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

Monday, August 31, 2015

Rescuing Magnetic Field Speculations of an Old Earth

Earth's magnetic field cannot last for billions of years. Biblical creationists frequently point out this fact, and secular scientists also admit this fact. The evidence shows a young Earth, but that does not fit into the paradigm necessary for evolution to occur, so rescuing devices have been put forward. None have been plausible.

Earth's magnetic field cannot last for billions of years. The evidence shows a young Earth, so rescuing devices have been put forward. None have been plausible.
Image credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
Scientific explanations seem plausible on the surface, but deeper examinations show that they are philosophically-based, and the science falls apart.
The simple story for the public: a dynamo creates the Earth’s magnetic field. The real story: complex scenario needed to start it and keep it running.

Science is often like the two-headed Roman god Janus: one face for the insiders, a different face for the outsiders. Geophysicists have locked themselves into an explanation for the Earth’s magnetic field—the only one, in fact, that offers any hope for keeping it going for billions of years. That theory is the geodynamo theory. Since electromagnetic theory is sufficiently abstruse to keep all but certain college graduates able to fathom its intricacies, only a select few are able to see the problems. But since the public understands what a dynamo is if they know enough to say that a hydroelectric power plant turns a turbine that creates electricity, all the outside-facing face of Janus has to do is smile and say, “a dynamo creates the Earth’s magnetic field.” If asked what runs the dynamo, they have a stock answer: “convection in the Earth’s core.” Since everyone has seen water boil, they can feel satisfied with that explanation.

The public deserves better. When journal articles report problems with commonly-assumed notions like the geodynamo, they should hear about it in language they can understand. Here’s an excerpt from a recent paper in Nature by Anke Wohlers and Bernard Wood, followed by a layman’s translation:
To face the excerpt and read the rest of the aricle, click on "What You’re Not Being Told About Earth’s Magnetic Field"

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Podcasts — Michael Boehm Interviews Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Michael Boehm of Youth Apologetics Training interviews Cowboy Bob Sorensen about atheism, logical fallacies, creation science, and more.

As regular readers have probably noticed, I have previously mentioned Michael Boehm and his "Youth Apologetics Training" podcast. However, I had not heard of him until he contacted me through The Question Evolution Project on July 11 of this year. 

My immediate response was suspicion. In the past, I've had atheopaths try to set me up for humiliation on the Web and on Facebook, and I don't reckon arguing with people who hate God, the Bible, Christians, biblical creationists, and me, are a good expenditure of time and intellectual energy. So, I checked. Yes, Mr. Boehm has an extensive catalog of podcasts on many subjects (the older ones were about 15 minutes, often serialized). I gave a tentative "yes", and began listening to his podcasts on evolution.

Seems legit, no heresies found here. Do I disagree with him on some things? You betcha! Thinking people do that, you know. But they were not matters of any great importance. As I listened to his podcasts, I wondered why he needed me. He knows these things quite well. 

The show is "Youth Apologetics Training". I'm not a cool guy by youth standards. (I like to say, "There's a store in the mall called 'Cool and Hip'. They asked me to leave." Actually, don't think I've even been in there.)

My wife had to explain to me that Dr. Evil was doing the Macarena. I am so with it. Indeed.

Mike told me that he thought I had something to offer his listeners. Okay. Besides, the podcast is not loaded with lingo, and definitely doesn't talk down to people. That's good, I think that people want to be talked to, not "related to" in a put-on way. In addition, Boehm's audience includes many people who are not so young, either. I'm part of that throng. Besides, the name of the podcast is going to be changing.

We hit it off quite well, and Mike said that he wanted to record a second part the following week! Low self-image time here. He has interviewed Eric HovindIan Juby, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Charles Jackson, Dr. Donald DeYoung, Dr. Jason Lisle, Sandra Tanner, and many more. Me, I'm a nobody! Well, check that. I'm a nobody in the eyes of the world, just someone who has an online creation science ministry that he does after work and on weekends. But Jesus Christ, God the Son, died for me and has risen from the dead for my sins and yours. The Creator of the universe indwells me; I'm accepted by the one who matters most.

I said that angry atheists use the word "creatard" (or "creotard"). Here's one.

We discussed how atheists are getting more aggressive. (One problem is when they will fill up Amazon with one-star reviews without having read the book, heard the CD, watched the DVD, or whatever. Since Amazon does not bother to keep control of the trolls on their review system, I stopped using it, since it's often worthless.) Atheists will attack Christians (especially creationists), but we can be forewarned and forearmed against their buffaloing bluster.

