Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 8

We've reached the conclusion of this series on radiometric dating, which are methods used to determine the age of the earth and rock samples; clocks in the rocks. The linked articles have had information for lay people as well as those more technologically inclined, showing how methods of radiometric dating are based on several assumptions, circular reasoning, wildly varying results, and more.

Here are links to the previous installments in the series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Radiometric dating methods are fraught with difficulties, and the lead isotope method is no exception. The reality of the situation is that there is scientific evidence for a young world, not an old one.

This article discusses some heavy metal stuff. That is, isotopes of lead. It is supposed to be reliable if scientists include some interesting data juggling. But like the other methods, this one also goes over like a lead balloon. If uniformitarian geologists would play the cards they're dealt, they'd see that the earth was created, and it was created much more recently than they want to believe. Sorry, Papa Darwin, no time for evolution to happen.
This final article of the series examines the common-lead method of radioactive dating, sometimes referred to as the Pb-Pb method. This method reaches the pinnacle of radioisotope dating methods in terms of complication and convolution. Since we do not want to be tossed to and fro by every teaching that cunning men put in front of us, let’s carefully investigate this method’s viability as a reliable clock for terrestrial and extraterrestrial rock formations.

Our investigation begins with the three “so called” isochron equations listed in a previous Acts & Facts article that are the foundation for the U-Pb and Th-Pb dating methods. Straightforward application of these equations generally yields discordant results; i.e., the dates obtained disagree by more than the stated measurement errors allow. In fact, Gunter Faure states that this must be taken as evidence that one or more of the dating method assumptions are not satisfied—essentially nullifying the method.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Heavy Metal Clocks, Pb-Pb Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 8".

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Beliefs Built on Nothing

Some people don't seem overmuch concerned with their worldview, and some even deny having one. But if you cognate on it a mite, you'll see that everyone has a worldview. Maybe they haven't organized and written down their philosophy of life, but we all have a system of beliefs (presuppositions) by which we live our daily lives; everyone is a philosopher to some extent. Do you want to get all you can in life because you can't take it with you? That's close to hedonism. Do you want to glorify Jesus and proclaim the truth? That's Christian, and you've probably thought that one out. Even on a more mundane scale, when you get out of bed, you expect gravity to work the same today as it did before. You get the picture.

Everyone has a system of beliefs by which they live. For a science publication to say that their beliefs are built on "nothing" is ludicrous and self-refuting.

For a scientist to do science stuff, they have to believe in God's created order. Logic works without exception, such as the law of non-contradiction: something can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. You can't have "A" and "not A" at the same time, in the same relationship. That is, I can't say that my car is parked in the first space across from me right now and also not parked in the first space across from me right now. Scientists need to rely on the constancy of natural laws, and to believe in them. For a scientific publication to say that scientists have beliefs built on "nothing" is ludicrous and self-refuting.
The recent cover of the April 4-10, 2015 issue of New Scientist magazine reads "Belief: They drive everything we do. But our beliefs are built on…nothing."1 This is an amazing statement by a magazine, supposedly dedicated to science, in that it presents its readers with a philosophical conundrum. How can scientists, who must depend on a strict belief in logic and order, make such a statement? More specifically, do the people who built an entire mythological edifice on the tenuous hypothesis of macroevolution really believe in nothing?

To better understand this we should first define "belief." What exactly is belief that it should be held in such derision by a subset of men and women? Merriam Webster defines belief as:
Nope, to find out the definition and to understand what's going on, you'll have to read the rest of the article. All you have to do is click on "Scientific Suicide".

Friday, May 29, 2015

Time Dilation, Cosmological Assumptions, and the Age of the Universe

Secular astronomers and cosmologists tell us the universe is 13,820,000,000 years old or thereabouts. Are they right? Why should we believe them? Although they use calculations based on data, they also use several assumptions (including that the universe is ancient) in the first place. However, there are other possibilities to consider, especially since astronomers keep finding evidence of a young universe, including up yonder in our own solar system.

Cosmologists give us an age of the universe based on their calculations — and assumptions. Creationists posit other possibilities. This article discusses time dilation, and how globular clusters do not fit the old universe paradigm.
Globular cluster NGC 6365 Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, Acknowledgement: Gilles Chapdelaine
Creation scientists have theories and models. One is the age in a time dilated universe. The following article by Dr. Ronald G. Samec discusses this, how globular clusters do not show their alleged old age, and how secular explanations fall short.
In creation time dilation cosmologies (e.g. Humphreys and Hartnett), while the earth experiences less than 10,000 years of recorded history (God’s time clock), millions, and possibly billions, of years pass in the distant universe.

In these models, one of the major questions is “What is the maximum apparent age that should be used to characterize the universe?” Should we accept the apparent age of the universe of 13.82 x109 years as determined by the European Space Agency based on the recent PLANCK space telescope results? As mentioned in the previous paper by the author, astronomical dating schemes are corrupted by the assumption that the age of the sun is 4.57 x 109 years. I call this the Solar Age Condition (SAC). This age is determined from radioisotope ages of ‘primordial meteors’. We now know that RATE results completely discredit this age. We are no longer bound to accept the pronouncements of the evolutionary cosmological community.
To finish reading, click on "The apparent age of the time dilated universe — Explaining the missing intracluster media in globular clusters". Also, the author made reference to another paper that he co-wrote. It is extremely technical, and the PDF can be found here.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Do Blind Crustaceans Show Evolution?

