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

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Evidence for the Genesis Flood in Australia

G'day. While we have a passel of rock formations in these here United States where I live, there are many around the world that give strong evidence of the Genesis Flood. (We do seem to have the best dinosaur boneyards, though.) There's an area in the Northern Territory called Red Centre, which has an abundance of, well, redness. The frontier town of Alice Springs can set you up if you want to do some sightseeing and as a starting point for exploring Flood geology. I'd like to go myself, you betcha.


A place called Red Center in Australia's Northern Territory has many geological features supporting biblical creationist Genesis Flood models, and defy secular geological views.
"Kings Canyon" image credit: Pixabay / walesjacqueline
But this isn't advertising for 'Straya tourism. Like I said at the onset, there are many geological formation that support the Genesis Flood. Sure, uniformitarian geologists continue their old Earth assertions (evolution requires an old Earth), but much of what they say defies science and basic reasoning skills, and basically falls apart. Here is an article written from a biblical creationist point of view that gives rational explanations of what is found.
Australia’s Red Centre is popular with tourists the world over, eager to visit and experience the fascinating desert environment. The population of the centre is small, with isolated communities dotted over the countryside. The only town of any size is Alice Springs.

Oxidized iron gives the area its distinctive reddish hue. Because vegetation is sparse, the rocks are easily visible to tourists, such as the strata in the MacDonnell Ranges, which run for hundreds of kilometres across the Red Centre. These geological features of central Australia reveal compelling evidence of the global Flood catastrophe of Noah’s day.
To read the rest (and see the short videos), click on "Australia’s remarkable Red Centre", mate.


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

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Evolutionists Unclear on Natural Selection

A common falsehood told by Darwin's Drones is that people reject evolution because they do not understand it. Often times, they proceed to "explain" it to evolution deniers and get their own pseudoscience wrong. It doesn't help matters that many evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. They'd be far better off if they'd stop rebelling against our Creator and realize that science does not support evolution, it supports biblical creation.

One of the biggest problems with evolution is that its proponents don't understand it. Worse, some think natural selection is an intelligent guiding force behind evolution.

Charles Darwin hung his evolution hat on the peg of natural selection, a concept developed by a creationist years earlier as a preserving factor, not something to cause change. When DNA, mutations, and so on were investigated, natural selection fell out of favor, and we have neo-Darwinism, or the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection is not what causes evolution, but contributes. Except that some owlhoots disunderstand natural and artificial selection, and use the fallacy of reification and give evolution the ability to make decisions. Two examples follow at the link below.
From Richard Dawkins to new prizewinning engineers, scientists get natural selection all wrong.

Artificial selection is not natural selection. They are, in fact, opposites. True, Charles Darwin leaped from artificial to natural selection, but the former has purposeful goals, while the latter has none. It is the very mindlessness of natural selection that is its key characteristic. Adaptations, whatever form they take, are accidental; they are unintended. For this reason, the following are oxymorons:

  • Evolutionary design
  • Evolutionary engineering
  • Directed evolution

These terms, if they mean anything, are synonyms for artificial selection, not natural selection. In fact, Darwin wrestled with his term natural selection because it seemed to personify what he considered an aimless, blind process. Yet scientists and reporters continue to confuse the two. Here are recent examples.
To find out what's happening, click on "Evolution Is Not a Designer".


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

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Recalcitrant Protist Inspires Evolutionary Storytelling

A great deal of science depends on consistency and predictability; we expect things to behave in certain ways and according to established patterns. In biology, cells have mitochondria or traces of it so they can survive. Monocercomonoides seems to be making its own rules, and causing a whole heap of consternation for biologists and especially Darwinists.

A eukaryotic microorganism shows no sign of having mitochondria, past or present. Just-So Stories ensue from evolutionists, without evidence as usual.
Assembled at the Says-it sign generator
Naturally, some "Just-so" stories are being fabricated, such as Monocercomonoides having mitochondria, then losing it, surviving now through a cellular version of horse trading. Funny how these people use an alleged loss of function as evidence of onward and upward evolution, isn't it? Not that this protist showed any sign of ever having had mitochondria, can't let that get in the way of good propaganda. Here's a thought: the Creator built it that way so it could thrive in its particular environment! But no, materialistic worldviews preclude the possibility of the Creator, even when that's the most logical conclusion. Instead, they actually believe that it “evolved beyond the known limits that biologists circumscribed.” I wonder if it feels badly about breaking their rules?
Mitochondria are the energy factories that ordinarily generate most of the energy in nucleated (eukaryotic) cells. Bacteria have neither nuclei nor mitochondria, but textbooks say that all eukaryotic cells have mitochondria or some degenerate form of them. Now hiding in the low oxygen environment of a pet chinchilla’s gut, scientists have found a unicellular protist that doesn’t. (A protist is a eukaryotic microorganism; neither a plant, animal, or fungus, a protist can be unicellular or colonial.) Named Monocercomonoides, this unusual microorganism doesn’t have the slightest trace of mitochondria. How does it survive? And does its existence lend support to evolutionary notions about the origin of the eukaryotic cells that make up all multicellular organisms?
To read the rest of this rather technical article, click on "Eukaryote Without Mitochondria Is Not a Product of Evolution".


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

Monday, June 27, 2016

The Big Bang, Background Radiation, and No Shadows

Proponents of the Big Bang point to CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation from the original fireball as strong evidence for the Big Bang's validity. When CMB was discovered, the fellas won a Nobel Prize, probably because secularists like science that fits their worldviews, even though things haven't been thought out well enough.

