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

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Secrets of Migratory Birds Revealed

For ages, people have been cognating on where birds go, and why, and then get re-mystified when they return. Some of the speculations of old were quite fanciful. With advances in science and improved abilities to observe, we're finding out some of the secrets of migratory birds.

For ages, people have wondered where migratory birds go, and why. Better observation abilities and scientific discoveries and revealing some of these secrets.
Pixabay / Antranias
The question of "Why do they migrate?" began to have an answer back in the 1500s. Scientists have discovered that they have internal navigation systems, and these testify to the wisdom of their Creator, and frustrate bacteria-to-bird evolutionists.
Who hasn’t thrilled to the sight of V-formations of migrating geese as they wing their way north to their nesting grounds, or heard them squawking overhead in autumn as they head back south to spend the winter in milder climates? This amazing, predictable movement occurs twice each year, involving millions of birds worldwide, traveling hundreds and even thousands of miles. Truly, “migration is the most spectacular of bird movements.”

But for centuries this phenomenon was shrouded in mystery. Why do birds migrate and when do they travel? Where are they headed and how do they know where to go?

Until recently, erroneous theories abounded. Aristotle believed that certain species hid in holes in the ground and in trees, where they became featherless until the following spring. Carolus Linnaeus, who gave us the binomial classification system for all living creatures, believed that swallows wintered underwater.
To read the rest of the article, all y'all can flock on over to "Birds’ Flawless Flight Plan".

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Dark Matter, Dark This, Dark That — Now Dark Photons?

Yet another rescuing device for the failed Big Bang cosmology is something called "dark photons". These, too, are unobserved and unprovable. Efforts to avoid the Creator are sounding increasingly desperate.

The Big Bang has failed more ways than we can count, so evolutionary cosmologists continue with add-ons and tweaks to try to make it more plausible. Since scientific evidence does not support the Big Bang, they added inflation and dark matter, dark, energy, dark whatever, and now add dark photons.

All of the dark-this-n-that ideas have no substance. Literally. There is no evidence for them except in the imaginations of Big Bang proponents. Some putative evidence has been put forward (gravitational lensing in one galaxy), but there is more evidence for Bigfoot than for dark matter and such. Also, they are assuming not only that dark matter and such exist, but that they are the only explanations for what is observed. We don't need piles of increasingly desperate stories to justify the denial of the Creator, and the actual evidence indicates that the universe was created — and created more recently than those owlhoots want to admit.
First it was dark matter, then came dark energy, followed by dark fluid, dark flow, and dark radiation; and now a new entity is suggested for the dark sector of particle physics—dark photons. The dark sector is full of hypothetical entities designed to save the big bang story but it is really just a lot of cosmic storytelling.

The idea is that the collision of the galaxies separates the normal matter from the dark matter due to their interaction. Previously I have argued that dark matter is a sort of ‘god of the gaps’,the ‘unknown god’ in astrophysics. It is an unknown invoked to explain the inexplicable, which, if you follow the chain of logic, is required to maintain a belief in the big bang paradigm. Its existence is only inferred from the application of known physics to certain observations in the universe. Without assuming the existence of some exotic unknown dark matter comprising about 25% of the matter/energy content of the universe the standard big bang model would have to be discarded as a total failure.

Dark matter has never been observed in space or in any laboratory experiment.
To brighten your day, you can finish reading the article by clicking on "‘Dark photons’: another cosmic fudge factor".


Monday, September 28, 2015

Evolutionary Thinking Hinders Science Again

Scientists have made unwarranted assumptions regarding evidence, and then proceeded to reach erroneous conclusions. This leads to lack of actual scientific investigation, and asserting speculations instead of doing scientific investigation.

Scientists using evolutionary presuppositions have not only saddled up the wrong horse, but ridden the wrong trail. That is, they've made unwarranted assumptions regarding evidence, and then proceeded to reach erroneous conclusions.

A whale fossil was found, and they used the "died, sank to the bottom, turned into a fossil over millions of years" story, even though their own observations show their assumptions to be false. In addition, the discovery of a virus in permafrost was also the subject of assumptions. This leads to lack of actual scientific investigation, and asserting speculations instead of doing scientific investigation.

The whale was buried rapidly by a global Flood? Nope, can't have that. Frozen virus less than 30,000 years old? Nope, can't have that either. We're scientists, ya know. You can read about the whale fossil and the virus by clicking on "Fossils Defy Slow, Gradual Deposition Over Long Ages".


Saturday, September 26, 2015

Podcast — Creation in Each Testament

Why are there more verses in the Old Testament about creation than in the New Testament? Dr. Scripture shares some thoughts.

Someone asked Scripture on Creation about how there seems to be much more about creation in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. Dr. Scripture and Scott Kump discuss this and make some interesting points.

I'd like to add that I believe one reason that there is less about creation in the New Testament is because of the audience. Most of the Bible is comprised of epistles to believers, so there was not much need to emphasize creation. Similarly, when Peter was preaching in Acts 2, he started with Scripture because he was preaching to monotheistic Jews who had that foundation, but in Acts 17, Paul was talking to pagan evolutionist Greeks, so he began with the Creator.