It seems that proponents of goo-to-you evolution want things flexible. Evolution is presented as an irresistible force, and things will evolve; after all, R. Clinton Dawkins said that evolution has been observed, but not when it's happening. But if the fossil record show something allegedly millions of years old and its living descendants are unchanged, they call it "stasis" because they didn't have to evolve. I reckon it makes perfect sense to someone, somewhere.

Evolutionists keep their speculations flexible. In this case, LOSS of ability and genetic information in certain blind crustaceans is presented as evidence of evolution. Makes perfect sense.

Blind fish and certain crustaceans are supposed to be evidence of evolution. They lose abilities (including a bit of brain), and that is presented as evolution, which supposedly gains abilities and information. Glad I'm just a regular guy who doesn't have to pretend he understands such highfalutin "reasoning".
Three blind crustaceans, confined to cavernous darkness, have brains that are several nerve clusters short of an optic lobe. When it comes to a brain center for processing input from eyes they don’t have, they are lacking. But is this lack the same as loss? And if so, is it as the BBC reports an example of nearly 200 million years of “evolution in action”?

Blindness in cave-dwelling animals is often touted as a classic example of evolution, even though there is no gain of either function or information. Furthermore, loss of vision does not result in progress toward becoming a new kind of creature. Blind fish are still fish, and blind crustaceans are still crustaceans. Nevertheless, by discovering how much is missing in “The brain in three crustaceans from cavernous darkness,” authors of the study published in BMC Neuroscience believe they have glimpsed the evolutionary power of living without light.
If you see fit to finish the article (and I hope you do), click on "Blind Crustaceans Missing a Bit of Brain Said to Show Evolution in Action".

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

New Islands Ageing Nicely

A volcano gets a notion to erupt and form an island. Hot times! But what happens next? (Maybe the rocks of known age will be tested to be 250,000 years old using fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods, but never mind about that now.) The new island begins to cool, and a whole passel of activity begins. After all, that's what happened with the island of Surtsey, off the coast of Iceland. There's life, and also geologic formations that threaten uniformitarian paradigms.

A volcano formed the island of Surtsey, and it is becoming populated with life forms. Mt. St. Helens erupted, and that area is becoming repopulated. What about Nishinoshima? Volcanic activity is a part of the Genesis Flood. Recovery afterward is a part of God's design.
Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory satellite
For that matter, Mt. St. Helens had a big eruption in the state of Washington, and has been recovering nicely. Also, it has been a geological laboratory, with a mini Grand Canyon that obviously did not take millions of years to form. It's been the frequent subject of evidence for what would have happened during and after the Genesis Flood.

How about this new one, Nishinoshima, off the coast of Japan (if you consider 1,000 km/621 miles "off the coast")? It will probably get populated with birds, plants, and other life forms.

Volcanic activity is a part of the Genesis Flood. Recovery afterward is a part of God's design. For some interesting information on Surtsey, Nishinoshima, Mt. St. Helens, the Galapagos Islands, and more, click on "Instant Islands and Ecology".

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The Epigenetics Switch?

Proponents of microbes-to-maids evolution are still gnawing on that bone of their hypothesis despite increasing advances in science — especially genetics. So called "junk" DNA turned out to be an embarrassment, since it's not junk at all. Non-functional "pseudogenes" are functional after all. What more can go wrong?

Studies in epigenetics are flustering evolutionists not only because genetically switched-on changes happen too quickly. Also, the studies fit biblical creationist biology.
morgueFile / buttons_on-off_001 / click
Things are starting to get unpleasant hereabouts, especially since the study of epigenetics is causing a some consternation. Changes can appear in organisms as if environmental factors switched them on and off. Neo-Darwinism requires long amounts of time, and some living things can modify too fast to suit evolutionists. This all fits in right nicely with the expectation of biblical creationist biologists, however.
During the European winter of 1944, Allied troops were pushing toward Germany. In Nazi-occupied Holland, Dutch drivers went on strike to further hinder the German war effort. In retaliation, the Germans began a blockade of the Western Netherlands which, together with a severe winter, resulted in a period of catastrophic deprivation and starvation. The population was reduced to a diet of about a third of their needed daily calorie intake, resulting in approximately 20,000 deaths between November 1944 and May 1945 when the blockade was lifted. People were forced to eat grass and tulip bulbs, and were burning furniture for heat in order to stay alive. This period is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter. . .

One can easily imagine how a severe lack of nutrition could affect the health of the victims. But what about the lives of babies who were still in the womb during that terrible period, and even generations beyond them? Due to excellent registry and health records in the Netherlands, scientists have been able to use this episode as a ‘living laboratory’, following birth weights and health issues for decades after the end of World War II. This has yielded some startling results.
To learn more about the starting results and epigenetics, click on "Epigenetics—an epic challenge to evolution".

