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

Saturday, October 31, 2015

The Mourning Dove and the Ghost Army

Nothing supernatural here, but the Ghost Army of World War 2 and the "ghosts" of hauntings have one thing in common: both are fake. Well, the Ghost Army was kind of real, in that it was a group of soldiers setting up a massive deception on a German Panzer division.

Mourning Dove / lovetheson / FreeImages
Have you heard the expression, "The best defense is a good offense"? If you study on it a bit, you'll see that a related ploy is also effective, to get your superior opponent to fear you. Amazingly, the pigeon-related mourning dove and the Ghost Army have something in common, but the bird was given its technique by our Creator — a technique that bacteria-to-bird evolution could not possibly explain.
Sometimes the best defense is an offense, even when the “offense” is really a bold bluff. This tactic is valued in wartime, and when God uses this principle He deserves our appreciation.

America’s top-secret World War II “Ghost Army” used cleverness and technology to fool German forces by masking military vulnerabilities. Yet the main fakery they used wasn’t mere camouflage—the daring deception involved threat-reversal mimicry.
To read the rest of this fascinating history lesson and see how it applies to the mourning dove, click on "The Ghost Army".

Friday, October 30, 2015

Solar System Still Recalcitrant on Deep-Time

Reading science news about space exploration, we keep seeing how scientists are amazed, baffled, puzzled, and so on about what has been discovered. There's a great deal of amazement about Pluto as well. The solar system does not appear as old as it "should". If they'd study on it a mite and drop their fundamentally flawed cosmic evolution paradigm, they'd realize that the solar system was created, and that it is much younger than they want to admit. I reckon the items below add insult to the injury from the failure of the latest nebular hypothesis model.

Additional research frustrates "deep time" hypotheses on the origin and age of the solar system.
Source: Openclipart
The moon shows signs of volcanic activity, cracks forming from Earth's gravitational pull, zircon analysis causes doubt on methods used to calculate the age of the moon, and more. Mysterious streaks and spots on Ceres. Cratering on Saturn's moons is not up to expectations. Rethinking data on exoplanets. And more.

To read the article with the details, click on "Pounding Headaches for Solar System Dates".


Thursday, October 29, 2015

Not So Many Dinosaurs to Fit On Noah's Ark

We know the routine. Some sneering sidewinder says, "Ain't no way Moses got all them animals onto the Ark, especially dinosaurs. Too big!" Typically, these people haven't bothered to do their homework, they just have their opinions to express (prejudicial conjecture and begging the question). Everyone knows that dinosaurs fit through the door because they were heavily greased first, then stored in the overhead luggage compartments.

Scoffers have said that there are too many dinosaurs to fit on Noah's Ark. That has been addressed by creationists, but new evidence shows that there are fewer dinosaur species than previously thought.
"Dinos 1" by Janusz Michalczuk / FreeImages
Creationists have explained about dinosaurs (and the other critters) on the Ark many times. There is something else to consider: there weren't as many as people thought. A fossil would be found, maybe some bones, and then it would be classified. But it turns out that several could merge into one because several that were classified belonged to the same species at different stages of development.
So, how did all of those dinosaurs fit on the Ark? As it turns out, the answer is, ‘More easily than we once thought.’ Why? Because at least a third of the dinosaurs we once thought we knew never existed!

‘Dinosaur Jack’ Horner is one of the best known palaeontologists (fossil experts) in the United States and he has been looking at how dinosaurs grow.1 This is a bit trickier than looking, say, at how frogs grow, because we can’t go out and watch dinosaurs growing directly. We can only look at their fossils.

There are some clues though. One is that juvenile bones are spongier and have more pores in them than adult bones. Spongy bones can still grow, while adult bones are not going to change much anymore.
To read the rest, click on "Shape-shifting dinosaurs". Oh, and about the question I started with: How did Moses get all those creatures on the Ark? He didn't. That was Noah. 


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Pamukkale's Travertine Terraces

In southwestern Turkey, near the ruins of Hierapolis, is a site that looks mighty cold. Frozen waterfalls, lots of white stuff, called the "Cotton Castle" — but plenty warm because of the hot springs. That white stuff is travertine, formed by the minerals in the water. People have visited this place called Pamukkale for the mineral waters over thousands of years, and it is a World Heritage Site according to UNESCO. That means you can visit the ancient pagan relic and swim in the "sacred" waters. I don't give pagan stuff no nevermind, it might be fun.

The cold-looking terraces at Pamukkale are anything but cold, they are formed from mineral-rich hot springs. Creationist geologists offer a better explanation for their age than uniformitarian geologists.
Image credit: Pamukkale / LoggaWiggler / Pixabay
Using uniformitarian assumptions (current processes are what have always happened over many years), geologists say that Cotton Castle was built up over thousands of years. But we've seen how uniformitarian assumptions have failed to explain the data many times, and biblical creationist models using the Genesis Flood have explained data far better. Once again, the Flood model gives the Cotton Castle a much younger age.
Every year “Cotton Castle” in Turkey attracts a million visitors, who are eager to see its spectacular stepped terraces and “frozen” waterfalls, or to find refreshment in its oyster-shaped mineral pools. Today the region is called Pamukkale (Turkish for “cotton castle”). But in New Testament times it was part of the thriving city of Hierapolis, famed for the healing qualities of its hot mineral springs. (In Revelation 3:15–16 Christ condemned the church at Laodicea for not being “hot” like the healing waters flowing down from nearby Hierapolis.)