Anyway, this 13-minute podcast is worth your time. There are a few clicks involved to hear the show. First, go to this radio program link. Then, click on the "Launch Sermon Player" link. Look for the 9/17/15 link, "Creation in the OT vs. NT (rebroadcast)" to listen on the site (or download). If you're having difficulties, here is a direct MP3 download link.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Evolutionary Proselytizing Advantages

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Proponents of particles-to-propagandist evolution have an easy job. The groundwork has been laid by false science, popular opinion, appeals to authority, other logical fallacies, and especially through emotional manipulation. Propaganda techniques include:
  • Using entertainment media
  • Dominating the press
  • Concentration and repetition
  • Emotional manipulation
  • Creating a common enemy to hate (such as biblical creation science)
  • Pseudo-deification of a leader (done with Darwin, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson, and others)
  • Appeal to a higher good ("science" education)
  • Confusion (equivocating evolution and science)
  • Arbitrary assertions
  • Fraud peddled as science
  • Control of textbooks
  • Ridicule
  • and more
Since the scientific evidence is strongly against the cult of evolutionism, fundamentalist evolutionists resort to emotional manipulation maneuvers resembling, "Real science is free of inflexible dogma and subject to independent peer review. Creation science is based on religious dogma, denial and cronyism". I'll let students of logical fallacies take that tinhorn rant apart. (No, it won't be on the test because it's too easy, so dismantling it is for amusement purposes. However, I will say that it's based on arbitrariness, faith in Scientism and empiricism, and is self-refuting.) Similarly, the Peppered Moth "evidence" for evolution has been refuted, but Darwinoids cite evolutionists who say, "No it isn't refuted!", spin the story, then proceed to call us the liars when they are the ones propagating untruths. One reason that people believe lies like this is because evolution propaganda has been so well established.

When Darwinists insist on teaching their biased views of origins, it is "science education". When creationists teach our children biblical truth, it's "indoctrination". The real indoctrination comes from fundamentalist evolutionists.
Image generated at AtomSmasher.org
Question Evolution Day supporter Doug McBurney added fuel to my fire in his Weekly Worldview podcast in a section he calls, "Science — Really?" Although I like his Conservative and biblical commentary and suggest hearing the whole show, the part relevant to this article is from the 47 minute 35 second mark through the 55 minute mark. You can get the free download here. He made the point that evolutionists make proclamations and the press makes the findings known, but do we hear about retractions and dismissals? Not hardly! Even when bad science is quietly dismissed and forgotten by the establishment, the damage is done, people are left believing false "science".

They blatant hypocrisy is that evolutionists are documented for not only using speculations and fakery instead of actual science, but are claiming that when biblical creationists want to educate our children in God's Word, we are "indoctrinating". To be blunt, this is a fascist mindset, they want to brainwash the children, and they do not want competition for evolutionism. We still have some rights left, and will teach the truth.


Thursday, September 24, 2015

Coelacanth C'est la Guerre

The Coelacanth was a staple of evolutionary dogma as a transitional form between sea creatures and something evolving parts to live on land. Naturally, it was just a campfire tale. Worse for Darwinists, the critter was seen alive, well — and unchanged; a living fossil. Why didn't it evolve? The rescuing device was that it didn't need to, even after alleged millions of years. It was beginning to, right? Must have changed its mind, despite all the changes it endured over all that time. Also, the budding legwork turned out to have other functions and had nothing to do with evolution after all, it was designed the way it is by its Creator.

Evolutionists are trying to resurrect the coelacanth, which embarrassed them before by being found alive and unchanged. New bad science is added to the just-so stories.
Coelacanth replica / Wikimedia Commons / © Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0
But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the dawn, and additional evolutionary campfire tales are the sun! Yep, they're trying to bring this thing back by compounding their errors. Hilarity ensues among thinking people at their propaganda efforts. C'est la guerre.
Instead of showing remorse over a Lazarus taxon, evolutionists invoke another besetting sin: vestigial organs.

The poster child for living fossils is Coelacanth, a lobe-finned fish long thought extinct till a living one was found swimming just fine in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. That discovery drowned notions of it evolving into a land animal, because its bony fins were not used for locomotion on the bottom in shallow waters. Instead, the fish spends much of its time in a vertical posture.

One might suppose that evolutionists would be embarrassed by this double falsification. One might hope they would turn their attention to either finding more fossils of coelacanths in the intervening layers of the fossil record, or admitting that evolution did almost nothing to these fish for allegedly 66 million years since they went extinct. Even worse, evolutionists must admit there was no major change to the coelacanth kind for 344 million years, according to their standard evolutionary timeline.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Was Coelacanth a Lungfish?" By the way, the mockery of the "Lazarus taxon" is ironic, because although Lazarus was raised from the dead, he died again later. For eternal life, that requires faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in just-so stories to bolster man's rebellion against God. 

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Still Another Threat to the Big Bang

With all the discoveries confounding cosmic evolution, you'd think the Big Bang fanciers would saddle up and ride back to the ranch. But no, they persist in sewing onto that patchwork quilt with new excuses and calling it "science".

The Big Bang keeps getting more problems, and cosmologists still believe in it. This newest problem, a ring of galaxies, will call for monumental excuse-making.