Monday, May 25, 2015

Snake Venom, Creation, and Genetics

First up, I want to get some important information out regarding snakes, especially since summer's coming to these here United States, Canada, and the Northern Hemisphere. Don't be thinking you know something about snakes because you watched some movies and television. Some rattlesnakes don't do you the courtesy of coiling up before striking, or even rattling.

Watch your step (got hiking boots?), and don't be groping under rocks, woodpiles, and that sort of thing. If you're out for a hike or a dinosaur dig and you encounter a snake — any snake — leave it alone! The same for if you find one in your shed, garage, or some other place. They don't want to deal with you and usually want to just get away. Freeze, visually locate the critter, and slowly back off, Pilgrim.

After important safety information on what to do in a snake encounter, the article discusses the origin and non-evolution of snake venom.
Image credit: Rattlesnake at Echo Park, Dinosaur National Monument / US National Park Serpents — I mean, Service
Here are some articles on what to do when you encounter them: Dealing With Snakes - Safely Handling EncountersHow to Hike in Rattlesnake Country, and also What to do if you meet a snake on the trail. Although summer is pretty much over in 'Straya, here's something about snakes for you, too. If you don't cotton to cottonmouths or rattlers, maybe consider moving to New Zealand, Ireland, Hawaii, or someplace that doesn't have them. But that drastic measure isn't necessary if you show some sense and respect.

The reason I asked all y'all here is to bring up an article on snake venom. (Certain snakes, lizards, spiders, and whatnot are not poisonous, they're venomous. The difference is how the toxin is delivered. Don't feel badly if you used the wrong word, it's a common mistake.) If creation was perfect at first, why are there venomous snakes? The reason is rather surprising. It's not just a buildup of special genes in the venom gland, since other reptiles (including non-venomous) have some of the same genes. Rather, it's a kind of genetic devolution.
Unbelievers and Christians alike often ask, “How could a good god make creatures with toxic venom?” According to the Bible, God originally created the world free of death, disease, and violence. When Adam and Eve rebelled, the entire creation was subjected to a curse that resulted, among other things, in venomous snakes, stinging arthropods, and disease-causing pathogens.

A major question facing creation biologists is how this curse has affected the genomes of modern creatures that defy the idea of a perfect creation, such as poisonous snakes. A highly plausible, biblical, and scientific model is now emerging and gaining validity thanks to recent snake studies. This model is based on information corruption in the genome, sometimes referred to as genetic entropy. Support for this idea is based on the fact that genes and their regulatory sequences have become corrupted through genome degradation—resulting in traits inconsistent with the original intent of God’s creation.
To finish reading, click on "Snake Venom, Genetic Entropy, and Adam's Curse".

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Guest Post — Literalgenesisphobia

A new psychological disorder for militant atheists and anti-creationists has been named and classified. Treatment *is* possible.

A newly discovered psychological disorder classified under anxiety disorders-phobias is called literalgenesisphobia. This phobia is the intense fear that literal creationists are right and there is a God after all.

This psychological disorder is rare phobia, but it is commonly seen in militant atheists and ardent adherents to the evolution paradigm. Brain scans have shown the lack of development in the critical thinking areas of the brain which, when compared to creationists brain scans, is seen to be underdeveloped and smaller than creationists. That is, the brain tissue that is used in the function of critical thinking which can be measure physically is smaller (therefore underused) in atheists, atheopaths and ardent evolutionists compared to the brains of creationists. Current research into this psychological disorder shows lack of social skills. They also exhibit inability to debate and present data empirically and coherently, resulting in maladaptive behaviours towards those they fear.

These maladaptive behaviours include (but not limited to): ad hominen attacks, equivocation, stalking (in the severe spectrum), name calling, inability to coherently present empirical data in an orderly fashion, present real evidence, engage in the actual argument presented, elephant hurling (clinically known as overwhelming the opposition with various information that cannot be answered in a set time or setting), lying, exaggerating, delusions of grandeur, "just so" storytelling, aggression (seen most often in the severe spectrum), threatening or intimidating behaviour (severe spectrum), using the legal system to silence opposition (severe spectrum) and finally (also in the severe spectrum) quenching freedom of speech and forcing the loss of creationist's job and or credibility.

Current treatment: it has been noted in current research that literalgenesisphobia is resistant to existing treatments although there have been successful recoveries from this debilitating psychological disorder as seen in numerous case studies. Researchers are persisting in medication to control anxiety in the suffer along with cognitive, behaviour and social skills therapy to correct the maladaptive behaviours in resistant patients. It has been suggested that those suffering the resistant form of this psychological disorder be given the amnesia treatment followed by re-education therapy. However, this was deemed unethical by the Board, and researchers are continuing with tried and proven methods of treatment.