Big Bang proponents claim that background radiation is evidence that the thing happened. But there's a big problem: there should be "shadows" in the cosmos.
Image credit: NASA (click on the link to see a short animation of the presumed initial explosion and afterward).
Even though the original Big Bang concept was an explosion (and is still referred to that way), the whole story keeps evolving. (That's because evidence keeps interfering with the secularist mythology of origins and cosmic evolution, and they refuse to admit that evidence supports the Bible's claim that God created the universe, and did it recently.) The question has been raised, "Where are the shadows?" If the background glow was way, way out yonder, celestial bodies should cast "shadows".
One of the alleged ‘proofs’ of the big bang model of origins is said to be the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson for which they won the Nobel prize in physics. Soon after their discovery, it was claimed that this radiation is the ‘afterglow’ of the original ‘explosion’ or fireball of the big bang. Since the time at which the radiation, which started as heat, was emitted from the fireball, the universe has allegedly expanded by a factor of 1,100. Thus, that ‘afterglow’ radiation has ‘cooled down’ to much longer wavelengths (‘stretched’ from the infrared to the microwave portion of the spectrum). These are detected by microwave telescopes today.

According to theory, the big bang fireball should be the most distant light source of all. Thus all galaxy clusters would be in the foreground of this source. Therefore all CMB radiation must pass the intervening galaxy clusters between the source and the observer, here on earth. This radiation passes through the intergalactic medium, between the galaxies in the clusters, and is scattered by electrons, through inverse Compton scattering, now known as the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect (SZE). When this happens, the path of the CMB radiation is interrupted and distorted.
To finish reading, click on "‘Light from the big bang’ casts no shadows".


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

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Interview with Microbiologist Dr. Kevin Anderson on Dinosaur Soft Tissues

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip.) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years.


Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact
Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you'll also get tinhorns like Brian Switek, Paul Braterman, (ir)Rational Wiki, and others giving false information about the soft tissues. No amount of denial, feral atheopath falsehoods, or excuses will make this problem for evolutionists go away, especially since the soft tissues are common.

Bob Enyart interviewed Dr. Kevin Anderson for Real Science Radio about dinosaur soft tissues and the Creation Research Society's iDino project. This fascinating discussion covered some important information (there is also mention of a then-upcoming lecture by Dr. Anderson).

Since Dr. Anderson is a molecular biologist, Bob Enyart asked him about cancer treatment from targeted antibodies that have been showing extraordinary results. This approach to dealing with cancer could have been worked on back in the 1960s, but they assumed that if you get cancer, the body is poorly designed and your chances of survival were minimal. (Yet again, evolutionary thinking hinders medical science! Proudly sponsored by the owlhoots who brought us “junk” DNA and vestigial structures, ideas that have been refuted and also hindered science.) Dr. Anderson also gave some groundwork about some of the workings of the immune system and antibodies.

The podcast is free to hear online or to download. To hear it or download it free, and access some interesting links, click on "Kevin Anderson, Dino Soft Tissue Hunter & Molecular Biologist on RSR". ADDENDUM: On July 1, 2016, Dr. Anderson had a return visit to Real Science Radio for some additional discussion. To listen or download, click on "RSR Welcomes Back Molecular Biologist Kevin Anderson".



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

Friday, June 24, 2016

Soft-Tissue Deniers Refute Themselves

Although there are many advocates of goo-to-gigantosaurus evolution that deny the inconvenient truth that soft tissues exist in fossilized bones, the evidence just keeps on accumulating. Various rescuing devices have been presented, but they involve many assumptions, circular reasoning, and some dishonesty. They have enough problems dealing with 65 million evolutionary years, but things got worse.


Things got worse for fossil soft-tissue deniers. More have been found in "older" strata, and scientists offer a self-refuting excuse.
Assembled from Redkid.net sign generator
An interesting development is that molecular analysis of fossilized bones found in Poland show what evolutionists do not want to find. Worse, the rescuing device they rustled up was self-refuting. Seems like a lot of effort to deny the evidence of recent creation, doesn't it?
Those who have difficulty accepting reports of collagen (a type of protein) preserved in supposedly 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones will scratch their heads with new vigor over a recent report. Supposedly 247-million-year-old fossils from Poland show signs of excellent preservation and even hold blood vessels.

A team of Polish scientists, publishing in the online journal PLOS ONE, removed the bone's biominerals before using several spectroscopic techniques to analyze the organic remains. They found the same amino acids that modern reptiles use to build proteins like collagen. The study authors concluded, "We interpret the data presented here as evidence for the presence of organic residues in these specimens that may derive from collagen or its degradation products."

But proteins have shelf lives shorter than one million years. This makes discovering them in fossils of supposed great antiquity virtually inexplicable.
To read the rest, click on "Organic Residue Is 247 Million Years Old?" Also, check out "Interview with Microbiologist Dr. Kevin Anderson on Dinosaur Soft Tissues".


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

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Fossil Forest Flusters Secular Geologists

There are several fossil forests, and one in particular was discovered a spell back a few hours' drive from my neck of the woods. Geologists and botanists reckoned that, since they were very old in Darwin years, a few simple trees would be all that existed. More evidence shows that they were riding up the wrong trail again.