Discoveries in our own solar system keep on refuting "deep time", what with planets, moons, asteroids and things acting "young" and so forth. Further out in space, other problems for stellar evolution have been found, but the Frankenstein's monster of the Big Bang keeps getting added on, tweaked, and added onto so that the current Big Bang is not only thoroughly unscientific and based on blind faith, but it has little resemblance to the original Big Bang conjecture. Now we have what looks like a ring of galaxies. That can't happen according to that cosmology. Of course, biblical creationists have no problem with it.
A team of astronomers from Hungary and the United States, led by Professor Lajos Balázs of Konkoly Observatory in Budapest, has announced the discovery of an enormous ring of galaxies. According to the Big Bang model, this ring should not exist.

The galaxies were identified from gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)—extremely intense, narrow beams of high-energy electromagnetic radiation which are thought to result from the collapse of high-mass stars. The astronomers estimated that the gamma-ray bursts originated in nine galaxies located approximately seven billion light-years from Earth. These galaxies are thought to be part of a ring of galaxies so large that it spans a very large portion of the sky—an area 70 times greater than the apparent diameter of the full moon. Despite this fact, the astronomers argue that the nine galaxies are almost certainly part of the same giant structure.

If they are correct, then this would imply the existence of a gargantuan ring of galaxies, although Balázs claims that the ring could also be the result of a spherical structure. Either way, the apparent structure is enormous—an estimated five billion light-years across.
To read the rest, click on "Giant Galaxy Ring Shouldn't Exist".

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Chasin' Down the Hoodoos at Bryce Canyon

Two mainly American things going on with the word hoodoo. In one sense, it loosely refers to folk magic or eerie stuff happening. In "Born on the Bayou", Creedence Clearwater Revival (guys who were from California) mentioned the old hound dog "chasin' down a hoodoo". The other use of the word is the hoodoos of Bryce Canyon, which is not really a canyon, but the edge of a high plateau. So we have one word with differing meanings, and a canyon that's not a canyon. Weird.

The hoodoos at Bryce Canyon are best explained through Genesis Flood geology as well as subsequent geologic processes.
Bryce Canyon National Park / National Park Service
Weird stuff aside, this is about geology. More specifically, how the hoodoos were the result of geologic processes. Uniformitarian views do not give an adequate explanation of how those pillars were made, but Genesis Flood geology gives a more complete picture of how they really formed.
The visitor overlooks at Bryce Canyon, Utah, provide a breathtaking spectacle of row upon row of towering columns painted pink, red, white, and orange. Together, these columns were formed in a series of horseshoe-shaped amphitheaters, cut into the surrounding cliffs. The largest and most spectacular is Bryce Amphitheater, about 12 miles (19 km) wide and 800 feet (245 m) deep, sporting thousands of columns.

Standing guard along the rim of a natural amphitheater is an army of tall columns, called hoodoos. Conditions were just right after the flood to form them rapidly. It is hard to capture in photographs the exquisite beauty of such a vast and devastated landscape. Particularly stunning are the delicate hoodoos, slender columns with balancing “hats” on them that look ready to fall, and sometimes do!

Native American legends say these statues were the Legend People—animals that took on human form but committed a wicked deed and were turned into stone. Some were standing in rows, some sitting, and some clutching each other. You can still see the red paint on their faces.

Evolutionists and Flood geologists both say these colorful layers formed at the bottom of a lake and that tectonic forces later pushed up the layers, exposing them to erosion. Evolutionists say this erosion occurred over millions of years.
To finish reading, click on "Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon". No hoodoo in the hoodoos, just geology.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Oxygen in Early Earth's Atmosphere

A problem for evolutionists is the existence of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Evidence frustrates evolutionists because it shows oxygen was there from the beginning — like creationists said all along.

One of the biggest problems for evolutionary origin of life speculations is the presence of oxygen. It cannot exist at the beginning because life could not begin to evolve in the first place, so evolutionists have to keep moving the dates for when oxygen first appeared. Although disputed (molecular evidence is blurry after alleged billions of years, I reckon), there is geologic evidence that oxygen has been there all along — just like biblical creationists have said. Now there is additional evidence supporting a very early date for the presence of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. That's how it was created in the beginning.
Evolutionists have claimed that the early atmosphere during the Archean, older than 2.5 Ga within their timescale, contained no oxygen. Oxygen in the atmosphere will oxidize any developing organic molecule and make it non-biological. After about 2.4 Ga, the evolution of photosynthetic bacteria caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to be replaced by oxygen, which rapidly accumulated to form a substantial portion of the current atmosphere oxygen. Evolutionists term this the Great Oxidation Event (GOE).

However, the timing of the GOE has been under debate. Some believe that the GOE occurred a billion years earlier. One of the problems in resolving the debate is that the Archean is so long ago and the evidence is sketchy and difficult to interpret. Moreover, evolutionists assert that billions of years of evolution has obscured the molecular vestiges of the early events.
To read the rest, take a deep breath and click on "Did the early Earth’s atmosphere contain oxygen?"

Saturday, September 19, 2015

God Created Man Created God

A quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) reads, "In the beginning God made man in His image. And man has been returning the favor ever since." Although Mark Twain was not an atheist (despite claims to the contrary), he had disdain for many aspects of organized religion. What is interesting is that this is true to some extent. People will make up an image of God that they like, expressed in statements like, "My God would...", but seldom have anything to do with the Bible. This is idolatry. Unfortunately, some professing Christians have built up a comfortable, unbiblical, wimpy Jesus that they can worship — which is also idolatry.