There are some famous people who suffer from this debilitating disorder, including Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and others. By highlighting that this condition strikes even those who are highly educated, we can break the stigma of this debilitating disorder, and sufferers of literalgenesisphobia may be more willing to seek help. Give generously to the biblical creation science ministry of your choice. All donations specified will be used in the research to combat this disorder and help the individuals recover as well as the promotion of treatments for this disorder!

And that's how you make up a psychological disorder in 10 minutes!

Raven was making a point with satire, and has the vocabulary, what with being a student studying social psychology and all. (I did only minor editing.) In addition, it seems that many "conditions" in psychological parlance are simply made up, and labeling people only makes things worse.. The condition Raven described is an eerily accurate description of a corral-full of anti-creationists and atheopath trolls on teh interwebs.

When reading their rants in forums, comments on social media, and the like, many appear to exhibit not only hate and rage, but fear that science does not support their worldviews. (I hope Raven contributes again — or will I be told, "Nevermore"?) There have been several times when manipulative atheopaths will try to "diagnose" someone in an effort to provoke. For instance, you point out a logical fallacy and are told, "You're projecting!", or, pointing out their dishonesty and incompetence lassos you the label of "pathological liar" (when offered without evidence of intent to deceive makes the accuser into the liar). Notice that they play the "victim card". Aren't people like that practicing psychology without a license?

You may want to see my article on my "attitude blog" about how many atheopaths display some serious disorders, especially the narcissistic sociopath, and studies on atheism and autism, as well as "Evolution, Psychology and Shots in the Dark". I couldn't wait until April 1 to post the top part of this, maybe someone can come up with a phobia for that as well.
— Cowboy Bob

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Geology Historian Neglecting His Research

Historian Dr. Martin Rudwick drops research completely in his efforts to slam biblical creationists. Dr. John K. Reed shows that Rudwick suspends reason when rewriting history.

Something many creationists emphasize is that scientists argue from their worldviews, but people who indulge in Scientism and put scientists on pedestals seem to view them as fact-finding automatons, unclouded by avarice and emotion. Not hardly! They are just as prone to vices and ambitions as the rest of us mere mortals.

Geology historian Dr. Martin Rudwick wrote an evolutionary book, Earth's Deep History. He wrote an appendix to the book that ridicules creationists, and uses numerous logical fallacies that are unworthy of a historian of his stature. He argues from his worldview (scientists do that), but engages in ad hominem attacks, prejudicial conjecture, loaded language (such as "fundamentalists" without actually defining what those are), the fallacy of exclusion (suppressing or ignoring evidence), straw man (comparing creationists to Flat Earthers — seriously?), rewriting history (including the Scopes trial), and more. In addition, he ignores the fact that censorship is rampant in naturalistic sciences; the true spirit of science thrives on examining contrary evidence, but Rudwick and others disallow creationist contributions.

Historian Dr. Martin Rudwick drops research completely in his efforts to slam biblical creationists. Dr. John K. Reed shows that Rudwick suspends reason.

Dr. John K. Reed examines the dismissive anti-creationist appendix in detail, and shows several fallacies, blatant misrepresentations, and stampeding bias from Rudwick.

On a side note, The British Centre for Science Education (effectively, Bashing Creationists and Strong-arming Evolutionism). You can see the hatred of Dr. Reed's article here. EDIT: Removed unnecessary material here. I am using this example to illustrate that what Dr. Reed shows us applies to other anti-creationists as well — lack of thinking, but plenty of emotion-based reactions rooted in hate.

Anyway, Rudwick should do his homework before trying again to dry-gulch creationists. But then, these people seldom do their research on creation science — in this case, neither does a respected historian.
Dr Martin J.S. Rudwick is arguably the foremost historian of geology in the world. Unfortunately, he does not live up to his reputation in the appendix to his new book, Earth’s Deep History, entitled “Creationists out of Their Depth”. Interspersed with intemperate rhetoric, Rudwick weaves a tale of modern creationism that bears little resemblance to reality and displays a striking unfamiliarity with creationist work. He cites nothing, refers only to George McCready Price and The Genesis Flood, and apparently hopes his reputation will mask this lack of research.

Rudwick’s rhetoric is unexpectedly clumsy. He begins by describing creationism as a “strange feature of the current scene … so strange, and … far outside the mainstream of scientific thinking and practice … .” (p. 309), and ends concluding that: “Young-Earthers are now unmistakably equivalent … to flat-Earthers, and proponents of Intelligent Design are equally out of touch.”
You can read the rest of Dr. Reed's analysis by clicking on "Martin Rudwick’s shallow assessment: 'Creationists out of their depth'". In addition, you may want to see another article by Dr. Reed, "Martin Rudwick’s curious paradigm of ancient history and modern creationism".

Friday, May 22, 2015

Outer-Planet Moons Give Further Signs of a Young Solar System

Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the distant past that cannot be observed or duplicated. It is philosophical and religious in nature, an effort to account for life, the universe, and everything without God the Creator. For Darwinism to work, huge amounts of time are needed. To keep this view, secularists ignore or excuse away evidence for a young earth — and a young solar system.