 A problem with interviews, especially with people who don't do them frequently, is having the train of thought derailed. I wandered off and left some things hanging; hopefully, I'm more consistent with finishing thoughts in my writing. 

Mr. Boehm learned that this ol' cowboy's got a mouth on him, and he ain't afeared ta use it. We had some technical difficulties in the second part, so you'll notice some words getting a bit looooong on my end, but that happens. It's not overly distracting. (The best way to have an interview is with all parties involved in the same recording studio with expensive equipment.) I've heard similar audio oddities in interviews done over the phone.

The links to both parts of the interview are at the bottom. First, I'm giving links to some things that are pertinent to the discussions, (if people want more information). Interestingly, a couple of the articles appeared just before and between our recording sessions that fit right in: "Practical Evangelism: Taking the Roof Off" and "Feedback — Is Atheism a Religion?"

I made a reference to Duke Nukem. So, here you go:

If you still have a mind to, you can hear the interview. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here. Let's rock!

Friday, August 28, 2015

Convergent Evolution Through Convergent Illogic

Evolution is given credit for all sorts of changes, big and small, even when it's nowhere near reasonable. It is a puny god of the gaps, hailed with EvolutionDidIt® when there is no reasonable scientific explanation. Its equally inane cousin is what they call "convergent evolution". That is, different critters, plants, whatever, have similar characteristics, even though they are not related to each other. Nice policeman's exit (cop out). 

Evolution of the gaps is bad enough, but "convergent evolution" is a cop-out that avoids the logical conclusion that things were created with similar design features.

I can just imagine how they came up with the concept. Hint: not through logic and science. The logical answer is that things were created with similar design features.

Unfortunately, Darwinistas are "seeing" evolution where it isn't all too frequently. To read some of their proclamations, click on "More Examples of 'Convergent Evolution' Claimed". In a way, they're kind of funny.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Finke River Troubles Uniformitarian Geology

G'day, Pilgrim. Beginning in the Northern Territory is one of Australia's largest and oldest rivers, the Finke River. But that's a mite misleading, because most of the time, it's not much of a river — except during a flood, then it's impressive. But uniformitarian geologists insist that it carved its way through mountain ranges, and that doesn't make much sense, what with the area being very dry and all.

Australia's Finke River defies old-earth uniformitarian explanations. The Genesis Flood model gives a far more realistic mechanism.
Finke River / Menphrad / Wikimedia Commons
If you plug in the Genesis Flood model, then you'll have a workable (sensible) explanation for the landform without having to explain how the Finke River had enough water to do the job, and with less than "millions of years".
The most remarkable feature here is that the river flows directly through the mountain range, rather than around it as would be expected. This phenomenon provides graphic evidence for the reality of Noah’s Flood, which elegantly explains how it happened. Mainstream geologists, although many of them went to Sunday school and church as kids, do not take the account of Noah’s Flood seriously in their professional work. Consequently they have to come up with fanciful scenarios to explain the impossible: how a mostly-dry, intermittent, river like the Finke could carve its way through high mountain ranges.
. . .

The landscapes of Central Australia are astounding, and provide stunning evidence for the reality of Noah’s Flood. The big issue that throws people off the trail is the dates that are quoted for the different geological events, dates of millions of years. However, not one of the geological features in the area has a label attached stating the date it was formed. All such dates are based on assumptions, by asserting that Noah’s Flood never occurred, and that continent-wide catastrophes never happened. Hence they assume millions of years.
To read the article in context, which also includes some important observations, click on "The Finke River near Hermannsburg, Central Australia, reveals evidence for Noah’s Flood".

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Sexual Reproduction and Evolution

Sexual reproduction is an ongoing mystery for evolutionists to explain. They make attempts, but give only speculations, and even leave out important information.

The primary purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, and very few animals seem to actually seek it out as a form of recreation (unlike humans). It is one of the most baffling problems for evolutionists to explain is sexual reproduction. They try to explain its origins, but fail. In some ways, it's inefficient, and asexual reproduction may be better. 