Assembled at Sign Generator
Their problems lie in using uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past", slow and gradual processes) assumptions, and those assumptions keep on failing. In fact, a form of catastrophism is used now and then when it's convenient. In the case of this forest, they're closing in on the truth (the Genesis Flood), but are still tied up in their worldview.
There are many reports of fossil ‘forests’ across the earth that display vertical tree remnants. Vertical tree stumps and trunks are assumed to be in situ, which seems to be the definition of a fossil forest. Evolutionists think that the first forests would have been simple and composed of a single type of tree:
“Think for a minute about ‘early’ life on land. Complexity is probably not the first thought that springs to mind. Botanists also tended to consider the earliest forests to be simple entities composed of a single type of tree.”

This was reinforced by the discovery in the 1920s of the ‘earliest’ fossil ‘forest’ in Gilboa, New York, that was believed to be composed of just one type of tree that grew in a swamp.
Spectacular sandstone casts formed by fossilized stumps of hollow tree ferns over 6 m (19 ft) tall with slender trunks had been excavated. They resembled modern palms or tree ferns.
To read the rest, click on "‘Earliest’ fossil ‘forest’ surprisingly complex".


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

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Evolution and Agriculture

An earlier post discussed how evolutionists have limited understanding of human nature. We supposedly evolved, then sat around for a huge amount of time before showing any signs of the ambition we exhibit today. Similarly, those jaspers collecting our tax dollars are dodging the questions about how and why farming developed.


Evolutionary concepts are inconsistent. In this case, they cannot explain how and why farming suddenly popped onto the scene when supposedly humans had been around for a long time.
Image credit: Morguefile / Jusben (modified)
According to the hands down at the Darwin Ranch, not only were we ignoring technology and cities, but we hadn't bothered to do agriculture, either. It just suddenly appeared in history, even though farming types moved around, interbred, and so forth. If you study on it, even their concept of late-blooming agricultural skills is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. The biblical creationist worldview makes much more sense, in that we did not evolve but were created recently, and were intelligent from the get-go. That old Earth stuff really interferes with historical science, old son.
If intelligent humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years, why didn’t any of them think about farming sooner?

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just printed a special section about human evolution. Let’s see if any of the papers can answer the question of why farming was delayed so long in the evolutionary history of man.
To read discussion on the papers and more, click on "Why Was Farming Delayed?"


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

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

The Source of the Sun's Power

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, we get a heap of blessings from the sun. Living things depend on its energy for various reasons, we get warmth, time and seasons (Genesis 1:14-15), and other benefits. Without it, this planet would be a lifeless ball of ice hurtling through space. But you knew all that. Aside from thankful but deluded people who worship it, thoughtful folks have wondered what powers the sun.


There are two main theories for the source of the sun's energy. Nuclear fusion seems to be the best, but it does not automatically mean that the sun is billions of years old; it's just built to last a long time.
The Sun, Edvard Munch, 1916
Is it powered by gravitational collapse? Nuclear fusion? A combination of both? In 1979, a couple of astronomers presented a paper where they thought they had evidence that the sun is indeed shrinking. Some creationists stampeded to present that idea because it fit with a younger universe paradigm, but secular and more cautious creationists realized that this idea should be filed under, "Don't go there, girlfriend". Still, where is the evidence for nuclear fusion? Why, neutrinos, of course. But why are only a third of the elusive little critters recorded? The alternate neutrino theory apparently took care of that problem.

So, we have the nuclear fusion idea, and this shows that the sun can last a few billion years. Secularists extrapolate backward and work solar evolution from the failed Big Bang concept, saying that the sun is billions of years old already. A problem with that idea is that projecting into the past is not justified; just because it's built to ride long and hard doesn't mean it's been doing that for a long time already. There's another problem: the sun is very stable, which is an indicator that it was created comparatively recently.
The 19th century saw the first scientific explanation for the sun’s energy. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and Hermann von Helmholtz proposed that the sun derived its energy from the conversion of gravitational potential energy. This process (now called the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism) would cause the sun slowly to shrink, but the shrinkage would be so gradual as to be virtually undetectable. The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is a viable model, and astronomers think that all stars derive at least some of their energy from this mechanism at some stages. However, scientists generally rejected the Kelvin-Helmholtz model toward the end of the 19th century, because it could power the sun for “at most” 30 million years. At that time, many scientists were committed to gradual geological and biological evolution, processes that required much more time than the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism would allow.

If the conversion of gravitational potential energy does not power the sun, then what does? Early in the 20th century, astronomers began to suggest some sort of nuclear power source for the sun. Eventually, increased knowledge of nuclear physics revealed that the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the solar core is the most likely source of the sun’s energy. The sun contains abundant hydrogen for fuel, and from physics we know that the conditions in the solar core are sufficient to sustain the fusion of hydrogen into helium. If this is the source of the sun’s energy, it could power the sun for nearly 10 billion years.
To read the rest, click on "Is the Sun Shrinking?"


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

Monday, June 20, 2016

Flying High Without Oxygen

Let's start by over-stating some basics. First, we depend on oxygen to survive. Down around sea level, the pressure is fine and we can get what we need. You go up the mountains, the air is thinner. Death Valley is below sea level, so don't be in a great hurry to go from there to Denver, the "Mile High City". (Baseball players don't always cotton to playing up there.) Mountain climbers need to take extra precautions, as do pilots. (For that matter, your big ol' jet airliner trip was in a pressurized cabin.) Fighter pilots have oxygen masks. Taking your dog with you on a bombing mission can be bad news if you're both unprepared; going up too high too fast, or just too high at all, can be disastrous.


