactics" and also "Did Bill Nye Lie About Creationists and Climate Change?"), and was relentlessly stalked by this guy for years as punishment. (Click here if you want to see one of his many spam 'n' post screeds against me, majoring (incorrectly!) on something unimportant, and decide if this is the product of a sound mind, or just unsubstantiated libelous raving.) Oh, there are others, including the guy that spread rumors that my wife is dead (which was news to her), and fakers. I'm just one of many biblical creationists under attack, and my ministry is not exactly huge.

They cannot compete with us when it comes to an actual discussion of the ideas. People will attack with bad logic, outdated science, prejudicial conjecture, assertion of opinions, and more (Psalm 14.1, Prov.18.2, Prov. 1.7). Very few have bothered to actually understand what we really believe and teach from actual sources, but instead, they get their information from biased anti-creationists. Since they cannot defeat us using the tenets of reason and logic that they (poorly) uphold, they resort to attacks and censorship to silence us.

On a surface level, why? People can disagree on so many things, such as which brand of auto is most reliable, the best way to bake bread, a referee's bad call in last night's Big Game, many other things — and still remain civil. Why do biblical creation science and Christian apologetics cause atheopaths and other anti-creationists to go on a jihad?

It is not about reason, logic and evidence. If this was the case, everyone would be a biblical creationist because we have abundant evidence! This is a battle on a spiritual level more than intellectual, and that's why many of us will not use "neutral ground", which is a myth. Although atheists often proclaim that they are on a mission to "protect" science, real science does not need to be protected. Real science thrives on examining the evidence so scientists can arrive at the best possible explanation. But evolution is a cornerstone of the religion of atheism. Evolution is also fundamental for liberal religious views. Atheism, old-earth creationism, Hugh Ross' strange views, theistic evolution, other forms of liberal Christianity are all based on rebellion against the authority of God's Word (Romans 1.18-22). The truth is painful for some people because of this rebellion. Those who call themselves Christians but compromise with atheistic interpretations of science philosophies need to put the spurs to themselves and do some serious self-examination. The truth hurts, but repenting, humbling ourselves, and submitting to the truth of God's Word is the best thing to do.
Evolution, Creation Science, Biblical Creation, www.piltdownsuperman.com, The Question Evolution Project
Rebels are going to get it in the end.
I was informed that the bullfighters enter the ring to kill the bull.


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

Saturday, November 15, 2014

How Do Evolutionists Hijack Real Science?

One of the most frequent tricks that Darwinists utilize is a word game. If you commence to having a discussion, you often need to define your terms, as definitions are vital for effective and accurate communication. The word "evolution" can have at least seven meanings, not including special uses like games and products. When you do an online search for "define evolution", you'll most likely see several links about Darwin's general theory of goo-to-you evolution.

One meaning of biological evolution (aside from the ridiculous "change of time" vagueness) is variation, or possibly horizontal evolution. That refers to observed changes within limits with things like breeds of dogs, horses, birds or whatnot. But when the Evo Sith will point to these observed changes, they will pull a bait 'n' switch by equivocating this kind of evolution with the general theory of evolution. "Look! We have proof of evolution!", telling you that if you see small-scale change within limits, then it's proof of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. Not hardly! Using observed science to tell us that it proves Darwin's failed hypothesis is one way that they try to hijack science.


Batman, Robin, Creation Science, Biblical Creation, The Question Evolution Project, www.piltdownsuperman.com

When Lenski ran an experiment over several years on some bacteria, he found changes. The changes involved mutations that may have been "beneficial" (a matter of perspective), but the genetic information was not new, but changed and rearranged. And it was all in a lab environment, not in the wild. Bad news for evolutionists is that the studies actually affirm biblical creation! Sure, evolutionists will dispute information that refutes their worldview (some are so brilliant, they do not need to understand, or even read, reports of contrary evidence before calling creationists "liars"). But saying, "That's not true!", or, "No it isn't!" is not a refutation.
Dr. Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment with E. coli is commonly used to support evolution without distinction between observable limited change and unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Many publications in scientific journals have described the mutations that have provided these bacteria with a benefit in their laboratory environment. A close look at the biochemical basis behind these mutations shows that the vast majority of fitness benefits are due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of unique genetic information. Furthermore, mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed. As the idea of evolution from a simple, common ancestor requires the accumulation of novel genetic information over a long period of time, Lenski’s experiment then actually provides evidence against this idea and instead supports a Biblical creation model of life and origins.
To read the rest, click on "Hijacking Good Science: Lenski’s Bacteria Support Creation". And if you've a mind to, check out this video podcast episode:



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

Friday, November 14, 2014

Badgering Evolution with Reality

The American badger is not a critter to be trifled with, and can be meaner than an evolutionist presented with paradigm-shifting facts about creation. It's a marvel of design in many ways. One amazing feature is how it's built for digging (just look at the claws sometime), and digs faster than an overworked cowboy spending money after a cattle drive. Even the fur of badgers is built for the rigors of burrowing, what with being able to switch around when changing direction and so forth. Another sign of its design is the way it carefully plans its hunting.