There was a study where evolutionary scientists claimed to have an explanation as to why sex persists, but to keep evolutionary mythology going, these owlhoots conveniently left out a key observation. The fact remains that this method of procreation was designed by the Creator, and did not evolve. I reckon that since materialists do not believe in the afterlife, sexual reproduction is their attempt at having immortality by having young 'uns and passing along their genes.
Biologists from the U.K. conducted a 10-year-long experiment on common flour beetles to help understand why insects keep on using sexual reproduction despite its inefficiencies. Though they interpreted the results as supporting evolution, a key observation on the immutability of reproductive systems calls that into question.

In the experiment, European biologists controlled and monitored different beetle populations.1 For each of several generations, 90 males were selected to compete for 10 females in a "strong sexual selection" population. But in a second "weak sexual selection" population, the ratio was one-to-one. After many years of these two regimes, offspring from each population were selected for inbreeding.
To read more about the study and the answers not given, click on "Why Do Animals Use Sexual Reproduction?"

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

DNA is No Friend of Evolution

Every once in a while, Darwin's Drones will make simplistic remarks like, "Evolution is true. DNA proves it!" They are probably fans of Clinton Richard Dawkins, who made similar disingenuous remarks himself. Problem is, that tinhorn knows better.

DNA has an amazingly complex and sophisticated code, which indicates the design of the Creator, and has nothing to do with evolution.
PublicDomainPictures / Pixabay.com
DNA is amazingly complex, its code is very sophisticated. It has several important functions to not only keep living things alive, but to help us reproduce after our kind. No, DNA could not possibly be made by evolution. Instead, the Creator designed it for very intricate purposes.
According to leading atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, the most compelling evidence for evolution is found in DNA. In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he states that the DNA code (that is, the DNA language) is the same in all life forms—a fact, he claims, that “shows more clearly than anything else that all living creatures are descended from a single ancestor.” This statement, however, is very misleading, as there are a number of exceptions to this ‘fact’—some creatures use a variation of the code. Moreover, these exceptions, along with the nature of the code itself, actually provide one of the strongest arguments against evolution.

DNA is found in every cell of our bodies (in at least some stage of its development) and has a beautiful appearance, having the shape of a spiral staircase. The steps (or rungs) are like letters in our alphabet and, ascending or descending the staircase, the letters taken together spell words which have meanings. Altogether, there are around three billion letters in human DNA, which amounts to a lot of information—about a thousand books the size of the Bible. For example, it contains the information needed to grow a baby from a fertilized egg—how to build the heart, lungs, brain and so on. As adults, we need DNA too, as it stores the software that controls much of what goes on inside us.
To read the rest, click on "The remarkable language of DNA".

Monday, August 24, 2015

Snake Fossil with Four Legs Puzzles Paleontologists

Another fossil of snakes with legs has been found. At first, the response might be, "Big deal", until people realize that the critter had four legs. This has received attention in both creationist and secular circles, especially since it's causing slime-to-snake evolutionists some consternation and dispute.

The fossil of a 4-legged snake is causing confusion among evolutionary paleontologists. They have several disagreements, and the fossil does not fit well with their assumptions.
The "image Generator" picture does not do justice to French newscaster Melissa Theuriau. This one is more flattering.
The dispute is whether or not the fossil is that of a snake. It has many snake features, but also not snake features. Although it had legs, don't get it fitted for cowboy boots because those legs weren't walking legs, but appear to be used for grasping. It is considered a terrestrial snake, not a marine one, which adds to difficulties for evolutionists to place it in the proper alleged transitional sequence. But they can't find an evolutionary order for it because snakes were created, they didn't evolve.
The four short legs on the 20 cm (7.8 in) snake-like fossil from Brazil’s Crato formation remained unnoticed in Germany’s Museum Solnhofen until spotted by University of Portsmouth paleontologist David Martill during a field trip. “The fossil was part of a larger exhibition of fossils from the Cretaceous period,” Martill says. “It was clear that no-one had appreciated its importance, but when I saw it I knew it was an incredibly significant specimen.”

Martill recruited Helmut Tischlinger and Nicholas Longrich to help study the fossil. “The preservation of the little snake is absolutely exquisite,” Tischlinger says. “The skeleton is fully articulated. Details of the bones are clearly visible and impressions of soft tissues such as scales and the trachea are preserved.” Longrich adds, “It is a perfect little snake, except it has these little arms and legs, and they have these strange long fingers and toes.”

Their photographs and description recently appeared in Science. So did their evolutionary conclusions.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Four-Legged Snake Fossil Found in Museum". In addition, you might want to supplement your knowledge by heading over to "Snakes with Legs?" and "A four-legged fossil snake: A serpentine version of Archaeopteryx?"