Atheists have no consistent standard for morality. Hold your horses, Herman! I'm not saying that atheists have no morality. In fact, many have high standards. But they have no consistent standard. When an unbeliever says, "That's wrong, you're bad for doing...", they're actually appealing to a higher standard (God) and affirming the Bible (Romans 2:15, Romans 1:18-22)! Still, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and deny their Creator.

To avoid admitting that morality comes from God, some evolutionists are trying to make their own false god and base morality on evolution.

It has been said that religion was created to control people, a statement that cannot be verified. Yes, some religious groups (like the Roman Catholic Church) have used it to keep and consolidate political power, but that abuse does not substantiate the claim that it was made for such a purpose. Some unbelievers appeal to evolution as a basis for their morality, which, when you cognate on it for a spell, is ridiculous. Nature red in tooth and claw, survival of the fittest, time, chance, random processes — no thanks. Still, relying on their presuppositions that evolution is true, some are trying to do that very thing, which makes natural selection a false god and source for morality.
Another theory is making the rounds that social groups invented moralizing gods to keep people under control.

Once upon a time, hunter-gatherers lived in small groups that were able to check on each other. But then a mutation happened, and people started to live in large groups that were too big for everyone to know everyone. As towns grew into cities, tribal chieftans needed ways to keep non-cooperators from getting out of hand, so they invented moralizing gods. And thus, religion became adaptive by natural selection.

This is the theory Ara Norenzayan has been working on for the last few years (see 11/09/09, “Darwinizing of Religion Continues” and 12/06/11, “The Science of Atheism”). A Lebanese-born American sociologist very experienced with his native country’s sectarian warfare fueled by religious fervor, Norenzayan is now working to legitimize his theory with scientific-sounding data to support the thesis of his 2013 book, Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict. With compadre Edward Slingerland, he his seeking out religion experts in the humanities departments to “check boxes” on a new “Database of Religious History.”
To read the rest of this excellent article, click on "Did Man Create God, or Vice Versa?"

Friday, September 18, 2015

Hox Genes — Evolution Fails

Proponents of atoms-to-athlete evolution insist that evolution has predictability. This is the opposite of what is actually observed, since evolution has lack of predictability and lack of benefit. Many of the predictions made by evolutionists seem to require people to put aside their reasoning ability and put their faith in the mystical esoteric knowledge of the high priests of evolutionism.

Evolutionists claim that their science has predictability. This has been proved false many times, especially in genetics and the Hox genes.
Hox Cluster / Public Doman / Squidonius

Falsified predictions in evolutionary thinking are readily apparent, especially in genetics. The Hox gene (combining the words homeobox and homeotic) are strong indicators that God is the designer, not the mad god of naturalism.
Without a doubt, humans, chimpanzees, and other organisms share some very similar features. One explanation for the origin of these features is that they reflect similar designs that serve similar purposes. The common design inference is quite intuitive since components of complicated human-designed systems are all directly analogous to other creature’s features for similar purposes, such as their structural frameworks, pumps, sensors, and data processors.

People willing to hypothesize that God’s supernatural design and creativity caused the great diversity of life on Earth have, for millennia, acknowledged the plausibility of the common-design explanation.

Another approach some people use to explain all phenomena is naturalism, which closes off any appeal to supernatural intelligence or power and rather presupposes that nature’s matter and forces alone are sufficient causes of the origin of the universe and life itself. But naturalism has to appeal to mystical mechanisms since people have never observed anything design and create itself by mechanisms known to have originated purely by nature’s matter and forces.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test".

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Distant Starlight — Creation Science's "Elephant in the Room"?

The "speed of light problem" is considered by some evolutionists to be an insurmountable problem for creationists. Not only are creationist scientists addressing this, but the speed of light is actually a huge problem for Big Bang proponents.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most frequent "Gotcha!" attempts from evolutionists that I've encountered at The Question Evolution Project and other places online is the "distant starlight" problem. That is, when we bring up the many evidences for a young Earth, solar system, and universe, those get ignored and the owlhoot campfire red herring song is sung: "We see light from stars billions of light years away, therefore, the universe must be old, the Big Bang is right, and you're wrong". They act like it's the creation science "elephant in the room" that is being ignored.

First, in their efforts to slap leather with creationists, they're shooting themselves in the foot instead. The Big Bang is loaded with difficulties and ad hoc "explanations" (rescuing devices), including it's own light travel difficulty called the "horizon problem". Also, changing the subject (which was evidence presented for a young Earth) and attacking with cosmology and the "speed of light problem" is something I reckon to be intellectually dishonest, and smacks of desperation. In addition, there's another kind of arrogance in that people make dogmatic assertions, but the nature of light and the universe is not exactly thoroughly understood.

Even so, creationist scientists are addressing the question of a young universe and distant starlight. Several models are put forward, with the understanding that models are models, they can be modified or discarded, but the authors hold to the truth of the Word of God. The material is well above my pay grade, but I'm making it available for people who want to examine it. Don't forget to check out the other recommended reading links provided at these sites.
I hope these materials prove informative and useful, and perhaps something to link to so it's available when you're asked.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Darwinism is Beyond Useless in Neuroscience

Evolutionary ideas are beyond worthless is neuroscience. The truth is, God gave us intelligently designed brains that he intends for us to use properly.

Give some thought to your brain and how it works, if you don't mind. There are many new discoveries showing that bacteria-to-brain-surgeon evolution has nothing to do with the amazing complexity of the mind and various thinking abilities. The truth is, God gave us intelligently designed brains that he intends for us to use properly.