Attaining high altitudes can cause difficulty for many creatures, and even be lethal. So, how do birds comfortably survive altitudes that we can't handle?
Whitney Smith, the 53rd Wing honorary commander
US Air Force photo / Sara Vidoni
(Use does not imply endorsement of this site or its contents by the US DoD.)
So how is it that birds can easily fly at altitudes that would be lethal to humans? Evolutionary explanations are obviously pure guesswork, and the best (and obvious) explanation is that birds are designed by their Creator with hearts and respiratory systems to deal with the situations.
If dogs were meant to fly, they would have bodies designed for it. Flying at altitudes so high that the lack of oxygen is a serious problem requires bodies specifically equipped for breathing thin air. This need is illustrated by an amazing German Shepherd named Antis that flew in combat missions during World War II at altitudes of up to 16,000 feet.1 How did this dog survive flying in oxygen-starved altitudes?
. . .
What about high-flying birds that have no such oxygen mask? How can they survive elevations of 15,000 feet and sometimes higher without a supplemental source of oxygen? Many bird migrations occur at extremely high elevations: 21,000 feet for the mallard duck, 27,000 feet for swans, even 36,000 feet for vultures!
To read the interesting story about Antis as well as information about bird design, click on "High-Altitude Flying Is for the Birds".


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

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Ideologies In Collision

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are several major paradigms active in the world today that have many adherents and are also in conflict one another. Some try to have a kind of synthesis of views, while others have no interest. There is a unified focus, but I don't reckon that participants are aware of the grand scheme. I don't see a kind of shoot-out at the OK Corral of philosophy, though.

There have been several philosophical eras over the years that had odd names as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't modern mean today? Not when it comes to labeling. The last three are premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism. (Some are saying that postmodernism is already morphing into something else, but there's no title yet as far as I can tell.) One of the main characteristics of postmodernism is that people believe that there are no absolutes. Forget presenting truth to postmoderns, they've asserted that there are no absolutes (a self-refuting claim) and that truth is relative.

Biblical Christianity and atheism can be held in equal disdain according to postmodernism because of their belief in no absolutes. (Some atheists are compromising their "standards" by redefining atheism as a "lack of belief", which is disingenuous, but may be seem palatable to postmoderns.) While many atheists have a moral code, atheism does not provide a consistent moral standard, and is consistent with postmodernism. Barna Research shows that many Americans base morality on subjective personal experience — many people believe that when it comes to trends of this nature, Europe and Canada embraced them years ago.

My father observed that people need a "religious experience", so they tend to get a philosophy with trappings. Who burns incense? A partial list includes Eastern religions, pagans (Wicca seems to be the best-known pagan religion), Roman Catholics, Native American religions, New Age meditation practitioners, people who just like the stuff, and so on. Who does chanting? The same sort of list applies. Who does ritual? Ditto.

Evolutionism is a form of paganism, and paganism has been increasing of late. But evolution also has adherents in scientism. How can "no authority" and "ultimate authority" philosophies coexist?
Allegory of Earth by Cornelis and Paul de Vos, ca. 1600
Neopaganism is growing worldwide, and can be seen in numerous "transformational festivals" that are extremely experience-oriented, and fit with postmodern views. There is no ultimate authority for them. This can be seen as a variation on New Age philosophies, which are eclectic in nature and are a buffet-style religion where you pick what you want, leave the rest. Many New Agers include a version of Christianity (but they don't cotton to the real Jesus of the Bible by any stretch of the imagination). Extreme environmentalism has a great deal of pagan influence and appeal as well. Pagans just don't seem to care about Jesus or any aspect of the Bible. For a fascinating interview of Carl Teichrib by Janet Mefferd on this subject, click here. Note that it is on Sound Cloud, which requires you to sign up before downloading, but I have not had any problems with them after registering.

Evolutionism is an ancient pagan religion, and Charles Darwin did not create a scientific version of it based on materialistic naturalism. Professing atheists embrace evolution because atheism needs it, and indeed, they have their own secular "miracles" that provide a sort of mystical experience. Here's a place where things get more confusing: the political philosophy of fascism is closely related to paganism. Atheists and secularists who promote evolution are actually promoting fascism. (For a detailed article on this, see "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism".) There are atheists who embrace paganism.

Competing with postmodernism are materialism and scientism, where the only reality is material (no God allowed). Truth is reached through the empirical method (another self-refuting claim) and through the applications of science. Professing atheists often use a "scientific method" (a philosophy of interpreting evidence that is in a state of flux) to determine truth. People have tended to put intellectuals, and especially scientists, on pedestals, accepting what "scientists say" as truth.

Easily the most despised competitor for postmodernism is the oldest, which is biblical Christianity. We assert that there are moral absolutes, and the consistent moral standard is revealed in the Bible, which was inspired (θεόπνευστος, "God-breathed"). Worse for postmodernists are those of us who believe in special creation. For that matter, there are tinhorns who try to mix bad theology with current secular science trends and then act as if they know more than what Jesus believed and taught about creation. (For my detailed examination of theistic evolution, begin with "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars".) Like many other false teachers, TEs use philosophy to perform eisegesis.

The elevation of personal experience has corrupted biblical Christianity, where Scripture is compromised in favor of emotional experiences and good feelings. There are professing Christians that are exceptionally shallow on Bible knowledge and clear thinking, but are more than happy to embrace false teachings that give them an emotional high and feel good about themselves. Problem is, these owlhoots don't even realize that they're following false teachers, partly because they believe the authority of what "the pastor says", and sit there with their Bibles closed. This is the opposite of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Those people get good feelings and that mystical experience, even though those things did not originate in God.