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Podcast — The Dangers of Modern Psychology

Psychology has been around in one form or another for a long time. We wonder why we act the way we do, why tinhorn anti-creationists want to "prove" their superior intelligence by acting like angry children (which includes libel, lying outright, and trolling), why the woman in the upstairs apartment throws leftover chicken on the lawn instead of using a garbage bin, and more. Sometimes, psychology is fun to ponder.

Much of modern psychology is based on evolutionary and humanistic ideas. This and more are discussed in this podcast interview of Valerie Ellis by Michael Boehm.
Sigmund Freud / Max Halberstadt / Wikimedia Commons / PD
Unfortunately, modern psychology is primarily based on materialistic and evolutionary ideas; perhaps that is why there are many schools of thought, and variations on those as well. None of them has the answers, old son. A psychologist present a buffet-style treatment drawn from several sources. Ironically for me, in my apostate time, I benefited from a variation on "probablistic atheist" Albert Ellis' REBT (who said that his views had nothing to do with his therapy methods). Psychology is all about me, it's very humanistic and self-centered. It can benefit people, but so can time and "waiting it out". Talking with a concerned friend can be beneficial and also save a lot of money, but counseling from the Bible gets to the root of the problems — especially if the counselor knows that we are created in God's image, and not just glorified animals.

Sigmund "Frood Dude" Freud is considered to be the founder of modern psychology, and the "father of psychoanalysis". His controversial ideas have lost favor later on, and he had some strange evolutionary assertions about God that lack evidence. He had an influence on other psychologists.

When materialists define science, they set up several of their own rules so they can rule out creation science and Intelligent Design. However, they also rule out psychology and sociology, which are accepted as sciences even though they do not fit the criteria. They are not very testable, measurable, repeatable, observable — medications taking shots in the dark, since the machinations of the mind are mysterious. Diagnoses can also cause problems, such as schizophrenia, which may not be a real illness at all, and may cause people to fulfill the diagnosis. Indeed, it's easy to make up a diagnosis and sound all highfalutin scientific.

My diagnosis of this has nothing to do with psychology, and everything to do with Bible-denying worldviews.
Used under Fair Use for educational purposes.

Michael Boehm of Youth Apologetics Training interviewed Valerie Ellis from the Colorado Biblical Counseling Center. It's a mighty interesting discussion, and you can listen or download here. If you get a pop-up on the download asking you to register, there's a "Maybe Later" button that will let the download continue.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Biomimetics, A Cactus, and Oil Spills

Have you ever been riding down Mexico way, maybe in the Chihuahua Desert, when a snake spooks your horse, it rears up, and you get thrown into a patch of bunny ears cactus? Me, neither. That cactus doesn't have the typical long pointy spines that you see in picture books, movies, and television. No, these bad boys are very fine, and come out in bunches at even a light touch. I reckon they hurt real bad, and people need first aid right quick. And yet, this cactus (Opuntia microdasys) has inspired biomimetics to help with oil spills.

The special design of the unique "spines" of a cactus may prove beneficial in a biomimetics application to help with oil spills. But where did the spines come from?
Opuntia microdasys / Wikimedia Commons / Stan Shebs

Scientists studied the special spines on this cactus and how they relate with water. This in turn may help recover spilled oil below the surface of the water. But where did these special spines come from? They are obviously designed for their purpose, just like the spines on other cacti. The following article discusses the technology of the biomimetics idea, as well as how evolution does not explain their origin. From there, the author discusses some biblical ideas on the formation of the spines.
Oil spills at sea, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, can be massively damaging ecological events, with oil spreading for many thousands of miles. Biomimetics, the abstraction of good design from nature, is again providing a useful solution, this time to such disasters. Recently published cactus-inspired research is aimed at finding a more effective way of capturing submerged oil droplets, which are normally missed in the cleanup operations, which typically focus on collecting the oil near the surface of the water.

A unique system

The new technology builds upon previous research on the tapered spines of the cactus species, Opuntia microdasys (figure 1), which is endemic to central and Northern Mexico, and found in places such as the arid Chihuahua Desert. It was discovered that the cactus efficiently collects water droplets from fog using a “unique system composed of well-distributed clusters of conical spines and trichomes on the cactus stem”.
To see how Philip Robinson makes his points, click on "Cactus spines, sharper than you may think!"

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Basic Geology Refutes Creation Science — Because David Montgomery So!