The vision center is not just hard-wired for vision, forming neuron patters to learn new motor skills, processing information to realize if something is new or familiar, and more. Evolutionary "explanations" only get in the way — if they are offered at all. To learn the details, I'd lobe it if you clicked on "Built-in Brain Designs that Amaze Scientists".

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Dragon of the Sea?

All too often during discussions about evidence that dinosaurs existed with humans, some owlhoot will exclaim something akin to, "You creationists are stupid! Dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, and the word dinosaur doesn't even appear in the Bible!"

Sure, Skippy. Except that the Bible has existed far, far longer than the word dinosaur. The most popular translation, the King James ("Authorized") Version, was first released to the public in 1611, and Richard Owen didn't come up with the word until 1841 or 1842 (sources disagree on the exact year). For that matter, biblical descriptions of behemoth, leviathan, and possibly the winged fiery serpent were dismissed by commentators because 'tweren't none around at commentary time. You savvy? Actually, discoveries of dinosaur bones and fossils actually helped clear up some passages in the Bible that were baffling before.

Were dragons of the sea and land just the stuff of legend, or is there more to the story? Yes, there's much more.
Modified segment of "Carta marina" by Olaus Magnus, 1539
There are many accounts of dragons throughout history. (Remember, the word dinosaur had not been invented yet.) The mocker "quoted" above might say, "Yeah, but people were bringing fears and myths from their primordial evolutionary past with them. Stuff like scary monsters, God, and stuff that we have progressed past as we evolved". Such presuppositions preclude people from actually examining the evidence. After all, even though the logical conclusion is that dinosaurs and man existed together, which threatens the alleged millions of years age of the Earth, which in turns threatens dust-to-Darwin evolutionism, which requires the aforementioned millions of years to happen. The concept of recent creation instead of long-term mindless evolution is anathema to secularist and Bible compromisers.

Consider that people were actually giving accounts of what they saw. Sure, there would be some sensationalism and embellishments from frightened folks, but the details are often very similar, even on a global scale. Say, how about that sea dragon found on a Danish ship, anyway?
On August 11 [2015], researchers from Södertörn University in Sweden raised an ancient 660-pound ship's prow from the floor of the Baltic Sea. The 11-foot-long beam features an exquisite dragon carving. Discovery News wrote that Marcus Sandekjer, head of the nearby Blekinge Museum which aided the extraction "believes it looks like a monstrous dog." It fits in well with other sea-serpent artwork in history.

Carvings and written descriptions of a dog-headed, long-necked sea serpent called "ketos" in Greek are found sprinkled across the ancient world. An online search for "ketos" reveals a consistent theme. Similar-looking features found on artwork from several countries span over a thousand years. One possible reason why all these different artists illustrated the same basic water creature—on figurines, paintings, tapestries, mosaics, and carvings— was that they had live animals to reference. But few researchers think this way.
To read the rest, click on "Sea Serpent on Danish Ship Prow". Also, there's a short news video, below. 


Monday, September 14, 2015

Can There Be Life on Kepler-452b?

Some evolutionist owlhoots act like if there is life elsewhere in the universe such as on Kepler-452b, it means Christians should throw away their Bibles, ride into town, and have a good time in the saloon. But they're getting ahead of themselves. We keep hearing about "life elsewhere in the universe", which seems to be implying that the discussion is about sentient beings that are going to wave back to us and say, "Howdy!"

Some evolutionist owlhoots act like if there is life elsewhere in the universe such as on Kepler-452b, it means Christians should throw away their Bibles. But they're getting ahead of themselves.
Artist's conception comparing Kepler-452b to Earth.
Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle
There are other reasons these people are a long ways ahead of themselves. Just because a planet is in the "habitable zone" is not a guarantee that it's suitable for life. Kepler-452b is in the zone, so evolutionists are full of joy that maybe there's liquid water there, and maybe the building blocks of life. Building blocks alone do not make for life, they need to be intelligently and intricately arranged, and assuming that evolution is a fact despite the impossibility of abiogenesis. Then they have to establish that life is there instead of making assumptions; evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions are not evidence of anything. Even if some kind of unintelligent life was actually found there — big deal. Despite the misrepresentations of anti-creationists and evolutionists, such a thing would not disprove the Bible nor negate our Creator, no matter how much they disunderstand and misrepresent God's Word. These folks need to holler, "Whoa!" and think for a spell.
The news media is currently full of the news of the discovery of Kepler-452b, the planet that is supposed to be Earth’s twin. It was discovered using the satellite-borne telescope, Kepler, where the exoplanet was found to be at a distance of about 1400 light-years. It has a mass about five times that of Earth and diameter about 60% larger, hence a gravity nearly double that of Earth. It has a year about 20 days longer than Earth. That makes it the most similar planet to Earth yet and it is located in the habitable zone around its parent star, which is a G-class star, the same class as our sun.

You see pictures . . . of a planet with oceans and land masses and some even with green vegetation drawn in. But none of these are actual images of the planet. It is too far away for such a thing, even with man’s best telescopes.