Here are a few tips for those emotionally-driven but biblically shallow people: the Holy Spirit does not testify of your feelings, Pastor Feelgood, you, a religious organization. Instead, the Spirit testifies of Jesus (John 15:26), and God is not the source of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Direct personal revelations from God are not only false and contrary to biblical teaching, but also deny the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). As the saying goes, I'm just saying. I'm also saying that we all need to check teachings and experiences with the Word of God. You savvy?

There is a drive for unity in world religions, but there is also a conflict regarding ultimate truth and authority from postmodern philosophies. Atheism and biblical Christianity are rejected, but paganism and related New Age philosophies are acceptable to postmodern thinking. I wonder what will become of the synthesis of paganism with evolutionary thinking down the trail.

Did you notice that there's a strong element of pride in all this? "I'll do what I want, what makes me feel good". It was pride that caused Satan to be cast out of Heaven (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:11-19), and pride that caused the fall of man (Genesis 3:5-7). Such people are actually committing idolatry by worshiping themselves and becoming their own gods. The real God still takes a mighty dim view of pride today, and many people are setting themselves up for a lot of pain.

Psalm 53:1 tells us that the fool says in his heart that there is no God. This shows us that atheists are fools as defined by God, but it goes deeper. People who have disdain for the authority of the Word of God are saying that he does not exist or is irrelevant, God will certainly not punish me for my sin and for rejecting his Word. Someone like this is a fool. This includes atheists, pagans, theistic evolutionists, secularists, religious people, and more. We need to humble ourselves and repent, accepting the real truth in God's Word and salvation through Jesus Christ who is God the Son, our Creator.




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

Friday, June 17, 2016

Can Amino Acids Survive on Mars?

The speculations about life on Barsoom Malcandra Mars are very old, which has given rise to fantasy and science fiction stories about it. For a spell, scientists seem to have said, "There ain't no life on that one, old son", because they realized that the temperatures and atmosphere were not conducive to life. But it remained a curiosity, which increased with the adoration of evolutionism by secularists, which in turn fueled efforts to find evidence of life out there, thataway. Since abiogenesis is an absurd concept on Earth, there must be some way to find excuses to disbelieve in the Creator in the far reaches of space.

Scientists set up tests to see if amino acids could survive the UV radiation on Mars. Even with conditions set up in their favor, results were less than spectacular.
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech
Evolutionary scientists are not above cherry-picking data and setting up tests in such a way as they validate evolution. Although gamma-ray bursts that should extinguish life were given a bit of a nod, conditions on Mars were set up in a lab and (Mr. Gordons should like this) the survivability of amino acids under certain conditions was studied. Naturally, this involved speculations and assumptions. Even with conditions set up in their favor, results were less than spectacular.
UV radiation quickly degrades amino acids on most Martian minerals, a new study shows.

Using the “Open University Mars Chamber” in the UK, four British scientists watched to see what happened when amino acids were subjected to ultraviolet (UV) light. They spiked 11 different minerals known to exist on Mars with different concentrations of amino acids, then irradiated the rocks with UV ray levels expected at local noon for a total of 28 hours of exposure, the equivalent of about 6.5 Martian days’ worth of UV dosage. They published their results in an open-access paper on Icarus. Here are the highlights:
To read the rest, click on "Amino Acids Unlikely to Survive on Mars".


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

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Striking Out On Bat Evolution

Proponents of bacteria-to-bat evolution have a high percentage for assertions, conflation, and conjectures. When it comes to actually providing evidence for their claims, their batting average that's lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. The evolution of the bat is a noteworthy failure as far as evidence is concerned. Indeed, the evidence shows that bats (along with other critters, plants, humans, and so forth) were all created, not products of evolution.


Evolutionists cannot determine how bats evolved. That's because they did not evolve, they were created — as abundant evidence indicates.
Flying fox (fruit bat) image credit: Morguefile / kconnors
The idea is that bats supposedly evolved from some kind of rodent. Maybe it's because bats look kinda sorta like rodents, except the limbs are all wrong. Also, there's no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Imagine that, a bat is just a bat. There are many specialized systems in place for the bat's flying ability, echolocation, variety, and more. No, these helpful creatures were designed by their Creator, and that's why there's no sign of evolution.
Of the 1,240 living mammal species, almost 25 percent are the amazingly designed bats. They compose the second-largest order of mammals, next to rodents,2 and are ecologically and economically important. Bats effectively control insect pests and are essential to the pollination of some flowers. In fact, a number of tropical plants depend entirely on bats for seed dispersal. Mammologists place these nocturnal creatures into two suborders—the Microchiroptera (echolocating, insect-eating bats) and Megachiroptera (fruit-eating bats). According to evolution, both groups evolved from an unknown flying common ancestor.

Bat Origins Evolutionists maintain that a rodent of some sort evolved into a bat. Yet, over 1,000 fossil bats have been unearthed and scientists have not classified a single one as an intermediate between rodents and bats. They’re all bats, as predicted by the creation model.
Now I'm done pitching this very interesting article. To read the rest, click on "The Evidence Rats Out Bat Evolution".