One trick that evolutionist tinhorns use to dry-gulch creationists is to dismiss their evidence out of hand. Another trick is to misrepresent their research. David Montgomery has done both, showing a lack of integrity, bad scholarship, and plain old laziness.

David Montgomery dismissed all creation science with logical fallacies and affirming his failed uniformitarian views. He needs to do some serious research.

Professor Montgomery is talking from his uniformitarian, naturalistic presuppositions (as expected, everyone uses their presuppositions, after all). But he also uses logical fallacies of insufficient evidence, straw man misrepresentations of both church history and the abundant evidence presented by creationist scientists in his field. Simply laughing off the creationist view out of hand is ridiculous. Seeing the bad reasoning on his part, however, that dismissal is not surprising. If he took a serious look at the evidence provided by Flood geologists, Montgomery should be able to see that the evidence refutes his uniformitarian views.
Recently David Montgomery, professor of earth and space sciences at University of Washington, wrote an article for The Conversation (which prides itself on “academic rigor”). In it this evolutionary geologist boldly proclaims that even apart from the evidence for evolution “basic geology disproves creationism.” The article flows out of his book The Rocks Don’t Lie (2012).

He heads his article with a 1570 painting of Noah’s Ark that looks like a floating bathtub, completely contrary to the Bible’s description. That is just the beginning of the inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and the lack of academic rigor in the article.

He tells us that a slab of polished conglomerate rock on the wall outside his university office easily disproves the creationist view of earth history, including Noah’s Flood as a global catastrophe.
The rocks don't lie, they don't talk at all. To read the rest of the article, click on "Basic Geology Disproves Creationism?"

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Evolutionary Science Continues in Uselessness

Advocates of fish-to-fortune-teller evolution insist that it is supported by predictability. Not hardly. Fact is, when evolutionists are not actually hindering scientific progress by clinging to their paradigms, they are baffled by what they actually observe. 

Advocates of evolution insist that it is supported by predictability. Fact is, evolutionary thinking hinders science, and its scientists are frequently baffled by what they observe.
Snow Leopard / Pixabay / Skeeze
"Did you see that snow leopard?"
"Yeah, I spotted him."

"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"

Yeah, I should stop using old jokes. But then, evolutionists should stop riding that worn-out old nag (their worldview) and get a fresh horse (evidence shows creation, not evolution). Speaking of the snow leopard, cats need low altitude because their hemoglobin isn't good at carrying blood. But the snow leopard is way, way up there in low-oxygen areas. 

Other research baffling evolutionists include how natural selection actually can impede the formation of new species, bunches of new bacterial phyla gnawing at the evolutionary tree of life, sunflowers are pushing back the date of their evolution 20 millions years, "adaptive radiation" needs revising, and more.

To read the news on the above items and more, click on "Evolutionary Enigmas". Also, things are bad for evolutionary cosmology, (including failed predictions) just like down here on Earth. For that one, click on "Cosmic Conundrums".


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Bacteria and — Circuit Boards?

Back when I was going to school (one-room schoolhouse, uphill both ways in the snow, all that kind of thing), we were told in biology class that cells were simple. As science and technology progressed, it turns out that cells are not simple at all. For that matter, even though bacteria are simple, they have more complexity than was expected.

Even simple bacteria are not so simple. They have been meticulously designed, and their metabolisms can act like computer circuit boards.
Pixabay / beear
Bacteria have to adjust to their environments to survive, and scientists who designed a digital version of a portion of a certain metabolism. They use relay switches and other specialized engineering to connect. To cling to evolution despite the complexity of all creatures great and small requires enormous blind faith. Scientists studying bacteria are amazed, but even more amazing is the Creator's mind. He did the precise engineering for not only something that small, but for us, and even the entire universe. 
Bacteria sometimes face a rough life. At about a tenth the size of most plant and animal cells, they have no layer of skin to protect them. Environments can change quickly and if microbes don't have the right tools to adapt, they won't last long. Bioengineers modeled three interdependent aspects of a metabolic system that bacteria use to thrive in ever-changing environments, revealing an underlying array of interrelated parts that they described as "underappreciated."

When biologists seed a fresh batch of sugary broth with C. acetobutylicum bacteria, the first thing those microbes do is harvest the sugar's energy and multiply—their simple method of reproduction. Since no sewage treatment system exists nearby, their organic acid wastes build up around them. But that's no problem for well-equipped bacteria.