This elaborate “white castle” sprawls more than a mile (8,860 feet, 2,700 m) across the hillside. Its blazing white stones really do look like a magical castle floating in the clouds. Evolutionary geologists say it formed slowly over tens of thousands of years, as chemicals in the water precipitated out.
To read the rest of this hot subject, rock on over to "Cotton Castle".

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Punishing Deniers of Global Climate Change

Global cooling became global warming became global climate change. Since the science does not support this pseudoscience, there is an effort to establish science through rule of law.

A few decades ago, the big scare from climate experts was of a coming ice age. Then they changed their tune to the heavily politicized and alarmist "global warming". Although there is a form of global warming, it is not anthropogenic, and it is insignificant for over fifteen years. But to keep the pseudoscience and grand money rolling in, the variations on the theme have moved to "global climate change".

Since scientific evidence has failed the long-age, evolution-based viewpoint on climate change, the sidewinders promoting it have used emotional appeals, such as labeling those of us who disagree with the hysterics as "science deniers". (Some are so radical, they want to save the planet by exterminating huge numbers of humans!) The most outrageous label was to compare climate change deniers with Nazis. These ad hominem attacks in their propaganda are signs of desperation.

A few years ago, Heidi Cullen of "The Weather Channel" wanted meteorologists who deny global warming to lose their certifications. Now there's an effort to take organizations that deny global climate change to court! Right, if you can't convince people through legitimate science, take them to court and settle the science that way. Makes perfect sense. We've already seen that creation science has been suppressed through legislation in Britain, and many instance of religious and academic freedom in the United States have been attacked. Will this lead to creationist being jailed because evolutionists are unable to deal with evidence supporting creation and refuting evolution? Maybe, since there is now an effort to prosecute climate change skeptics. Fortunately, there are still some people who think for themselves, and go against consensus.
Bible-believing Christians have good reasons to expect a stable climate, since the greatest climate-changing event in history, the Genesis Flood, has already occurred. Furthermore, the Lord promised us that such a Flood would never again take place and the post-Flood climate would remain relatively stable (Genesis 9:11, 8:22). Likewise, a global Flood is the only truly convincing explanation for an Ice Age.

Those who reject biblical history believe that many ice ages have occurred in Earth's supposed distant past. They also believe that some of these ice ages produced dramatic, even catastrophic changes in climate, and so tend to exhibit a great deal of alarmism over the subject of "global warming" or "climate change."

This was recently demonstrated by the twenty academics who wrote a letter to President Obama, urging him to use the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law—originally intended for use against organized crime—to investigate organizations that are skeptical of the purported dangers of "climate change." The first signature on the letter is that of Jagadish Shukla, a meteorologist at George Mason University and president of the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES). The letter was posted on the organization's website but has since apparently been taken down, presumably in response to withering criticism in the blogosphere. However, the text of the letter has been posted on other websites.
To read the rest of this hot topic, click on "Prosecute Climate-Change Skeptics?"

Monday, October 26, 2015

Out of Africa? Not Exactly!

The myth of humans evolving in Africa is taking another hit. DNA evidence shows that humans went INTO Africa.

According to evolutionary mythology, humans evolved in Africa. Neanderthals were not partially-evolved brutes, but fully human. "Archaic humans" also had a way of getting around, and there is evidence that they were going into Africa — which is a mite disconcerting for evolutionary paleontologists, but not a problem for biblical creationists.

The true, detailed history of human migration is found in Genesis, not evolutionary speculations.
If they didn’t expect recent genetic mixing from Europe into Africa, how certain are they about older human migrations?

One thing is clear about early humans: they were a mobile group, often interbreeding with other groups. Ann Gibbons’ latest article in Science talks about a new genome from a human skeleton found in an Ethiopian cave. Dated by radiocarbon to be 4,500 years old, the genome shows unexpected mixing of African stock with Europeans. Gibbons writes about the surprising findings:
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionary Anthropologists Startled by Racial Mixing in Africa".

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Interview with Dr. David Rosevear

Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio took a trip to the UK. On one of his stops, he interviewed Dr. David Rosevear of the Creation Science Movement (originally founded in 1932 as the "Evolution Protest Movement"). The CSM established a small museum called the "Genesis Expo" in Portsmouth. Some interesting things came out of the discussion, including how a lecture was stopped by anti-creationists, so Dr. Rosevear had to take over — sounds like the same kind of sidewinders we deal with today, don't you reckon?