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

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Bearded Dragons, Dreams, and Evolution

Ever notice that some people get a mite irritable when they don't get enough sleep? We need it to process events, and possibly help get some things locked down in memory. It's important to people and critters, and the need for sleep doesn't just apply to mammals. (I feel sorry for Basement Cat when she's had a bad dream, mewing in her sleep and then waking up looking afraid and confused.) We need REM sleep to get dreams, as well as the other kind. People and animals deprived of sleep can get a bit mentally disturbed. Sleep is a gift of God, who set an example for us by resting (Exodus 20:11). It looks like the bearded dragon goes into REM sleep stages as well.


Sleep is very important to people as well as many creatures. A study of sleep patterns in the bearded dragon lizard leads to some wild evolutionary speculations.
Bearded dragon image modified from Morguefile / cooee
A simple study on electrical impulses in the brains of bearded dragons led to a study their sleep patterns, and it looks as if they do some dreaming as well. Unfortunately, some evolutionist jasper (who seems to be hallucinating from sleep deprivation) decided to do some wild speculation about how REM sleep began with the imaginary common ancestor from which we evolved. No science, lots of assumptions, some just-so stories, and a salary for doing non-science. Must be nice. Here's something the Darwinistas keep neglecting: similarities in organisms does not mean a common ancestor, but rather, common design by our Creator.
Dragons sleep, and they probably even dream. Though this could likely be said of Smaug the Magnificent sleeping for centuries atop his golden hoard in Tolkien’s Lonely Mountain of Hobbit fame, scientists have now shown that the Australian bearded dragon, popular as a pet worldwide, has sleep cycles analogous to those in cats, birds, and everyone reading this article. And since dreams happen during our REM sleep, it is not unreasonable to imagine that lizards truly embark on their own dream quests while their eyes twitch.

To Sleep, Perchance to Dream
All sorts of animals sleep, even the lowly roundworm. And sleep is important. A fruit fly has a tough time learning and remembering simple lessons—like how to avoid bitter smells and nasty shocks—when deprived of sleep. But not all animals have sleep like ours, characterized by alternating cycles of distinctive electrical activity in the brain. Until now, it was thought that only mammals and birds experienced REM and non-REM sleep. The discovery of these alternating sleep patterns in lizards suggests, according to the authors of “Slow Waves, Sharp Waves, Ripples, and REM in Sleeping Dragons,” that these complex sleep cycles evolved at least 320 million years ago in animals distantly ancestral to all mammals, reptiles, and birds.

Human beings spend a lot of time sleeping, and disturbance of our normal sleep cycles is associated with many problems from poor productivity to psychological issues. Each phase of sleep is characterized by particular electrical patterns produced by the neurons in the brain. REM sleep is associated with high frequency electrical activity. Non-REM sleep is also called slow wave sleep because it is associated with slower, low frequency electrical activity.
You can finish reading by clicking on "Have Evolutionists Found the Root of REM Sleep?"


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

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Forensics, Anthropology, and Big Questions

A tragic account from 1994 was brought to a close in 2015 with advances in forensic science. Patricia Tamosaitis disappeared from a kayaking trip down the Snow Hole Rapids on the Salmon River in Idaho. She was presumed drowned, and her body was never recovered.

How could an expert anthropologist be so very wrong about a recent skull? This and other errors by anthropologists raise questions about their assertions regarding human origins.
Kayaking on rapids near Washington, DC. Image source: Freeimages / Joshua Davis.
Two years after the tragedy, a skull was found, and later still, a humerus bone. An expert anthropologist stated that it did not belong to Patricia Tamosaitis, but rather, to a Native American youth who had died 20 years previously. Forensic science showed that it was indeed the remains of Patricia. This raises some serious questions about anthropology, including the fact that an expert could be so terribly wrong about remains that were not all that old. Then we have the questions about anthropology errors for remains that have been dated to be many evolutionary years old regarding our assumed ancestors and "relatives". To read the details and go more in depth on the issues, click on "Identified remains in Idaho raise big questions for anthropologists".

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

Monday, June 13, 2016

Dinosaur Extinction Stories Trade Fiction for Fiction

Every once in a while, some tinhorn makes the declaration that scientists know dinosaurs were killed of by a big rock from space crashing to Earth, setting up a sequence of events that laid them low. There are several problems with that story. One is that secular scientists are not in agreement about that scenario, nor are they in agreement that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So don't let someone try to fool you with those claims, since they're leaving out some mighty important information.


Secular scientists are not unified about dinosaur extinction stories. One simply exchanges one fable for his own fact-free speculations.
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart.
Since the data don't fit, scientists have to keep revising their dinosaur die-out tales. Not all dinosaurs died 65 million evolutionist years ago, some survived along with birds and mammals, or birds lost their teeth and grew beaks when the evolved, some stories go. In other words, storytelling disguised as science. Some secular scientists admit that the stories are ridiculous, but their counter-proposals aren't a heap of a lot better. The biblical creationists' models make far more sense, and don't need constant confabulation to fit the evolution-refuting data.
What they tell you on TV and in biology class about birds outlasting the dinosaurs has paltry little evidence.

Stephen Brusatte [U of Edinburgh] knows a few things about dinosaur fossils. He also knows what he doesn’t know — what no paleontologist knows. The usual story of dinosaur extinction, summarized in his piece in Current Biology, “How Some Birds Survived When All Other Dinosaurs Died,” goes like this:
To learn what it goes like as well as some other interesting details, click on "Dino Extinction Story Is a Fable, Paleontologist Says".


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

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Changing a Creationist's Mind about Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while, a proponent of molecules-to-man evolution will ask, "What evidence will it take for you to change your mind and accept evolution?" On the surface, that seems to be a reasonable question, and people asking it are often sincere. Unfortunately, there are some problems at its base.