When acids mount up, the bacteria switch on a different internal factory that assimilates those wastes and actually converts them into something useful. Sounds simple from a birds-eye view, but when top scientific minds try to make such a system, they discover that bacterial metabolism is far from simple.
To read the rest, click on "Bacteria Metabolisms Are Like Computer Circuit Boards".

Monday, August 17, 2015

My Favorite Martian Fallacy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

What is the attraction to Mars? Maybe people want to go there because the place has atmosphere. Well, there one possibility. Well, it's very thin and mostly carbon dioxide, so that's not it. Maybe it's the long romantic notion of going there. Wild stories about a lady standing on the surface of Mars get people's imaginations a mite agitated. Besides, Venus is so hot and acidic, it melts space probes, so people aren't getting serious notions of visiting there.

Panoramic view from Curiosity Mars Rover / Image Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, MSSS

When people develop a skill in spotting logical fallacies, they can find them in many situations. (Someone must have noticed the fallacy of ambiguity when I equivocated on the word "atmosphere" just above.) I was watching a rerun of My Favorite Martian. It was originally aired in October 1963, and called "Man or Amoeba". You can watch it here if you have a mind to. If so, go ahead and come on back because I'm going to use spoilers.

Decades ago, scientists had ruled out the possibility of advanced life forms living on Mars, but that didn't stop television, books, movies and such from presenting stories about Martians. In the aforementioned episode, the Martian was stranded on Earth and pretending to be Tim O'Hara's "Uncle Martin". He's lived hundreds of Earth years, has special powers, and great intelligence.

Spotting logical fallacies in a television program? Yes. But worse, fallacies and more are used to promote evolutionism and protect secular humanism from logical scrutiny.
Ray Walston as Uncle Martin in My Favorite Martian / 1963 / CBS Television / Public Domain and Fair Use.

Martin offered to help the landlady's daughter write a report for school. They were going to refute the claims of a local scientist who said that any life on Mars could not possibly be more advanced than an amoeba (which was insulting to a space-travelling Martian). The girl received the lowest grade in the class. The main reason was that she went against the scientific consensus, the popular view of "no life on Mars", and the popularity of the local scientist. When Uncle Martin spoke to the teacher, she demanded his credentials before she would discuss the material in the paper.

In all this, I saw appeal to authority, the genetic fallacy, appeal to popular opinion, personal bias — but examining the paper for what it was worth was not going to happen. Later, when the scientist changed his views, suddenly the girl's paper received the highest grade in the class. When the prevailing view shifts, the ones who agree with those in authority seem to be suddenly welcomed.

What happened when Mark Armitage presented scientific evidence that showed soft tissues in dinosaur bones? He got fired. Evolutionist Mary Schweitzer who found dinosaur soft tissues has been ostracized by the scientific community, and evidence is suppressed. Can't rightly challenge the dogma, now, can we? I reckon not!

Secular humanism (read: atheism in disguise) is the unofficial state religion in America and other Western countries, and evolution is foundational to it. Humanism is protected through legislation, rogue activist judges (who violate the Constitution and erode liberties of speech and religion), the leftist media, Darwinistas (who promote evolutionism through trolling, intimidation, ridicule, and other logical fallacies), and more. "Discoveries" for evolution are also motivated by money — which has resulted in many cases of bad science and fraud. You can't rightly get mucho dinero in grants and awards by threatening evolutionism, now, can you?

Fortunately, there are still some of us who stand on our principles. People still exist who have some critical thinking skills, and are not buffaloed by ridicule and other logical fallacies. There are scientists with integrity who are not intimidated by the prevailing evolutionary worldview, and many will show how the scientific evidence refutes evolution and affirms creation. Most importantly, there are still people who stand on the authority of the Word of God.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Saturn System Still Stymies the Millions of Years Gang

Observed evidence from the solar system continues to stymie those who insist on forcing the facts into their old universe paradigm. Studies of Saturn continue to evidence a young solar system, and the old universe gang should realize that they're playing a losing hand.

Observed evidence from the solar system continues to stymie those who insist on forcing the facts into their old universe paradigm. Studies of Saturn continue to evidence a young solar system, and the old universe gang should realize that they're playing a losing hand.
Quadruple Saturn Moon Transit snapped by Hubble
Problems include that Saturn should be much cooler if it's billions of years old, making the heat flow "problem" on Enceladus worse with their speculations, inexplicable red arcs on Tethys, a baffling mountain range ridge on Iapetus, and more.
Cassini keeps revealing puzzling phenomena in the Saturn system that challenge traditional theories and date estimates.