Life could only arise through a super-intelligence creating it, it would not ‘evolve’ anywhere. Why all the hype? Well, it is the hope of life being found elsewhere. The way it goes is: find an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone, called the Goldilocks zone—not too hot, not too cold, but just right—the distance from the parent star where water is in its liquid form—detect the presence of water in its atmosphere and that gives you a good chance of finding life.
To read the rest, click on "Life on Earth 2.0—Really? Discovery of Kepler-452b"

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Homo naledi — Your Nonexistent Evolutionary Ancestor

Once again, the press are all agitated about the Latest Evolutionary Find™ tagged Homo naledi. Crawling through a small opening in a cave that would give some of us claustrophobia, some paleoanthropologists are calling a jumble of bones something we evolved from. I reckon they have proof, since the artist's reconstruction, complete with human-like eyes, must be right, and they know what the eyes looked like... Not hardly!

Evolutionists are excited by a pile of bones that they call our evolutionary ancestor. But there's nothing to them to indicate anything of significance.

Stampedes of gleeful assertions from the secular press aside, there is disagreement about the critter in the ranks of the evolutionists. Sure, they start from the presuppositions that evolution is true and build some kind of evolutionary connection from there. However, they have nothing to connect Homo naledi with humanity. Know why? Humans and apes were created separately.
Homo naledi—a South African fossil assemblage classified as a new Homo species by paleoanthropologist Lee Berger—is stirring up controversy as evolutionists debate its identity and significance. The cache of 1,550 bones was recovered from loose dirt in the nearly inaccessible Dinaledi chamber of South Africa’s Rising Star cave system. The fossils were harvested by a team of slender scientists and spelunkers who had to belly crawl 80 meters through a narrow tunnel, climb a rock wall, and then drop down a chute into the chamber where other spelunkers had reported finding bones. The bones seem to belong to at least 15 infants, juveniles, and adults of the same species—whatever it is.


Berger’s team believes the bones paint a mosaic picture of a species mixing human-like “Homo” and australopithecine ape features. Composites constructed from four partial skulls in the assemblage have small brain capacities—560 cc and 465 cc—that overlap the usual brain capacities of australopithecines. Such braincases are much smaller than those seen in most archaic humans1 and less than half the average for modern humans. Nevertheless, despite a sloped lower face and—based on the published photographs—no visible evidence of the protruding nasal bones typical of all humans, Berger has identified the fossils as a new species of human ancestor, Homo naledi.
To read the rest, click on "Is Homo naledi a New Species of Human Ancestor?" Also, see "Homo naledi, a New Human Ancestor?", which has some points of disagreement with the AiG article featured above, underscoring the uncertainties in the discovery.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Texas Tyrannosaurus Tracks

It seems like finding dinosaur footprints would be unexciting, what with there being billions of them and all. And yet, more are being found. There's a "dinosaur freeway" of tracks from New Mexico to Colorado that have new tracks revealed, usually after a flood. Imagine cowboys riding herd on dinosaurs for that distance. Well, they did a sizable trek from Texas to Kansas in the heyday of cattle drives, but cattle aren't prone to eating horses. Sorry, my imagination needs to be lassoed.

More tracks on the "dinosaur freeway" have been discovered, this time in Texas. The Genesis Flood models offer the best explanation for what is observed.
Buckhorn Wash, Utah, dinosaur print
Image credit: US Department of the Interior BLM
Anyway, new dinosaur tracks have been found practically in the backyard of the Institute for Creation Research after a flood receded. Several kinds were found, puzzling paleontologists. Yet again, creationists' Genesis Flood models have the better explanation.
Spring rains flooded the Dallas area this year, including Lake Grapevine which is about 10 miles west of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) campus. Record water levels submerged entire lakeside parks and adjacent roads. As the water slowly receded, it revealed a reshaped shoreline—and dinosaur tracks. What kinds of creatures made these marks?

Local news interviewed area paleontologists who made casts of the dinosaur tracks. The paleontologists will not reveal the tracks' exact locations, but showed that some were theropods and others ornithopods. The former includes tyrannosaurs and the latter includes the most numerous dinosaur kind in North America: the duck-billed hadrosaur. Ronald Tykoski of the Perot Museum of Science and Nature in Dallas said in an online video by NBC 5 News that perhaps the theropods were hunting the duckbills.

What preserved these dinosaur tracks at Lake Grapevine? Secular explanations leave plenty of room for doubt. They tell tales of dinosaurs wading across placid ancient shorelines surrounding a vast and shallow inland sea. If those conditions somehow preserved footprints back then, why do the same conditions erase footprints today?
To read the rest, step on over to "Dinosaur Footprints in Dallas". Also, the secular perspective news report video is here.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Pterosaur Pictograph and Overgeneralization

Anti-creationists have been known to use hasty and overgeneralizations (among other logical fallacies) to describe the positions held by biblical creationists. The "pterosaur carved by Native Americans at Black Canyon, Utah" is a splendid example of how some tinhorns can act. They want to prove us wrong, but use logical fallacies to do it. Oh, please.

This character who strikes me as a P.Z. Myers wannabe claims that it's "actual science smacking down creationist fairy tales" (straw man, question-begging epithet), and uses a fallacy of reification in the title, "Pterodactyl Murdered by Science!" Hard to take people like this seriously.