There is an erroneous belief that a question by itself is not fallacious. Loaded terminology and the complex question are two examples, often intertwined, of an illogical question. Seems to me that the question of what it would take to make a creationist believe in evolution contains an unargued philosophical bias. To get past the expensive words, it basically means that we all have a worldview, and there are certain things that we take as "givens" or established truths that don't need explanation or investigation. The biases in the "what would it take" question are that materialism is true, evolution is a fact, and there's got to be a way to get through to the creationist.

An evolutionist may ask, "What evidence will it take for you to change your mind and accept evolution? Seems to be a reasonable question, but there are some problems at its base.
Generated at RedKid.net, then modified.
Just a side note here. Suppose there was an advanced life form that was conclusively proven to have evolved in the Darwinian sense: it became more complex, genetic information was added, and so on. That would not prove the Bible false and evolution true. It would only show that one life form had evolved. But we've seen how Darwinoids like to extrapolate things, and there are many examples of those hasty false conclusions from them on this site.

A kind of "smoking gun" approach that many atheists take is trying to find an error in the Bible. Then, by unwarranted extension, the supposed error disproves the entire Bible and the existence of God. Similarly, some tinhorns will say that a Christian is not acting in a manner pleasing to their arbitrary standards, so religion is bad. On the other side, there are well-meaning but woefully uninformed Christians who round up some stories and post them as if they were conclusive proof that evolution is false, God is true, and will bring an atheist to his knees in sobbing repentance. Sorry, none of these ideas work the way people seem to think.

Is there evidence to move a Christian toward evolution and renounce creation? There is no smoking gun, and the idea also presupposes that all the evidence against creation and for creation would be automatically shown to be false or irrelevant. "Here's a link to a paper by a secular geologist that affirms radiometric dating, so all of your young Earth material is dismissed." Not hardly! We have a passel of evidence for a young Earth that secularists reject out of hand (most indicators for the age of the Earth are, by far, showing a comparatively young Earth, for example).

Another problem for materialistic evidence is that it keeps on changing. Check the evolution reports, and you'll find many reports of scientists saying they have to having to rethink the narrative, recalculate dates, reclassify where alleged life forms belong on Darwin's failed Tree of Life, and so on. The putative "facts" for evolution keep on changing, and it's a lousy philosophy in which to put one's faith.

There's a bigger issue involved for the biblical creationist that goes beyond rejecting the abundant data refuting evolution and affirming creation. Namely, we'd have to give up logic, which comes from God, as well as a little thing that science demands: an orderly and predictable universe. Science is not possible in an evolutionary, chance-driven universe. Also, we would have to give up the Word of the living God. Ain't happening, old son! They can presuppose materialism and suppress the truth to their own humiliation, but there are those of us who don't cotton to backing off from our presuppositions: God's Word is true.




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

Friday, June 10, 2016

Evolutionary "Junk" DNA Concepts Foiled Again!

Do evolutionary scientists have ego problems? I've encountered a few that were not above abuse (and even libel) when called out on their faulty reasoning or shown where scientific evidence does not support the falsehoods that they are gleefully teaching. Wouldn't you reckon that, since they've made so many pronouncements that have been shown to be false, they'd learn a bit of humility? Especially when they declare things in the human genome to be "junk" DNA, and are proven wrong. Again.


Evolutionists keep on having to learn the hard way that they should not be making pronouncements on things they haven't thoroughly investigated. "Junk" DNA keeps on being shown to be useful.
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
DNA is comprised of four bases that are abbreviated A, C, G, and T. When Darwinists examined DNA, they did not understand much of their limited samples, so they declared it to be "junk". Sure, makes perfect sense to examine a little and write it off, right? Not hardly! I reckon that a scientist that did halfhearted work and made assertions would be run out of Dodge for lousy work, especially when "junk" DNA has been shown to be not junk at all, but important. Still, arrogant evolutionary scientists are finding out that things they considered useless or redundant have functions after all. Our Creator had a plan all along, and genetics continues to thwart evolution. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
Repetitious "words" in DNA represent more than half of the human genome's three billion nucleotides. Because human reasoning essentially views the repetition of words in spoken languages as errors, these DNA sequences were first written off as meaningless junk. Secular scientists assumed that natural processes somehow produced the repeats over eons of evolution through accidental duplications and that these accidents were carried along in the genome as useless baggage. Now it appears nothing could be further from the truth since these repetitive words are linked with pervasive biochemical function.
To read the rest, click on "Junk DNA…Trashed Again".


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

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Origin of Life — Philosophy, Not Science

Although Darwin's Drones tell biblical creationists the falsehood that the origin of life is unrelated to evolution, evolutionary scientists spend a heap of time trying to figure out how it happened through naturalistic processes. I reckon that they're getting a mite agitated in their efforts to deny the Creator, since their efforts continually lack science. Sure, they (and creationists) use science in the present to attempt to interpret evidence and infer about what went on in the past, but both approaches are equally philosophical as well as scientific.