Let’s scour the Saturn system for news, working from the planet outward.
Old universe proponents need to throw in their cards and draw a new hand, something that fits the facts better. To read the article, click on "Saturn Surprises". 

Friday, August 14, 2015

Our Inner "Mission Control"

To have a fully automated system such as self-driving automobiles and such, a great deal of programming would be necessary to adjust for various changes in conditions. Even more so for a fully automated flight system; autopilot can only do just so much, and human pilots need to be nearby. A while back, I saw a program about a robot with a human shape reaching down to pick up an object and straighten back up again. If the object was moved even slightly, it was unable to complete its task and substantial additional programming would be required because it couldn't adjust.

Similarly, notifications and claims to health insurance companies (as well as letters in the post office) are scanned for OCR, then processed through special software. The machine can only do so much, and it takes a human mind to make corrections so it can be processed more accurately. Some changes just won't work in it.

Complex, fully-automated, long-term systems are still beyond the reach of human technology. However, we were created with our own amazingly complex "Mission Control" center.
Space shuttle flight control room in the Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center / Credit: NASA
We have our own Mission Control Center built inside us that adjusts to immediate situations as well as long-term growth and development. Such as system shows the intelligence of the Director who created everything, and shows the absurdity of fungus-to-flight-controller evolution.
Almost everyone has heard of growth hormones, estrogen, testosterone, and adrenaline, and most people are familiar with the exciting effects these hormones have on influencing the way we look or perform. So when talking about the endocrine system, it’s tempting to jump to a discussion of a hormone and its mechanism of action. However, our bodies need some process for slow and steady maintenance and growth. When we approach it as a fascinating display of how vital control systems are designed, then investigating the way the endocrine system generally exerts its type of steady, long-term guidance over growth, development, and daily homeostasis is also exciting.
To read the rest of the article in context, click on "Made in His Image: Designed Control Systems".

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, with research by David Harrison

This is a great time to be a biblical creationist! Science supports creation and is hostile to evolution, even though Darwin's ranch hands get all het up about the facts and conjure up train loads of fact-free excuses.

Some of the more recent events include:
  • The refutation of "junk" DNA (which creationists predicted was not junk at all, and were proved right)
  • The magnetic fields of several planets fit creationist predictions while evolutionary predictions were astronomically (heh!) wrong
  • Uninformed remarks by C. Richard Dawkins and others about "bad design" have been refuted
  • Carbon-14 where it "doesn't belong", such as coal, diamonds, and so forth
  • The amazing complexity of biology, down to the cellular level
  • Stars and galaxies convolute "deep time" cosmology
  • Various planets, their moons (as well as our own), and other things in the solar system are not acting "old", but instead evidence a young solar system
  • Neanderthals were fully human, even interbreeding with "modern" humans
  • "Lucy" is losing status as a transitional form to our supposed evolutionary past
  • Evidence that dinosaurs have not been extinct for alleged millions of years, and have lived with humans
  • It just keeps getting better
Evolutionists are often hostile to scientists who present evidence that refutes their dogmas. Also, scientific evidence is being suppressed, especially regarding soft tissues in dinosaurs.
Pixabay.com / Efraimstochter

We're going to focus on the recent dinosaur discoveries. I posted some links a spell back about dinosaurs in the Bible, and more recently, I listened to a podcast where David Harrison of Spark Light Ministries [1] was interviewed by Michael Boehm of Youth Apologetics Training [2] regarding dinosaur soft tissues as well as historical evidence of man and dinosaurs co-existing. I made a link to two articles on biblical dinosaur articles as well as the two-part podcast [3]. The discussion was very interesting, and there were a couple of things for which I asked if Mr. Harrison's documentation was handy. (In interviews and discussions like this, people don't tend to keep supporting links nearby.) It turns out that David went to a lot of work and gave me a wagon load of information.