The moons Enceladus and Europa are dashing hopes of supporting an old solar system and finding signs of life out there. This has repercussions on the "deep time" required for Darwinian evolution.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSI/PSI
There have been several indications of youth from the solar system, especially the moons. But scientists keep seeing potential for life to evolve out there, and are repeatedly surprised by geologic activity on moons. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, was erupting jets into space, which should not be possible in an ancient solar system. Now it looks like the hot water eruptions are more like curtains rather than jets, which would cause even more problems for deep time proponents. Also, Jupiter's moon Europa was considered a hopeful place to find some kind of life because of a water plume. Ain't happening, old son.
The geysers of Saturn’s little moon are like sheets instead of jets, spelling trouble for theories of its ancient age and possible life.

Enceladus has been in the news lately. Astrobiology Magazine (a NASA public outlet) is one of several news sources that reported on a new interpretation of the little moon’s south-pole geysers. New analysis of the plumes suggests that the eruptions come out in sheets or curtains, rather than individual jets. “Many features that appear to be individual jets of material erupting along the length of prominent fractures in the moon’s south polar region might be phantoms created by an optical illusion, according to the new study.”

Although the paper in Nature does not explicitly say so, the appearance of “broad vertical curtains extending over many kilometres of fracture” would seem to imply a greater volume of expelled material than previously thought. If so, this would require accounting for the mass loss over time.
To read about Enceladus, Europa, and a small bit about the asteroid Ceres, click on "It’s Curtains for Enceladus". Further, take a look at "Saturn's Enceladus Looks Younger than Ever".

Thursday, May 21, 2015

DNA in 3-D

New research on transcription factors and DNA binding utilized a three-dimensional model, and gave better results than previous studies. Amazingly, no foolish references to evolution were invoked.

Proponents of Darwinian evolution are known to claim that amazingly complex DNA is friendly to their belief system. That's the opposite of the truth. We had the "junk DNA" fiasco, where evolutionist studied some of the genome, didn't understand a lot of it, had that relegated to "junk" status, and were embarrassed when proper research refuted the "junk" claims. The fact is, a great deal of DNA is not yet understood.

Scientists have attempted to determine how transcription factors bind to the genome so they can switch genes on and off. This has had poor results. However, it looks like they've saddled up the right horse this time, with new research and a three-dimensional model. And this time, scientists were more interested in doing science instead of being Darwin's Cheerleaders — no silly claims about evolution. Maybe because the research itself was very complex, and gave them a bit of proper perspective about the design skills of the Creator.

Scientists have long been baffled as to what actually tells proteins called transcription factors (TFs) where to bind in the genome to turn genes off and on. However, new research incorporating the three-dimensional shape of DNA has revealed an incredibly complex system of interacting biochemical codes.

We know that genes are turned off and on across the genome by intricate networks of transcription factors which bind to DNA in strategic places in and around the genes. But discovering what tells the transcription factors where to bind has proven extremely difficult.
You don't need 3-D glasses to read the rest. Just click on "Three-Dimensional DNA Code Defies Evolution".

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Origin of Life Science Fiction Without the Science

Some owlhoots claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If they had knowledge to go with their enthusiasm, they would know that the origin of life is foundational to evolution. Attempting to distance themselves from the insurmountable problems of abiogenesis (including the law of biogenesis that indicates life only comes from life, and irreducible complexity) is disingenuous at best.

Evolutionists know that the origin of life is foundational to their belief system. New approaches to old ideas about abiogenesis remain free of facts.
Adapted from "swampyWater3" by mconnors / morgueFile
The failed Miller-Urey experiment is being zombified with some fanciful fact-free new ideas, and I reckon that nearly anyone can see that the new presentations are chock full of assumptions. Some of these involve the conditions of their fantasy primordial Earth, the world being ancient in the first place (Papa Darwin's scum-to-sculptor ideas require a lot of time), disagreement within the ranks of other Darwinians, nothing can be plausibly demonstrated, and more. You'd think they'd think about evidence indicating the Creator, but their religion forbids that. They have mighty big imaginations, though.
Riddle-solving researchers from the University of Cambridge “may have solved origin-of-life conundrum,” announced a recent headline. They propose a scenario by which life’s essential chemical building blocks could have been produced simultaneously, providing the raw material for life to evolve. John Sutherland’s Cambridge team resolved this foundational chemical conundrum using simple molecules they contend would have been deposited on the early Earth by heavy meteorite bombardment.

“The key thing about the network is that although it looks complicated, it’s all the same reactions,” Sutherland explains. From hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, phosphates, and of course water, the organic building blocks of many important biological molecules can form. The same sorts of reactions, using various metallic catalysts, can produce 12 amino acids, nucleotides, and a lipid precursor. Thus, using the sun’s energy, it is possible to generate many of the simple molecules from which the far more complex biochemical molecules comprising living cells are built. That would “only” leave the problem of getting those molecules to assemble and organize themselves into living cells, but more on that later.
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Attempts to Trace Life Back to Chemical Origins Still Maps the Willful Ignorance of the Hunters".

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Radiometric Dating, The Genesis Flood, and the Age of the Earth

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. Creationist scientists show that the Genesis Flood ruins uniformitarianism.