The origin of life is not only fundamental to evolution, but both OOL and evolution are actually philosophy, not science.
Credit: Image*After
There are some logical problems at work here, not the least of which is that science itself is a philosophy on how to interpret data. Moving on from there, we see that evolutionary scientists are looking at the past, and not using their tools according to their own philosophies. No human was there to see the origin of life, and there is only one eyewitness, but they don't want to acknowledge God's revelation to man. Also, the origin of life and evolution are not testable, repeatable, observable, and other things that belong to a real scientific theory.
The origin of life has been debated for a long time. Basically, there are four possible explanations for the existence of life on earth:
1. Life on earth arose spontaneously.
2. Life on earth has always existed.
3. Life on earth came about through a supernatural act of creation by an intelligent Being.
4. Life was seeded from space.
The Application of Science to the Question
Science is supposed to be about things that are observable. That is, science can probe only things that we can detect with our five senses. Science also must be repeatable. This means that when an experiment or observation is repeated, we get the same results. These restrictions on science have led to what we call the scientific method, the general rules that we follow in doing science. The scientific investigation of the origin of life presents us with at least two problems. First, since life began before people were around, we hardly can observe the process. Second, since the origin of life appears to have been a unique event, we hardly can repeat it.

How do these four possibilities stack up? The fourth possibility doesn’t really explain how life came about, but instead passes the question off to some other location. Many would object that the third option is unscientific and hence ought not to be considered. If we restrict the definition of “scientific” to questions that can be answered through the application of the scientific method to natural processes, then option three may be considered unscientific. However, what is the status of the other two options? Option one is the assertion of abiogenesis, the belief that life must have arisen from non-living things through a natural process. However, abiogenesis has never been observed. To the contrary, it has been shown numerous times that biogenesis is true, that only living things give rise to living things. That is, abiogenesis has been scientifically disproved. To persist in belief in abiogenesis, one must believe in something that clearly is unscientific.
To read the rest of this article, click on "Is the Origin of Life a Scientific Question?"


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

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Sunflowers Confound Evolution

If you study on it, you may see that there are various things in nature that may hint at God having a sense of humor, things that he put here for the sake of baffling proponents of particles-to-petunia evolution. Some of these things are extremely simple, but have profound significance that should be humbling to the most arrogant of evolutionists.


Scientists call it "heliotropism", but evolutionists cannot explain *how* sunflowers follow the motion of the sun. Is this fact a small joke from the Creator?
Sunflowers In The Garden At Petit Gennevilliers, Gustave Caillebotte, 1885
Sure, scientists have come up for a mighty expensive word for the way sunflowers follow the sun, and maybe you could learn it and impress your friends (unless they find it pretentious, there's always that chance). But still, sunflowers have no muscles, no brains, nothing to explain how they follow the sun across the sky. Worse yet for creation deniers, when sunflowers are rotated, the eventually set themselves to rights and track the sun again.
Something as commonly observable as sunflowers following the sun is difficult to explain.

Even children can notice that plants follow the sun throughout the day. This phenomenon, given the fancy name “heliotropism” (attraction to the sun) has been known for centuries, but is still a “black box,” plant scientists admit. PhysOrg reports on botanists who have experimented with sunflowers, trying to understand the mechanisms that guide their bright yellow flowers toward the light.
To read the rest, follow the link to "Sunflower Motion Is a Black Box".



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

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Transformer — Octopus in Disguise

There are many critters that give advocates of microbes-to-marine biologist evolution conniption fits, since they refuse to cooperate with evolutionary ideas. Instead of giving credit where it belongs, to the Creator, they put the machinery of the Evolutionary Excuse Factory® into high gear. Sometimes, they even resort to metaphysical evolutionism, giving their puny god credit for having intelligence and foresight. Not that this has a bit to do with actual science, of course.


The mimic octopus seems like a product from a "Transformers" movie, but this shape-shifting self-preservation artist is very real. It also messes with the minds of evolutionists, since they cannot explain what was clearly the product of our Creator.

Suppose a marine biologist went to a Transformers movie, had some peyote buttons, then had a nightmare where his world and the movie world met. He or she might dream up the mimic octopuses. However, such a creature really does exist, and it's an excellent example of the intricate design work of God. Evolutionary ideas, whether using mutations, natural selection, or any combination of ideas, will not suffice. This creature can mimic other creatures in a big hurry, and it has its own "database" from which to draw for its transformation. No sign of evolution here, Pilgrim. Octopuses? Or octopi? Well, octopi is accepted, but has no real etymological basis. Here is an octopie
In 1998 a fantastic creature was discovered off the coast of the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia. The Mimic Octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) is the first living thing ever observed to imitate the shape, colour, texture, posture and behaviour of several other animal species. It performs multiple impersonations as it crosses the ocean floor.

Quick change artists

All octopus species can change the colour and texture of their skin to camouflage themselves, which is amazing in itself, but nothing like the Mimic Octopus’s behaviour had ever been previously recorded. Mimic Octopuses regularly impersonate (mostly) venomous creatures such as:

Banded Sole—the octopus imitates this flat fish with its poisonous spines by flattening out, trailing its legs behind and travelling in the same undulating manner.

Jellyfish—the octopus rises to the surface and then descends with its arms trailing as it pulses downwards, conspicuously ‘jellyfish-like’.

Sea snake—the Mimic changes its colour to the distinctive black and light stripes of the banded sea snake. It hides its body and six legs in a hole while it aligns its remaining two exposed arms in opposite directions, moving them like the venomous snake.

Lionfish— the octopus boldly swims in the open water, transforming its tentacles to appear like the poisonous barbed fins of a lionfish, and copies its movement.

Although the exact number of things it can mimic is unknown, some scientists believe this creature is able to impersonate up to fifteen separate creatures, including stingrays, sand anemones, crabs and mantis shrimp.
To finish reading about this fascinating creature, click on "The mimic octopus — The ocean’s eight–armed impression artist".


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

Labels