There was some discussion about touring former communist countries who welcome creation science. It's interesting how those who have been indoctrinated by atheism and had their religious freedoms suppressed welcome creation science, and those of us further west are dealing with secularists who are progressively making us more like the former USSR.

You can download or listen online to this 36-minute podcast by clicking on "RSR in Portsmouth UK with Genesis Expo". Below is a screenshot of what you're looking for to listen (click for larger). Also, near the bottom of the page is a challenge that was issued to Clinton Richard Dawkins.

Dr. David Rosevear of the Creation Science Movement in Portsmouth, UK, was interviewed by Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Evolutionists Try to Get Chimp and Human Hands All Fingered Out

When the facts get in the way of a good story, evolutionists commence to reinterpreting some facts, ignoring other facts, and changing the story. That seems to be an increasingly common procedure with them nowadays. When it comes to real science, a theory should be discarded when it's at odds with the facts. Not in the case of Darwinism, it seems.

Since the facts do not fit the story, evolutionists are changing things around to say that human hands are more primitive than those of chimps.
"Monkey Family 3" (cropped) by Flavio Takemoto / FreeImages
When the hands of apes and humans are compared, it is easily seen that human hands are designed by our Creator for our needs, and the hands of apes are designed for their own needs. Some paleoanthropologists are monkeying around with the idea that our hands are more primitive than those of apes. Of course, presuppositions and conjectures make up the bulk of this "science".
Thumbing through the pages of most manuals on human evolutionary history, a reader would soon latch onto the idea that our precision grip was a relatively recent addition to the human repertoire. Evolutionary researcher Sergio Alm├ęcija and colleagues have knocked the pins from under that bit of conventional evolutionary thinking. They are challenging the view that humans diverged from chimp-like ancestors with hands adapted to swing from tree limbs. They believe the human hand’s precision grip is not advanced but instead represents the primitive condition much like that of the last common ancestor shared with apes.
To read the rest of the article, use your intelligently designed hand and fingers to click on "Are Human Hands More Primitive Than Chimps’?"


Thursday, October 22, 2015

Hey, Darwin! We Told You So!

Evolutionists are changing many views and getting closer to what biblical creationists have been saying all along.

Don't tell the hands at the Darwin Ranch or they'll be a mite upset, but evolutionists themselves are evolving. That part is not bothersome, but the fact that they're evolving toward what creationists have been telling them all along can be a problem.

If they weren't married up with methodological and philosophical naturalism, they would be more inclined to drop their science-hindering presuppositions and abandon evolution in favor of honest work. Evolutionists have gradually, over long periods of time, and with great resistance, begun to move in closer to creationist positions in several key areas. Biblical creationists have had the right starting point all along.
Below are 10 instances where the biblical creation based explanation of the observations were so much more reasonable than the previous evolutionary ones that evolutionists have actually adopted the creationist explanation to a great degree (even though they still hold to evolution). These are all excellent examples of why it is better to trust historical science performed under a biblical worldview (an accurate historical record), than science based on a secular materialistic worldview (an invented history).
To read the whole article in context, I'd be much obliged if you'd click on "Creation: The better explanation".

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Solar System Origin Model is Faith, not Science

Know why there are multiple ideas about the formation and evolution of the solar system? Because none of them can stand up to cold, pitiless logic. They all have serious flaws, and corral the facts as well as a broken fence. Still, secular cosmologists keep trying to bring back the least flawed old nag, put a new set of horseshoes on it, and hope it can travel. Ain't happening. Then they use the same failed hypotheses as explanations for the formation of other solar systems, but never mind about that now.

The nebular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system was run through a computer model. The hypothesis still fails.
Artist's conception of planetary formation around Beta Pictoris / Credit: NASA / FUSE / Lynette Cook
The nebular hypothesis is the current favorite, and a new computer model was set up to show how lots of luck can make it all happen, and there's no need for the Creator (Col. 1:16, Psalm 14:1); maybe a bit more spin caused by the right conditions... Many assumptions and a great deal of faith are involved in making the model, but not much in the way of actual science.
How did our solar system get here? Those who dismiss any possibility of creation imagine ways that pure natural forces might set in motion the sun, each unique planet and their moons. New computer modeling results seem to show promise—but only when they overlook or assume obvious and important factors.

According to the nebular hypothesis, the solar system’s planets formed from a condensing, swirling cloud of dust called a nebula. Publishing in The Astrophysical Journal, Carnegie’s Alan Boss and Sandra Keiser showed how a supernova’s shock wave might have produced dust disc rotation around an early sun.1 Their computer models illustrate the effects of such a collision with a giant theoretical nebula.

The research duo tried to crack the riddle of how a nebula could add the short-lived radioactive isotopes observed in meteorites. Nebulas by themselves don’t have enough gravity to make them, so secularists imagine the required extra pressure coming from a nearby star explosion.
To finish reading the article, click on "Protoplanetary Disc Model Falls Flat".