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. These are based on uniformitarian presuppositions, which are in turn based on several assumptions, including a constant decay rate. In addition, they not only give wildly varying results, but outrageously bad old-earth ages for young rocks of known ages! This is science? Not hardly. But they cling to this because they are locked into naturalism, and cannot allow a divine foot in the door, even though their methods are unreliable. Evolution requires a great deal of time, and uniformitarianism is essential to that.

Creationist scientists have demonstrated that the rate of decay is not constant, which ruins one of the primary assumptions of uniformitarian dating methods. The biggest causes of change was the Genesis Flood. In addition, there are many other indicators of a young earth that are conveniently ignored by old earth geologists and evolutionists.
In an address in Adelaide, Australia, Dr Justin Payne, a lecturer within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, set out to ‘disprove’ objections to long-age radiometric dating including material from CMI. His talk was to Reasonable Faith Adelaide, a group that describes themselves as fundamentally a Christian association and that invites and welcomes non-Christians, skeptics, and atheists to their gatherings. At the request of one of those who attended Dr Payne’s address, physicist Dr Jim Mason, from Canada, reviewed the video plus all the material from the meeting and prepared the following detailed response.
To read the rest of this detailed and highly informative article, click on "Response to Geochronology: Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne". For those who want additional information, links to the eight-part series "Radiometric Dating and Reason" are here.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Why Do Evolutionists Suppress Critical Thinking?

It is easy to see that evolutionary education is misnamed. It is not education, it is indoctrination, and if evidence for Intelligent Design or creation science was presented, it might "confuse" students, and they would dare to doubt Darwin. The vigilant Evo Sith are on patrol to silence opposition and protect "science" by disingenuously equivocating "evolution" with "science". These sidewinders must be an embarrassment to evolutionists who actually think, and who want to examine the evidence instead of rejecting creation science simply because they believe what they're told about what creationists say.

If people learned critical thinking and how to spot logical fallacies, they would not be so easily duped by profound proclamations by evolutionists. Some claims are examined after the link.

Some of us reckon that if people were allowed to see evolutionary thinking with it's flaws and with evidence that supports creation, there would be far fewer Darwinists. Creationists want people to learn critical thinking, and some of us emphasize learning logical fallacies so people are not deceived by profound pronouncements by scientists and the science press.
Reporters often credit Darwinian evolution for explaining mysteries in biology. Let’s play teacher and grade their papers. Here’s what we’re looking for.

A good scientific explanation:
Hold on, Hoss! To get yourself educated, you need to follow the trail over to "Grading Evolutionary Success Claims".

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Sea Sponge Microfossil Supports Genesis Flood, Not Evolution

The Cambrian Explosion (where complex fossils suddenly appear) has been a problem for Darwinian evolutionists for a mighty long time. They come up with some strange ways to explain it, but those aren't satisfying. They still cling to their faith despite observed evidence, though. To make the Cambrian Explosion more baffling for evolutionists, the deeper Precambrian area is sparse with fossils, and creationists are excited about research into a seventh megasequence. Using advanced technology, paleontologists are soaking up the excitement about a tiny sea sponge fossil.
Evolutionary paleontologists are soaking up the excitement over a Precambrian sea sponge fossil. Bad news for them, the sequence of events is based on evolutionary presuppositions and circular reasoning. Worse for them, the scenario supports Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists.
Sponges and coral / NOAA
Now the sponge (the sea sponge that is, not my weird neighbor) is back in the running as the oldest human evolutionary ancestor. Yes, they really think that. Their excitement is based on circular reasoning and presuppositions about the age of the rocks and their evolutionary sequence paradigms. The sponge itself? Pretty much the same anatomy as modern sponges. No evolution here, folks.

To make matters worse yet for evolutionists, creationist geologists show how the rock layers and other evidence support the Genesis Flood.
A “nearly pristine” Precambrian sponge fossil—the size of a tiny bead—has been recovered from China’s Doushantuo Formation. About a millimeter across, Eocyathispongia qiania is not just a flattened trace or fragment but is preserved in three dimensions, essentially frozen in time.

The fossil came from the uppermost layer of this Precambrian rock unit, supposedly deposited 600 million years ago during the Ediacaran Period. With its exquisite details preserved by phosphorus-rich sediment, modern imaging technology reveals hundreds of thousands of cells in the fossil and a very modern-looking sponge anatomy.
You can squeeze out the rest of the article by clicking on "'600 Million-Year-Old' Sponge Said To Show When Multicellular Animals Evolved".

Friday, May 15, 2015

Dark Matter Doesn't Really

If I was involved in a longhorn cattle drive back in the old days (say about 1870), we'd get 2,000 or more head of cattle to Kansas. Let's go with Abilene. We reach the destination and are offered $4.00 per hundredweight. I don't cotton to that price, so I check around a few more places. Yep, that's what others are offering. What if I decided that the price is the same everywhere? I might be correct about the rate in that part of Abilene, but could be missing out on another dollar per hundredweight elsewhere. Or maybe even much less. You can only apply your observations just so far.