A minor "evidence" for creationism has apparently been debunked. Some evolutionists are overgeneralizing, acting like all of creation science has been overthrown. To be consistent, they should check their own track record of errors, recalled peer reviewed papers, outright fraud, and more.
Couldn't find a picture of the image under discussion that I felt I could legally use, so I made something up.
Original image from US BLM, with pterosaur clip art.
The facts are that some creationists used the idea that the Native American pictograph looked like a pterosaur, but that idea was certainly not the entirety of young Earth arguments, nor did we hang our Stetsons it for all of biblical creation science. A few people used it, but the idea had been minor at best. To overgeneralize and act like, "AHA! Creation science is refuted!" is appallingly silly. So, creationists who even think of the "pterosaur" will probably be thinking, "Oh, no good? Okay, let's move on. We have far better material anyway". We want to present the best possible information, and if something is speculative, we try to be consistent in saying so. We've left faulty arguments behind in the past, we'll do so in the future, no problem. See "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".Too bad evolutionists don't show the same attitude, what with rampant fraud, retracted peer review papers, outdated material in textbooks, and whatnot.
When new information falsifies your hypothesis, you accept it and move on. Darwinians need to learn that, too.

A canyon wall in Utah has a faded pictograph that under certain conditions might possibly look like a winged monster. Some creationists have claimed it is a pterosaur, drawn by native Americans who may have witnessed one after the Flood. A new study appears to lay that interpretation to rest. Archaeological chemist Marvin Rowe visited Black Dragon Canyon and studied the glyph with X-ray fluorescence and an image stretching algorithm. His results reveal a “far more mundane” interpretation, Emily DeMarco reports in Science Magazine, showing the form to be a collection of people and modern animals, drawn in the characteristic style of the period.

The article goes beyond just correcting the facts. DeMarco quotes people who seem to take glee in debunking creationism as a whole:
To read the rest, click on "Rock Art Is Not a Pterosaur".

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Faith Statements of Evolutionism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Evolutionists and atheists make statements of faith as if they were secular holy writ. Their fans adore this, and some people can be intimidated when such statements are made with confidence and authority. This is often mixed with pseudo-intellectual philosophical jargon. However, when people know the truth of what is being said, there is no cause to give heed to such assertions.

Evolutionists and atheists make statements of faith as if they were secular holy writ. Some people can be intimidated when such statements are made with confidence and authority. However, when people know the truth of what is being said, there is no cause to give heed to such assertions.
Actual quote from Clinton Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, page 1

Have you noticed that people tend to pay attention when someone speaks with confidence and authority? Imagine this: A crisis situation, and someone who is not in uniform takes charge of the situation. Even though that person is a stranger to everyone else, they often follow instructions. Of course, if someone toting a badge shows up, that's the one most likely to be obeyed.

People who are popular and make strong statements get attention and often get adoration. (Why people care about the opinions of musicians and movie stars, I have no idea. But since they're popular, that gives influence. Basketball player Michael Jordan seems like a nice guy and I liked him in Space Jam, but I'm not interested in his Democrat political views.) Add to the peyote-like delirium the pronouncements of someone in a lab coat, whether a real scientist or someone who plays one on television, they get extra credibility — even if it's unearned.

When Bill Nye the Evolution Propaganda Guy gives opinions about the Patriots' football fiasco, global warming, or uses logical fallacies and sneaky rhetoric in the debate with Ken Ham, his fans are thrilled and accept his "authority". Similarly, Clinton Richard Dawkins, an embarrassment to thinking atheists, gets wealthy writing books and giving speaking engagements, and makes vituperative comments about Christians and creationists. Atheists like this sound like they know what they're talking about, but in actuality, they engage in sophistry.

Atheists and evolutionists use both confident assertion and popularity to their advantage. Unfortunately, there are Christians who follow the unbiblical wimpy Jesus, and also haven't bothered to learn what and why they believe, so when an assertive unbeliever makes declarations, they light a shuck out of there. Fortunately, there are some knowledgeable Christians who stand up to the bullies, which causes a bit of confusion (and often, considerable anger) in the bullies.

When flaws in evolution are pointed out, or when when one of their heroes is shown to have spoken foolishly, their devotees circle the wagons to protect their own, and then go on the attack against Christians and creationists. This image of Dawkins drew both wrath and discussion, and some atheopaths received the left foot of fellowship. When Ray Comfort made Evolution vs God, he was swarmed with attacks by evolutionists and atheists, but they were unable to come up with anything factual against it. Similarly, Ben Stein's intelligent design movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed also drew a great deal of ire. In fact, the evolution propaganda mill called the National Center for Science Education did a hit piece on it, which in turn received a reasoned response.

Many statements are given as axioms, but only have the appearance of truth. These are statements of faith. When composing this article, a comment at The Question Evolution Project dropped in:
"The [Genesis Flood] can easily be demonstrated to not have happened. So forget whatever little corner thing you think you can explain better (spoilers: you can’t) with [G]enesis, because the [F]lood didn’t happened. End of story?"
Not hardly! That is just an assertion, and all that he offered, and easily dismissed. A few days later, he returned with this bit of bigoted prejudicial conjecture:

Used under provisions of Fair Use for instructional purposes

The flat Earth thing he is citing is a lie that was started to bash Christians!

Similarly, we receive comments like, "You talk about religion, but we have science!" That is fallacious in many ways, including the implicit falsehood that "religious" people don't use science. Problem is, "science" is a system of examining the natural and physical world through experimentation, observation, and so on. Science is subject to the worldviews of the scientists who are doing the science itself. For that matter, scientists have been wrong in the past, are wrong about evolution now, and will be wrong in the future.