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Some People Think for Themselves

Who are the people who advanced science? The ones who moseyed along with the herd? Not hardly. When you hear about famous scientists, they are usually the ones that broke away. You know, people like Louis Pasteur, Ray Damadian, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, Andy McIntosh, Isaac Newton, and many more are known for what they accomplished, not for supporting the prevailing views.
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

— Michael Crichton, 2003

Darwinistas seek to present only the evolution material that makes their view look good and downplay the flaws. Many try to silence the opposition, often through ridicule or adding theory upon theory, all without foundation.

Science does not thrive on people protecting the consensus, but on challenge. Mavericks do it.

Science needs challenge. To use a popular expression, sometimes people have to "think outside of the box". Even if they're wrong, they're making an effort — and success comes from failures, as many inventors have attested. Biblical creation scientists are bucking the trend by showing flaws in evolution that its proponents prefer to keep under wraps, and showing that scientific evidence supports special creation far better.
The loner, not the consensus, is sometimes the one whose views get traction in science. Here are three historical examples.

The following stories have something in common: they are about people who worked alone on ideas that ran counter to their societies’ beliefs. This is not to say that they were completely right on every idea they promoted. They were at least visionaries who thought outside the box and opened up others to new avenues of inquiry that proved fruitful.
To read the rest, head on over to "Three Mavericks Who Won".

Monday, October 19, 2015

Delroy Darwin, Secret Evolutionist

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

An old television memory came back, and I decided to run with it. In 1970, there was a strange Saturday morning kids' show called Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp. I think I watched it while waiting for something else that came on afterward (we didn't have many channels, and Saturday morning was our time for the kid shows). This had chimpanzees dressed up and actors doing voices for this silly spy program.

As creationists have pointed out many times, evolution has been in everyone's faces and presented as fact at every turn. The name of the band that Lance performed in was the "Evolution Revolution", and the boss of the agents was Commander Darwin. (No, I do not think that this show was intended to be evolutionary propaganda. Rather, the writers and such were using what was considered "science" and having fun at the same time.) Oh, and the female sidekick was Mata Hairi, the name playing on the famous spy Mata Hari. Here's the intro theme:

Devotees of Darwin will often play a spy game in the fight for truth, justice and the evolutionary way. Their anti-creationist mission is often carried out through bullying, intimidation, pasting links, and generally being obstreperous.

It seems that some evolutionists are on a secret mission to rid the world of biblical creationists. Whether covert or overt, we're onto their schemes.
Image credit: CIA.gov / Public Domain
They use numerous fake names (often blatantly false), or just use their existing identities. In addition to bullying, they seek to silence creationists through contradiction, ridicule, defamation, poor research, and outright lying.

Speaking of lying, their "morality" allows this (perhaps it's an atheistic equivalent of taqiyya). But many also confuse "disagreement" with dishonesty, and call creationists "liars" because we believe the Bible, and interpret the actual scientific evidence differently. (I reckon they do this on purpose just to provoke emotional reactions.) In reality, science thrives when hypotheses and theories are challenged. They fail to realize that when calling someone a liar without evidence makes the accuser into the liar.

One of their favorite tricks is to promote the nonexistent "war" between "science" and "religion", even though there are many creationist scientists, and many of the founders of modern science were biblical creationists. Sometimes they spread the falsehood that "creationists can't be scientists", which is based on poor thinking along the lines of, "Science is atheistic and materialistic by nature" — which is an arbitrary assertion based on a faulty philosophy of science. Ironically, creationists often have to correct Darwinistas on their own faulty arguments, as many do not understand what they are trying to uphold! All they "know" is that we are "wrong". Trying to get them to examine evidence against evolution and in favor of creation is like trying to ride herd on feral cats.

A sneaky tactic that obstreperous evolutionists like to use is misrepresenting creationists. Frequently, these jaspers will set up straw men (setting up a position that we don't hold so they can tear it down). One manipulative tactic is to say that we don't believe in free speech, which is not only a straw man, but has elements of bifurcation ("either/or"), and an attempt to manipulate by appealing to emotion. One answer for this charge is, "Sure, we believe in free speech. Get your own blog, keep writing on forums, spam people with e-mail even though they don't want to hear from you. But just because we don't want to publish your comments does not mean we oppose free speech itself. Such lousy thinking is a reason we did not publish your manipulative material".

Another trait of the owlhoot evolutionist on a mission is to find a sentence or phrase, take it out of context, then misrepresent it up one side and down the other; it's the intellectual equivalent of typo pouncing. (They also like to do this if a sentence is poorly written, or they simply disunderstand it.) This straw man stuff is often used to over-generalize to indicate that the person criticized has nothing to say — and sometimes extended as a criticism of all Christians or all creationists.

Related to that is the change to "prove it" for practically anything we say. It's a real conversation stopper. And yet, I've had articles with a dozen or two supporting links, and those get ignored — and I'm still "wrong", or even a "liar". This happens with many creationists where the main point of an article is missed for the sake of attacking the person.