Hubble Finds [alleged] Dark Matter Ring in Galaxy Cluster. Despite claims that dark matter has been "found" in the universe, there is actually no direct observational evidence. In fact, dark matter is a conjecture based entirely on bad logic and naturalistic assumptions.
Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17
Source: Hubblesite.org
Evolutionists, whether Darwinian, cosmological, or other, tend to make numerous logical fallacies. This includes extrapolating from a limited amount of observed data and assuming that the observations extend further. "Dark matter" (and it's relative, "dark energy") supposedly make up most of the universe —

"Isn't 'Dark Matter' a 1974 song by Cher?"

Nope. That's "Dark Lady", a song about adultery and fortune telling. Stay far away from both of those, old son (Prov. 6:32, Deut. 18:10).

Where was I? Oh yes. Dark matter is something you can't see it, touch it, or anything else, but it's assumed to be there. The assumption comes from atheistic naturalism: the Big Bang, an ancient universe, no Creator (the universe created itself), and so on. What are claimed to be empirical observations are actually based on assumptions, circular reasoning, and affirming the consequent. (For an excellent article on logic and the Christian, see "Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation".) It's interesting that one of the first to conjure up dark matter was Jan Oort, who also gave us the entirely imaginary "Oort cloud", but I reckon we don't need to go there now, except to say that dark matter and the Oort cloud are both rescuing devices to avoid evidence for a young universe.
Why is dark matter assumed to exist in the cosmos? From reading news headlines you would think it has been clearly identified and that we now know so much about this once elusive stuff. It has been sought in many different laboratory experiments for more than four decades now, but never found. Why then are astronomers so confident it is out there? Let me try to put this into context and I hope it will become clear.

Two types of physics

In my realm of interest there are really only two types of scientists:

  1. Experimental physicists carrying out experiments in laboratories,
  2. Astrophysicists (or cosmologists) who use the universe as their ‘laboratory’.
Both construct mathematical models to describe their observations. Both test their models against those observations.

However the experimentalists (type 1) can interact with their experiments in a way the astrophysicists cannot. For example, they can send in a light signal and measure the response in the system, i.e. see what comes out. But the astrophysicists (type 2) cannot interact with what they are observing in the universe. The universe is just too large to do that.
To read the rest, click on "Why is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? — A product of the Dark Side". For information on serious problems with the Big Bang, including the "supervoid" difficulty, click on "Supervoid Challenges the Big Bang".

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Doubting the Big Science Machine

The public has a disconnect about Big Science. Some love it and think it's the ultimate source of truth, but educated people are also skeptical because they've been misled.
The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge.

Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts.

Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not recognize. We were giving proof the the Big Bang — nope, another proof fell through. Then we're given proof of anthropogenic global warming — sorry, that didn't work. Proof that vaccines cause autism — wrong, there's plenty of evidence against that. But they have peer review! Big deal, there are many bad papers getting accepted, and also getting recalled — secular peer review is not a guarantee of good science. How about "Lucy", and other proofs of evolution? Those are refuted as well. All this bad science going on, and they still want our tax money.

Add to this the demand to believe in consensus science, with owlhoots that ridicule of those who present evidence that doesn't fit the consensus, and their suppression of nay-sayers. Consensus science is downright bad, see "Why consensus science is anti-science" for more on that topic.

Intelligent people are having serious doubts about what's going on in the Big Science Industrial Machine. Many false leads, many failures, but a lot of money. This attitude is rooted in a faulty worldview based on materialistic presuppositions instead of the Word of God (Prov. 1:7). The true spirit of scientific inquiry means welcoming challenge and examining contrary evidence instead of protecting the consensus and focusing on funding.
Many people skeptical of scientific consensus are not uninformed or scientifically illiterate, study shows.

Secular scientists and reporters are wagging their heads over public intransigence about evolution and climate change, but a new study shows the skeptics are not the dodo-heads some pro-consensus folk make them out to be. The divide is prompting some science leaders to encourage their ranks to listen to the vox populi.
If you want to learn more, read the rest by clicking on "Big Science Faces Credibility Gap". For additional information, see "Big Science in Crisis of Trust".

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Supervoid Challenges the Big Bang

Proponents of the Big Bang keep getting new difficulties in their quest to deny the Creator. This time, it's cold spots in the "supervoid".

It seems that every time cosmologists find a safe trail to ride in tracking the Big Bang, another rattlesnake pops out and spooks their horses.

Cosmic microwave background radiation was supposed to be a smoking gun proof of the Big Bang, but it raised more problems than it solved. More recently, the revamped Big Bang hypothesis has had problems, including quantum fluctuations, primordial lithium, the recent "gravity waves" fiasco, and speculations that there was no Big Bang after all. They keep drawing cards and ending up with a losing hand.

Another problem for Big Bang proponents is a cold spot in the sky. A big one. Attempted explanations are failing, and fouling up the whole shootin' match. Reason indicates a Creator, not a cosmic accident.
In a new paper, scientists have announced the discovery of an enormous region of lower-than-average galaxy density about three billion light-years from Earth. This "supervoid," the largest single structure ever discovered at 1.8 billion light-years across, is newsworthy in its own right. However, it also has implications for the Big Bang model of the universe's origin.