Pixabay.com / beeki
The badger does not cooperate with evolutionary ideas, either. "Old" fossils show little if any difference from existing badgers. Naturally, Darwin's Cheerleaders will use terms like "evolutionary stasis" (which is an escape hatch for when there is no sign of evolution, though other times, they claim it is an irresistible force). The genetic similarities of badgers to similar animals supports the biblical creationist worldview of the kinds of animals that diversified after the great Genesis Flood.
The badger hates being ‘badgered’. On one occasion, when an American badger was brought to a football field as a mascot, it got badgered. So it started digging, went under the football field and escaped!

Such behavior usually leaves the badger, specifically the American badger, with the image of being a nuisance. Few articles can be found showcasing them in a positive light.
To read the rest (and the following article, "How many ‘badgers’ did Noah need on the Ark?"), click on "The American Badger". 
 

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

Thursday, November 13, 2014

"Man in the Moon" Has No Impact


The big area on Earth's moon that has often been called the "man in the moon" is getting cheeky. Evolutionists have their noses out of joint because the long-held belief that this area it is the result of an impact crater is being discarded. Instead, it is now thought to be the result of volcanic activity. This moon, as well as other satellites and the planet Mercury, are showing signs of a young solar system. But evolutionary theories require long ages, so secular scientists are trying to find a way to save face and keep their "deep time" presuppositions. Reckon they can't stand to admit that the evidence shows the work of the Creator, and that he did his creating much more recently that has been cherished in their worldviews.
The theory of how the largest impact basin on the moon was formed has been turned upside down.

Oceanus Procellarum, the large dark feature often called the “Man in the moon,” has a new story to tell lunar geologists: “I’m a volcano.” In a surprise reversal, scientists are saying that the huge basin is “not an impact crater” (Nature News). “Gravity data suggest flats of volcanic basalt formed from tectonic stretching,” the subtitle reads: in other words, a large volcanic plume created most of the maria on the near side of the moon. Oceanus Procellarum is 17% of the lunar surface, constituting most of the near side visible to Earth.

Scientists working data from NASA’s GRAIL orbiter (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory), which measures gravity anomalies on the moon, knew they had found something odd when the outlines of the basin looked a bit rectangular rather than circular. The results, published in Nature, “revealed anomalies buried beneath the plains’ basalt surface, which the authors interpret as valleys where the crust of the Moon has been stretched and thinned, a process that on Earth happens as tectonic plates move apart.”
You can read the rest by clicking on "Lunar Impact: Major Moon Basin Was Not a Big Hit".

 

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

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Exocomets Give No Hope to Old Universe Advocates

Evolutionary cosmologists and cosmogonists rely on their naturalistic presuppositions about the origins of the universe and solar systems, then interpret their observations accordingly. Evidence for exocomets (comets that are beyond our own solar system) has been found. They think that these give support for their "deep time" conjectures, but this is not the case. Some evolutionist owlhoots are so locked into their worldviews that they call anyone who disagrees with them "liars", and refuse to honestly examine the evidence!


"Landscape with a comet", Heorhiy Narbut, 1910, PD
For a long while, creationists have reckoned that comets fit their own presuppositions far better, and point out that they are testimony of a young universe. One of the main reasons is that comets (especially short-term ones) should have been burned out long ago in an old universe. To preserve their fundamentally flawed worldview, secular cosmologists rely on the Oort Cloud and other products of imagination and wishful thinking, to become a source of replenishment for comets. Sorry, no dice.

Also, according to their speculations, comets formed billions of years ago with the rest of the solar system, but comets have erratic orbits (many of them retrograde), so those ideas are far-fetched, even on the surface. Keeping the faith, secular astronomers are ignoring the evidence and now thinking that exocomets will bolster their belief systems, even though the evidence supports creation.
Astronomers recently detected evidence of possible comets orbiting a faraway star system named β Pictoris. They compared what they saw to what our solar system may have looked like billions of years ago when the earth and moon were supposedly forming out of a chaotic debris cloud. But details from their report easily refute this imagined "planetary-system formation," and instead illustrate how God recently and uniquely created space objects.

Publishing in Nature, French and Israeli scientists analyzed eight years of data collected by the HARPS instrument on the European Southern Observatory's telescope in La Silla, Chile. The instrument measured tiny variations in the star's spectrum, which these astronomers believe to be caused by 493 comets orbiting β Pictoris as they passed between the star and the telescope's lens. The star system lies over 63 light years from our solar system. It can be seen inside a small, southern constellation called "Pictor," taken from a Latin phrase meaning "painter's easel."
To finish reading, set your course for "Exocomets: Evidence of Recent Creation".
 

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

Labels