They like to put us on the defensive. When a question is answered or a flaw in their reasoning is pointed out, they like to change the subject and attack. They get mighty riled when we want them to support their assertions, which often cannot be done because the assertions are arbitrary.

So, we keep on presenting the truth despite the efforts of Delroy Darwin, Secret Evolutionist, as well as the more overt members of the Darwinista Party. Their lack of integrity and scientific acumen do not deceive anybody. Besides, we're trying to reach people who want to honestly consider the evidence. The ones who defend their faith in evolution at all costs? Not exactly a priority, but we hope that some will get a spark of intellectual honesty.


Saturday, October 17, 2015

Watch Your Language

Evolutionists are famous for switching the meanings of key words. Better discussions can be obtained by making sure both parties are aware of the meanings of terms.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Before I get to the article that I'm featuring below, there are some personal notes that I wanted to share.

Many years ago in Lansing, Michigan, I was browsing a Christian bookstore and found a 4" wide by 8" tall (101.6 mm x 228.6 mm) booklet of 28 pages called "Should Evolution Be Taught?" by Dr. John N. Moore. I showed it to my father, a pastor in the now thoroughly apostate United Methodist church. He told me that Dr. Moore was his professor of natural science when he attended Michigan State University (he received his BA in 1957), and was given a rough time for disbelieving evolution. Naturally, he was surprised that Dr. Moore was writing in favor of creation science!

Speaking of MSU, an owlhoot going by the name of Richard Lenski objected to scientific evidence against his bacteria experiment, gave some snark, and then blocked me. This is a scientist?

I corresponded with Dr. Moore a couple of times (he thought maybe he remembered my father), and obtained an autographed copy of the booklet.

What I did not realize was that Dr. Moore was not only a professor of natural science at MSU, but later, he was instrumental in helping to establish the Creation Research Society. CRS is the oldest American creation science organization, and publishes the scientific peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly — which Dr. Moore edited for several years. He also wrote several articles and booklets, and was involved in a creation science biology textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (which has since been revised).

Of course, the libelous and incompetent tinhorns at (ir)RationalWiki made a list of creation scientists and did not list his accomplishments, only stating, "Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator * Works in a field completely unrelated to the subject at hand." Amazingly, people use that site a resource.

I have been unable to find out the whereabouts of Dr. Moore after he became less active in the 1990s. Thankfully, he was involved in important work for creation science.

This would be a good time to get on with it, don't you reckon?

We have to be careful with words. Even questions and simple statements can be skewed to color people perceptions, a form of poisoning the well. For example, "science versus creationism", as if an ism" is something undesirable or an aberrant way of thinking.

One of the fundamental points that many creationists emphasize is that people have a mutual understanding of terms. Often, Darwin's ranch hands will play bait 'n' switch by equivocating on some words, especially evolution. When they're not being disingenuous, evolutionists will have naturalistic preconceptions as to the meanings of words, and biblical creationists will be moving form their preconceptions. Dr. Moore points out that many words need careful handling in order to establish better communication between creationists and evolutionists.
In the creation/evolution controversy and battle over biblical authority, much of the dispute may become clearer if writers would carefully provide readers with precise definitions of terminology. In fact, careful, clear definitions might help to resolve the issue for some people.

For instance, take the word science. It is often employed sloppily, especially when its methods, procedures, and practices of inquiry are not carefully followed. Actually, a proper scientific methodology is limited, in the sense that all scientific hypotheses should be testable and based on recordable, measurable observations in the present. Operational science is measurable, quantitative, mechanical, and correctable. I would submit that a better definition of science should state that it is “a body of knowledge obtained by using our senses in the present, especially observation.”
To read the rest, click on "Creationism vs. Evolutionism". Also, for people who like to examine logical fallacies, here is "A Check List on Fallacies of Reasoning to be Avoided by Scholarly, Rational Persons", also by John N. Moore.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Triple Fossil Prompts Scientific Disputes

A triple fossil is causing disagreement among paleontologists. If they dropped their long-age assumptions and looked at it from a Genesis Flood perspective, the evidence would make sense to them.
Imagine that you're going about your business, catch something for lunch, and then someone else draws down on you to make you into their lunch. Then you all die. I reckon that would spoil your day. Well, something similar happened and a permanent record was made in stone, but long-age paleontologists are having trouble explaining it all away.

Using some detective-style historical speculation, scientists are working on a series of events that led to the demise of a pterosaur, officiate — I mean, a fish he ate — and another ill-tempered fish that dry-gulched the pterosaur. Looks like the only winner was science, as all three went down together and became fossilized.