A more interesting comment runs along the lines of, "You creationists agree that microevolution exists. If there is a little evolution, then there is a lot. Macroevolution is just a lot of small changes adding up into large ones", he sniffed in disdain. It sounds impressive, but is completely false and demonstrates his lack of knowledge of not only his own false science, but uses the assumption that "a little evolution leads to a lot". This has not been demonstrated scientifically, and has been contradicted. It also includes the assumptions that all mutations and other changes are positive, but the opposite has been shown to be the case. Variations exist within limits, but nothing changes into something entirely new. By the way, although both evolutionists and creationists use the terms macro and micro evolution, there are biblical creationists who advise against using microevolution because of the assumption made above; no new information is added to an organism, which is what scum-to-skeptic evolution requires. Ironically, we often have to correct evolutionists on their own belief system.

Another noteworthy remark from Dawkins:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)", (Dawkins, R. April 9, 1989. Book Review of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey's Blueprint. The New York Times, Section 7, 34.)
Most people know that Dawkins is loaded with anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-creationist remarks that clearly show his bigotry. God has something to say about that (Psalm 14:1, Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Cor. 1:20).

The old Dobzhansky saying, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", is often chanted as a mantra. (Maybe Darwinoids throw this at creationists because Dobzhansky was a theistic evolutionist, but I'm speculating on that.) Assertive, philosophical sounding — and dead wrong.

Claims in documentaries and by typical Darwin supporters similar to, "The creature evolved this ability ages ago..." How do you know that? Were you there? Such a remark is just another faith-based statement, with nothing to support it and having nothing to do with actual science.

These people may as well be saying, "There is no true religion but Evolutionism, and Darwin is its prophet".

On a bit of a side note, sometimes religious-minded people will appeal to a pastor's or priest's authority. However, liberal preachers and Roman Catholics do not cotton to what the Bible says, so they resort to using their own opinions and traditions; even noted theologians can get things wrong when they don't do their homework. I had an experience where I gave a small presentation in a group at the United Methodist Church I was attending about why we can trust the Bible. My liberal pastor father made some remarks about why we can not trust it, and that destroyed all my efforts because he's the pastor, don'tcha know. (His claims had been debunked by scholarship decades before!) There are also conservative pastors who deny Genesis (and therefore undermine the authority of the New Testament, which refers to Genesis as literal history), and again, people trust the authority figure instead of relying on the Word of God.

Assertions and contradictions are not refutation, even when they're presented by popular or respected people. Nice phrases are just nice phrases, and when someone makes a challenging statement, they need to support it. There's no reason to be intimidated by them, because the truth is shown to be on our side.

For people who want to do some serious digging, I have some recommendations for your edification. First, this article by Carl Wieland,"The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)". Next, "Evolution's Evangelists". Now comes the time-consuming part. Sorry that these videos are each an hour long, but they're worth your time. Dr. David Menton's "Where is Evolution Going?" Then...

Dr. James White shows that facts are not a problem, it's when someone tweaks the facts and interprets them from a faulty worldview, such as Bart Ehrman. The emphasis is on how biblical scholar James Brownson is be wrong on the issue of homosexuality. Note that you can watch the videos on the site, go to YouTube for them, listen to the audio on the site, or download the MP3s. First, "Demythologizing Scholarship: James Brownson Examined", followed by "The Moral Insanity Grows Worse — Continuation of Review of James Brownson" (continues at the 26 minutes mark, to be concluded and all part consolidated later). Because of the icreasing loss of speech and religious freedoms, Dr. White encourages downloading of this material.

I sincerely hope that people will find time to get into the two articles and three videos. Yes, I'm asking a lot, but it's important to learn how to think, and not just accept what you're told to think. In fact, this article became more important to me as I was writing it over a period of three days; it was supposed to be a short bit!

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Aardvark Confounds Evolution

The aardvark is confounding to evolutionists for several reasons, which show that it is the product of design, not naturalistic processes.

The aardvark (from the Dutch, meaning "earth-hog") is confounding to proponents of plankton-to-paleontologist evolution for several reasons. One is that it looks like it was assembled with spare parts of several animals, so we have another cladistics fail. The fossil record does not give a hint as to its alleged evolutionary ancestry. Add to that the numerous features, such as:
  • Designed for digging, which it does remarkably fast
  • Chowing down on ants, termites, and plants
  • A sensitive sniffer
  • Fast runner
  • Mostly solitary
Of course, Darwinists use useless terms like "convergent evolution" and make excuses, but the fact is that the aardvark cannot be explained through naturalistic processes. The Creator designed it, personally, I think it's one of those critters he made to show that he has a sense of humor.
Despite being one of the first words in a dictionary or encyclopedia, the aardvark is still something of a mystery for many people outside its home range of sub-Saharan Africa.

When Europeans heard of it many doubted its reality. Reasonably described as having ears like a donkey’s, an elongated pig-like snout, and a tail like a rat’s, as heavy as a man but eating ants like an ant-eater—little wonder some thought it as fictional as the mythical jackalope. But the travellers’ tales were true, for the aardvark is as real as the platypus.
To finish reading, click on "A is for Aardvark — Can you cross a pig, a rat, a donkey and an anteater?". For information on the intelligently-designed F-111A Aardvark, click here.