One question I had was about his remark that Mary Schweitzer has been ostracized because of the dinosaur soft tissues work, even though she's an evolutionist. I reckon he's right. From a "Discover" article:
Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. [4]
From the anti-creationist, Bible-compromising "Biologos" site:
Finding soft tissues that responded to our tests like modern materials in many ways, suggested that after three hundred years of looking at this stuff, we don’t know as much as we thought. It’s also hard because, being a Christian evolutionary biologist, I receive a lot of mail that is not fun—fellow Christians suspect my faith, and scientific colleagues suspect my science. But I have no agenda, except to produce data. [5]
Creation Ministries International (CMI) had this to say:
But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’” [6]
An article at Smithsonian.com included this bit of hostility toward her work:
“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” [7]
No bones about it, since scientific discoveries did not comport with evolutionary dogma, Schweitzer isn't exactly welcome in the saloon at the Darwin ranch. For that matter, evolutionists were hostile to the work of Mark Armitage on dinosaur soft tissues [8, 9]. Can't let the facts get in the way of promoting the state religion of humanism, which is built on evolution, can we? After all, if dinosaurs lived recently, then many old-earth speculations get stampeded off a cliff.

We can hope that Mary Schweitzer will reconsider her evolutionary views and realize that the evidence, including her own, supports recent creation.

Remember that I said there were two things I asked David Harrison about? Of course you do, readers here are bright and pay attention. Anyway, the second question was about how dinosaur soft tissue research is censored in the United States. It wouldn't surprise me if those owlhoots pulled stunts like that. Yep, they did.

Here is a quote from CMI.
The researchers seem to be associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. One of these reports states that afterwards, “the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.” [10]
In addition to censorship, the British Humanist Association uses a straw man fallacy to ridicule creationists [11]. Not surprising, since bigotry and censorship against creationary scientists is rampant [12]. For those inclined to dig deeper, here is a PDF, "Censorship of Information on Origins" [13]. It's typical of those who live by a "survival of the fittest" worldview to lie that creationists do not publish in scientific journals [14].

Seems to me that it's a reasonable conclusion to make that Darwinistas are afraid because more and more evidence supports biblical creation and refutes evolution. They need to wake up and stop suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:18-10). God judged the world once with the Flood, and he's coming back. The final Judgment will be with fire (2 Peter 3:7). Where will you be on that day?

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Can Scientists be Wrong about Evolution?

People cotton to the notion that scientists in their nice lab coats are purveyors of truth — especially when there is a consensus involved. They're right because they're scientists, you know. Not necessarily. Scientists have been wrong on things through the ages (see "Can all those scientists be wrong?" and a fun list of "Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories [That Turned out to be Wrong]" for some interesting examples). Also, just because there's a consensus does not guarantee accuracy. Don't forget that.

Scientists can be wrong, and the scientific consensus has been wrong many times in the past. Can they be wrong about evolution as well? Yes.

Evolution is a big thing, and the public as well as most secular scientists accept it as a "fact". There are folks who present scientists as having a unified front regarding evolution, but there are some who risk ridicule and resist peer pressure in disputing it. Darwinists have a great deal of pressure to perform (gotta get that grant money), so we get a passel of sloppy science and speculations presented as scientific truth. The main problem is that they are starting from their biases and presuppositions. That means they are interpreting evidence through their Darwin spectacles, which distort their vision.
If ‘science’ and ‘all those scientists’ have shown evolution to be valid, how can anyone claim otherwise? Much of the resistance we meet in the creation science ministry is vaguely based upon this sort of notion.

It is fairly easy to point out that we cannot directly observe or repeat the past, and so the normal scientific method, by which we now understand so much of how the present world operates, cannot be applied here. Nevertheless, many find it hard to cope with the idea that the acceptance and development of the whole framework of evolutionary thought has a great deal to do with individual biases and beliefs of scientists themselves. The popular idea is that scientists are like emotionless robots who have buried their personal prejudices in the cause of an unbiased search for truth. Perhaps the virginal white of lab coats somehow contributes to this image!

Even those who admit that, as individuals, scientists have prejudices and strongly held beliefs, often maintain that, nevertheless, the progress of scientific thinking and knowledge as a whole operates with purity and precision. The ‘rough edges’ of each scientist’s personal preferences and biases become polished off when ideas, like stones in a tumbler, clash and contact each other in the scientific arena.

Of course we maintain that it is not, and cannot be, quite like this, and that the background biases of scientists, whether individually or collectively, will influence their research and conclusions in this area. This is true for creationist scientists as well, of course. In fact, rather than acting as a correcting factor, the influences of a ‘group’ interaction result in an even stronger collective bias. The tendency towards a unified, broad and monolithically impressive category of thought is accelerated by two phenomena.
To finish reading the article, click on "Can they all be wrong?".