Long-age paleontologists are disagreeing on how the fossilization happened. The typical story is that creatures die, then get slowly buried and are permineralized over millions of years. But what they see with their own eyes doesn't fit the secular storyline. If they'd step back a mite and look at the evidence from Genesis Flood perspective, this would all make much more sense.
An extraordinarily rare and well preserved fossil found in the famous Solnhofen Limestone deposit, Germany, has forever intertwined the lives of three animals. The fossil catches the moments just after a long-tailed pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchus, had swooped down and caught a small fish in the water, thought to be Leptolepides, when a larger predatory fish, Aspidorhynchus, managed to leap up and impale itself on the flight membrane of the pterosaur’s wing, pulling it back down to the water.

Like a Sherlock Holmes detective story!

While the smaller fish’s fate seemed certain, having just been swallowed by the pterosaur, “The fish tail yet sticking in the pharyngeal region of the throat and the excellent preservation of the tiny fish without any trace of digestion suggests that swallowing was not completed and that the Rhamphorhynchus [pterosaur] was alive and airborne during the attack”.
To read the rest, click on "Three become one — Two fish and a pterosaur locked in a fatal struggle".

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Penguin Eggs Put Evolutionary Thinking on Ice

A long, long, time ago, on a continent far, far away, a scientific expedition met its demise. In addition to trying to reach the South Pole, the Scott expedition wanted to prove Darwinian evolution by observing Haeckel's "law of recapitulation" in action with Emperor penguin eggs.

One purpose of the 1912 Scott expedition to the Antarctic was to observe Haeckel's "law of recapitulation" and support evolution. They saw that it was false.
Emperor Penguins / Photo credit: Dr. Paul Panganis, National Science Foundation
Looks like the telegraph lines were down, because they were apparently unaware that Haecke's embryo drawings were known to be faked. The "law of recapitulation" was never true. Still, the expedition found out for themselves that recapitulation doesn't work. That's because there is no particles-to-penguin evolution, the facts support creation.
During January–March 1912, Captain Robert Scott and four other optimistic members of the British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition braved the bitter-cold summer weather of Antarctica’s Ross Ice Sheet, hoping to be the first to discover the South Pole. Another hope of his team’s quixotic quest was to acquire early-development-stage emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) eggs for marshaling scientific evidence trying to prove the so-called “law” of phylogenetic recapitulation, which holds that embryos reflect the stages of their evolutionary past as they develop. Many assumed this theory, championed by Ernst Haeckel and Charles Darwin, would provide the missing mechanism for justifying Darwin’s natural selection theory.

It was Captain Scott’s second—and last—expedition to Antarctica. One survivor, Apsley Cherry-Garrard, called it “the worst journey in the world.”
To read the rest, click on "Penguin Eggs to Die For".


Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Evolution Requires Imagination, Not Facts

When engaging with sponge-to-sportscasters evolutionists, many will come up with "evidence" for evolution that may make someone wonder, "Really, you believe what you're saying?" Worse, much of what is paraded as evidence of evolution is nothing more than speculation and imagination presented as actual scientific research.

Evolution is incorrectly used to "explain" many things found in nature, utilizing jaw-droppingly bad science.

Evolution is a catch-all explanation that is full of bad reasoning and even self-contradiction. Non-evolution is touted as evidence for evolution, and the hypothesis is so flexible, it "explains" everything (which is actually nothing at all). Scientists see evolution in and under every rock and, instead of doing something actually beneficial, will seek the alleged evolutionary meanings of how and why something became the way it is. But they have nothing substantial to show for it. Then they laugh at us for believing the much more rational explanation, which is special creation by God.

To see what has me on the prod about this, click on "That Doesn’t Look Like Evolution" for several examples of jaw-droppingly bad "science".

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Baryon Asymmetry, My Wayward Son

Seems that every time evolutionary cosmologists try to save the Big Bang concept, they find that they have to throw away and draw new cards. Evolutionists think they they have the hand needed to win the pot, but ad hoc theories are not working. The smart move is to not place your bets on naturalistic philosophies, since they are mighty recalcitrant.

Ad hoc theories to rescue the Big Bang keep getting overthrown by actual science. Such is the case with the "baryon asymmetry problem" explanation.
Hubble telescope image of galaxies / NASA
There are numerous difficulties with the Big Bang. When they are found, cosmologists come up with some theoretical explanations that look good on paper, but that's it. The universe is full of matter, and there should be equal amounts of antimatter to go with it according to this view. But no, there's not enough antimatter, so they call it the baryon asymmetry problem. Rescuing devices were made and the ante was upped, but the "solution" still showed a losing hand. They should fold and quit gambling with eternity; evidence supports the biblical creation account that there was no Big Bang and inflation, but rather, God created the universe much more recently than their philosophies will allow.
If the universe began with a big bang, then the universe ought to have equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But the universe obviously is dominated by matter, so there is an asymmetry between the amount of matter and antimatter. Baryons are a class of particles that include protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons provide nearly all the mass of matter as we know it. Electrons, the other constituent of normal matter, belong to a class of particles called leptons, but they have only about 0.05% the mass of protons or neutrons. There are reasons to believe that the number of electrons must equal the number of protons. Since baryons dominate the matter of the universe, this problem for the big bang model is called the baryon asymmetry problem.