This supervoid may partially explain the existence of an anomalous "cold spot" in the sky whose existence has long been problematic for the Big Bang model. However, at best it only replaces one Big Bang problem with another. In order to understand why, let's review some Big Bang basics.
To learn more, click on "A Cosmic 'Supervoid' vs. the Big Bang".

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Rodinia, Pangaea, and the Genesis Flood

When you see the green trees, red roses, blue skies with white clouds, a rainbow in the sky, stars at night, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, Highlands of Scotland, Moraine Lake, Blyde River Canyon, the people you meet, birdies chirping in the trees, you may be thinking to yourself that it's a wonderful world. That it is, old son, that it is. But it's also a wrecked world.

That's right, all the splendor around us is a remnant after the judgement of the Genesis Flood. I reckon that we can't imagine the splendor of the original creation, but God's people will see the new creation (Rev. 21:1-5, Rev. 22:1-5). We can try to imagine that, but we know we're not even close.

We hear about the supercontinent called Pangaea, which broke up into the land masses that we see today. There was supposedly another one before that called Rodinia. No, it doesn't mean land of rodents. Rodinia also broke up. The hypothesis is that Rodinia broke up, continents crashed together and formed Pangaea, and that drifted into what we see on our world maps now.

Our wonderful world is actually wrecked. The pre-Flood world must be beyond imagining. But creationist geologists are investigating the Genesis Flood, ancient supercontinents, and how the Flood changed our geography.
Possible reconstruction of Rodinia / Graphic by John Goodge / United States Antarctic Program
Geologists with a creation science perspective are considering that Rodinia was the land mass where Noah lived before the Flood, but they reject the "deep time" conjectures of uniformitarian geologists. Instead, the great cataclysm of the Flood is what broke up the continents and destroyed the world that existed then — and it didn't happen billions of years ago, either.
The world that we see today is not the one that existed in Noah’s day (2 Peter 3:6). That land was destroyed. In fact, it appears that the original continent was broken up and the pieces separated by thousands of miles.

If true, Noah never walked along the Santa Cruz Mountains and looked out over the scenic San Francisco Bay. He never hiked along the Apennines and gazed down upon the panoramic Mediterranean Sea. There were no Alps, Rockies, or snow-covered Himalayas; no Mississippi River rolling down into the Gulf of Mexico; no Amazon spilling into the Atlantic. The geography of the pre-Flood world was completely changed.

We get a glimpse into this different world in Genesis 1:9–10. On Day Three of the Creation Week, God gathered the waters together into “one place,” separate from the dry land. Somewhere on this land was a lovely place called Eden, out of which four great rivers flowed (Genesis 2:8–10). Nothing like that exists today.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Noah's Lost World".

Monday, May 11, 2015

Pin the Tail on the Darwinist

As a child, did you ever play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"? You blindfold the participants (one at a time), spin them a bit, then have them put a tail thing on a picture of a donkey that is attached to a wall or something. I wasn't too fond of that game.

Darwinists often try to pin the tail on the human by claiming that sometimes people are born with "tails". (Sometimes they confuse "tail" with the tailbone, or coccyx, which is a part of normal human embryonic structure.) These people claim that these "tails" are leftover from our alleged evolutionary history.

Now, wait a minute, old son. When someone says that we "evolved from monkeys", they risk the wrath of evolutionists who say that we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, but that they diverged from a common ancestor way back yonder. But they want to claim we had tails, the "throwbacks" prove it. Lemurs have tails, and they're on the evolutionary tree, what of them? Another "but" is that the great apes, including our "closest relatives", the chimpanzees and bonobos, do not have tails. What a mess.

Some proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that humans are born with tails, a result of our alleged ancestry. This is false, science and theology indicate otherwise.
Lemurs / Pixabay / Eelffica
These so-called human tails are not called "tails" through scientific knowledge, and there are Darwinoids that are downright dishonest about their nature, function, and existence. Yes, sometimes people are born with something resembling a tail, but it is occasionally a fatty tumor called a lipoma. Other times, they are a birth defect in conjunction with related problems. No, we were not the product of evolution, we are the product of God's creation — Adam did not have a tail, nor did his ancestors because there were no ancestors of Adam.
A persistent argument for evolution is the idea of supposed atavistic organs. These are thought to be ‘throwbacks’ to a believed evolutionary ancestral state. This is allegedly caused by genetic information within the DNA for that ancestral trait which is somehow (e.g. by mutation) ‘uncovered’ or able to express itself. Whereas it had previously been ‘covered’ or repressed (‘switched off’), now it is ‘switched on’.

This is related to (but not the same as) the issue of so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, which are supposed to be useless or degenerate organs that are a ‘leftover’ from our evolutionary past. A prime example of this in humans used to be the appendix, now known to have definite function.
To read the rest, click on "Human tails? — ‘Atavistic tails’ and evolution".