Antimatter may sound more like science fiction than science, but there are many good reasons to believe in antimatter. In 1928 Paul Dirac was the first to predict the existence of antimatter within the modern understanding of physics. Confirmation soon followed with Carl D. Anderson’s discovery of positrons, or antielectrons, in 1932. Other antiparticles have been detected since. Particles of matter and antimatter are very similar. The most obvious difference for charged particles is that antimatter particles have opposite charge from their matter counterparts. When a particle and its corresponding antiparticle meet, they annihilate one another in a burst of energy. The energy released is the equivalent of the particles’ masses via the famous E = mc2 Einstein equation.
To read the rest, click on "Why Is the Universe Dominated by Matter?" Also, there's music by ApologetiX below.

Monday, October 12, 2015

The Magic Ghost Precambrian Rabbit

Evolutionary magic can make disagreeable evidence disappear, but unscientific tactics do not negate the fact that life was created, not evolved.

Sometimes, believers in lepton-to-leporidae evolution will say that yes, there are certain things that would put a powerful hurtin' on evolution. One suggestion was finding a rabbit fossil in precambrian layers. But what good would that do? Since evolution-wrecking fossils have already been found, we could expect the same kind of nonsense: ignore it, make excuses, ask if it was faked or identified properly (entirely reasonable), invoke "ghost lineages", play with cladograms, and so on.

In other words, since they've clinging to their faith despite evidence, geologic column-shaking evidence would have little to no effect. We could expect them to keep on denying the Creator.
Evolutionists typically make a big deal of the fossil record, citing it as powerful evidence for evolution. However, we have pointed out numerous cases of out-of-place fossils, and shown how they do serious damage to the notion that the fossils provide a nice and orderly record of evolution. And yet, evolutionists remain unfazed. So then, what sort of fossil evidence would it take to falsify evolution? Some evolutionists have attempted to give a reasonable answer. Renowned 20th-century evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane, in response to being asked if there was any evidence that would convince him evolution was false, is reported to have said “a rabbit in the Precambrian”.

Dawkins, following Haldane, avers:

“However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.” But would a ‘Wascally Wabbit’ fossil assemblage in the Neoproterozoic really disprove evolutionary paleontology to an evolutionist?
To read the rest using the magic of the Web, click on "Precambrian rabbits—death knell for evolution?"


Saturday, October 10, 2015

No Evolution In These Fossils Either

Two fossils of subjects that are virtually unchanged over alleged millions of years. Evolutionists have many stories, but nothing substantial.

Adherents of spores-to-salamander evolution are quick to point to fossils and claim that they are evidence for evolution. (Of course, no undisputed transitional forms are found, but why spoil a good story to tell around the campfire on the lonely trail?) A salamander in amber and the "world's first flower" have some evolutionary scientists whooping it up and scaring the horses — but they're excited over nothing. Sure, they're coming up with plenty of stories to tell, but not so much in the way of supporting evidence. Conjecture is not actual science, old son.

I paid for my evolution, where's my change? Ain't happening, there's no change because there's no evolution. The evidence points to creation, after all.

To see the examples and discussion, click on "Good Fossils, But Where’s the Evolution?"

Friday, October 9, 2015

Do Creationists Accept Speciation?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Simply stated, yes, creationists believe that speciation happens. It's the not-so-simple answer that gives people difficulties. Fungus-to-finch evolutionists often give credit to the puny god of evolution for every change, no matter how small. Some creationists disunderstand the idea of speciation and oppose it because they do not want to give Darwinists a foothold. When understood properly, it is not a threat to creation science, nor does it support Darwinism, but it does support biblical creation science!

Creationists do accept speciation, but not in the way that evolutionists present it. There are limits to change.
Colorized version of John Gould's Galapagos Finches, 1837
Scientists often disagree about the meaning of the word species and if critters are indeed separate species, but the generally accepted definition of speciation is when organisms diverge into genetically distinct lines. Evolutionists cannot agree on what causes speciation.

Creationists accept natural selection and speciation, and reject "fixity of species", where everything we see has been there from the beginning — obviously false. (Way back yonder over 30 years ago, I accepted fixity of species out of enthusiasm and ignorance.) In addition, fixity of species has been a source of confusion on several fronts, especially regarding definitions. (Early creationists did believe in fixity of species before the word was more sharply defined.) Species is a newer word than the biblical kind, which refers to a broader classification.

Small changes do not accumulate. Although a valid term, creationists are discouraged from using microevolution because it implies that a little evolution adds up to a lot of evolution. Not hardly, since the "change" is variation within genetic limits; the change is horizontal, with no added genetic information. 

This owlhoot didn't get the memo:

Kind of irritating to be told what I believe. Manipulative, too.

From a biblical creationist standpoint, speciation was programmed into creatures by God so that they could adapt to changes in environment and so forth. This was especially (especiesally?) important after the Genesis Flood.

Here are some articles for further reading:
I encourage you to not only read the above articles, but investigate the sites that were linked for further information.


Thursday, October 8, 2015

Mangled Dinosaur Mosaic

Evolutionists have used the term "mosaic" to describe the difficulties encountered in placing dinosaurs in their paradigm. There are too many problems for evolutionists in the dinosaur paradigm.

Evolutionists have used the term "mosaic" to describe the difficulties encountered in placing dinosaurs in their paradigm. One reason is that they persistently present puzzling information. Not only have hadrosaurs been found in the frozen regions of Alaska, but worse, how did they survive, and how did a group of juveniles die at once?

Then there's difficulty of the Australian long-clawed dinosaurs — did they originate there, or in Argentina? From there, Niger presents a pareiasaur skeleton that has earned fanciful tales but no explanation. Also, we have the soft tissue problem that has been annoying "deep time" advocates for a spell now. I reckon they don't want people to recollect that there are other instances of biomaterial that refuses to act millions of years old, too. The Earth is not billions of years old (despite the protestations of Darwinoids), it was created much more recently.

Dinosaurs do not fit evolutionary ideas. (Evolution itself does not fit the criteria for science, either.) To read more about the items mentioned above, click on "Will the Dinosaur Paradigm Be Next to Fall?"

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

When a Loss Becomes a Gain

Purveyors of goo-to-graffiti-artist evolution tend to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to definitions. You'll hear about beneficial mutations, but what does beneficial really mean? If I spray paint something on a wall, the paint may protect the covered areas from rain, which is beneficial. But the chemicals may cause the affected bricks to deteriorate, obviously not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit to me when Marshall Long takes me to jail.

We hear about "beneficial" mutations. Those are rare, often removed through natural selection, and are a matter of perspective and opinion as to what "beneficial" really means.

Before people get irritated because I'm using an analogy about non-living things, just study on it for a spell; I'm talking about word usage and perspective.

When some living things have mutations, some are neutral but the overwhelming majority are bad. Calling them "good" mutations is subjective. A critter can have a mutation that looks good in a lab setting, but will kill it off in the wild. Likewise, some changes can be good in one instance, but extremely bad elsewhere. (They've tried to make something out of nothing with the Lenski bacteria experiments as well, and claiming that sickle-cell anemia's "benefit" outweighs the obvious problems.) Natural selection is not exactly helpful to mutations and evolution, either. All this tomfoolery to come up with "scientific" reasons to disbelieve God are themselves unbelievable.
A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this: what mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry enough of the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic information (the coded set of instructions on the DNA which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blue-print’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next. Naturally, such scrambling of information will tend to either be harmful, or at best neutral.
To read the rest of this short but informative article, click on "Beetle bloopers".

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Speculative Fiction Presented as Science in Triassic Dinosaur Fossils

Although some people try to deny it, we all have our starting points through which we interpret data. This applies to scientists of all types, even though some people believe that scientists are dispassionate and operate only from data. Not hardly!

In attempting to determine the lack of fossils in the Late Triassic, evolutionary scientists made a large number of assumptions and overlooked important facts. Using the same information from a Genesis Flood model, the evidence is a far better fit.
Petrified Forest National Park / US National Park Service / PD
Evolutionary scientists were fixing to reconstruct a scenario explaining the lack of dinosaur fossils in the Late Triassic, using observations in the Chinle Formation. It was a swell notion. However, the worldview they operated from required many assumptions of evolution and uniformitarianism, and ignored some important facts. When the same information is used from a Genesis Flood standpoint, things make a lot more sense.
Paleontologists have long wondered why dinosaurs are scarce in the Late Triassic rock layers of the presumed tropics of that supposed time. Fossilized dinosaurs appear abundantly in those rock layers in today’s higher latitudes. In fact, though long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs are virtually absent in the Late Triassic’s supposed tropics, fossils of other reptiles and mammals are plentiful. A team of scientists recently sought the answer to this mystery at Ghost Ranch, home of New Mexico’s Chinle Formation, particularly its Petrified Forest Member, which hosts the petrified logs in the nearby Petrified Forest National Park. (Dinosaurs, primarily carnivorous ones, accounted for only 15% of the vertebrate fossils they sampled in the region.

. . .

There at Ghost Ranch researchers analyzed petrified wood and charcoal, carbon and oxygen isotopes in organic debris and carbonate nodules, and the fossilized animals, plants, and pollen grains. By correlating all the data, the authors of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences believe they have reconstructed a picture of the conditions in the region 205 to 215 million years ago. “Each dataset complements the others, and they all point towards similar conditions,” lead author Jessica Whiteside says. “I think this is one of the major strengths of our study.” By piecing together from the raw data what they deem to be an accurate picture of a drought-ridden, wildfire-ravaged region that was located close to the equator long ago, the authors of the study believe they’ve solved the mystery. But have they?
To get the hard truth and read the entire article in context, click on "Dearth of Dinosaurs in Late Triassic Tropics Not Due to Raging Wildfires".