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

Monday, October 31, 2016

Cosmologists Hunting Space Ghosts

It's been sarcastically said that Christians believe in something even though you know it isn't true, which is a straw man definition of biblical faith. If you study on it, however, that same definition may rightly be used for evolutionary cosmologists. They have a whole heap of blind faith.

Evolutionary cosmogonists are spending time and money searching for things that aren't there. Ghosts, you might say.
Image credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team modified with Clker clipart.
Use (or abuse) does not imply endorsement by anyone for anything anywhere around these parts. 
One of the most famous ghosts of space is dark matter. It hasn't been detected, but secularist Big Bang cosmogony requires its existence. "Evidence" has been presented, but that is based on materialistic presuppositions, inferences, and ignoring other possible explanations for what is observed. Another ghost is antimatter. This, too, is elusive, so some scientists are trying to get help from recalcitrant neutrinos. The irrelevant thesis fallacy was invoked: "It could all have been so different. When matter first formed in the universe, our current theories suggest that it should have been accompanied by an equal amount of antimatter – a conclusion we know must be wrong, because we wouldn’t be here if it were true." (Yes, someone really said that, explaining nothing. Odd how we keep seeing examples of sciencey folks who don't seem to have met up with logic.) A third ghost gets a brief mention, the missing magnetic monopoles.

They sure do go to a lot of effort to deny that the universe was spectacularly created, and to deny evidence that it was created recently.
All detectors fail to find dark matter. So how can a whole galaxy be made of it?

PhysOrg announced, “Scientists discover a ‘dark’ Milky Way: Massive galaxy consists almost entirely of dark matter.” How can they tell? A study of the motions of a galaxy nicknamed Dragonfly 44 shows that “It has so few stars that it would quickly be ripped apart unless something was holding it together.” That something must be Dark Matter.

Trouble is, when they go looking for that something, they can’t detect it.
To get in the spirit of the thing and finish reading, click on "Dark Matter: Now You See It, Now You Don’t".

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Did Some Dinosaurs Re-Evolve?


The United States had a federal program called the Works Progress/Projects Administration for employing people from 1939-1943. (I knew a guy who had been on it, and he referred to the WPA as "We Putter Around".) They did mainly construction work such as roads, but some excavated fossils. In 1940, an odd dinosaur fossil fragment was found by WPA folks, and it was reexamined recently.


Evolutionists are so locked into their belief system that they're protecting it with made-up ideas without evidence. Here we have similar dinosaurs that must have "somehow re-evolved". Oh, please.
Modified image of an ankylosaurus postage stamp from Central Africa in my collection.
It was called
ankylosaurus because it would bite you on the ankles, making them sore.
The fossil had a dome head like several others, and had significant features in common with them. But the fragment was separated from its cousins by millions of Darwin years. Many other similar body types have been found separated by layers, so the idea is that they evolved more than once, or "somehow re-evolved". Not hardly! If these scientists bothered to look at the geologic evidence of the Genesis Flood, they wouldn't need to have fact-free ad hoc multiple-evolution stories to keep their storyline going. They might even learn that Earth isn't nearly as old as they think it is.
An American research team recently reanalyzed a strange fossil the Works Progress Administration excavated in 1940 from the Triassic Otis Chalk in west Texas. This partial skull showed that the animal had a huge, thick dome on its head, much like pachycephalosaurs found in Cretaceous deposits. According to conventional consensus, 100 million years and a vicious extinction event separate the two fossil types. What role did an evolutionary perspective play in this team's conclusions about this supposedly out-of-place dome-headed fossil?.

The skull goes by the genus name Triopticus and bears a strange pit in its middle. Its new description appears in the journal Current Biology, along with an interpretation of what must have happened to produce two very similar reptiles so distantly separated in evolutionary time.
To read the rest, click on "Out-of-Place Dome-Headed Reptile".
 

Friday, October 28, 2016

Plucking the Spider Strings

We may not always appreciate spider webs, especially when walking into them unexpectedly, but they are actually marvels from abilities given to the critters by their Creator. They are strong, and have different kinds of threads for different purposes.


Although they can be annoying at times, we have to admit that spider webs show amazing design. Now we learn that they are "tuned" much like the strings of a musical instrument.

Further analysis of the webbing has shown some additional fascinating details, including how webs are similar to musical instruments. Spiders adjust them like a musician tunes the strings of an instrument, gaining a great deal of information. Two reports are discussed in the link below. The first one is a nice change, scientists doing science, but the second has baseless homage to evolution. Amazing how God gave spiders the ability to make such intricate webs, isn't it?
Spider webs are so finely-tuned, they are like musical instruments that the creatures can strum or listen to.

Here’s an article showing how science can be reported without Darwinese. In “Tuning the instrument: Spider webs as vibration transmission structures,” PhysOrg reports work on spider webs by scientists from Madrid and Oxford. The emphasis is on the fine-tuning of spider webs for sensing vibrations as a source of information to the spider. The article treats a spider web as a virtual musical instrument:
To read the rest, click on "Spiders Play Silk Harps".

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Mammoths and Creation Science

Mammoths were big elephant-like critters that lived way up north during the Ice Age, got quick-frozen and were encased in ice a zillion years ago. One was heroic but cranky, named Manfred. At least, that seem to be the public perception. Actually, there were several different beasties that looked like elephants.


What were those elephants in the frozen wasteland during the Ice Age? Evolutionists have problems explaining them, but biblical creationary scientists have plausible models.
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Honymand / CC BY-SA 4.0
There were varieties of mammoths, one of which was the woolly mammoth — not to be confused with the larger mastodon, and not to be confused with the Christian rock band Mastedon ("video" below). Mammoths are a bit of a puzzler for proponents of muck-to-mammoth evolution, as are modern elephants, since evolution is presumed, not demonstrated.

Another area of stress is the Ice Age. Uniformitarian views are unable to explain it, but biblical creationary scientists have plausible models based on the Genesis Flood. The aftermath of the Flood, genetics, speciation, natural selection, the biblical created kinds, what happened to them — these factors and others have a part in explaining not only the Ice Age, but the mammoths (who were well-adapted to the cold) as well.
News recently [Article originally published in March, 2000 - CBB] flashed around the world of what many scientists hoped to be a nearly whole mammoth, found in permafrost in the Taymyr Peninsula in northern Siberia. Once again fascinated, people asked: ‘What exactly are mammoths?’, ‘Where did they come from?’, ‘When did they live?’, ‘Why did they become extinct?’ and ‘Can they be cloned?’.

What is a mammoth?

Evidently a variety of elephant, mammoths belong to the mammalian order Proboscidea. Mammoths (genus Mammuthus) had the usual elephantine features of a trunk and tusks. Mammoths had a large shoulder hump and a sloping back; small ears and tail; very complex teeth; a small trunk with a distinctive tip with two finger-like projections; huge, spirally curved tusks up to 3.5 m (11.5 feet) long; and spiral locks of dark hair covering a silky underfur. Some were huge — the Columbian mammoth measured up to 4+ metres (14 feet) high at the shoulders—about the same size as the largest living elephants. But the woolly mammoth was smaller, and there were dwarf mammoths only two metres (six feet) tall.
To read the rest, you don't need to pack your trunk. Just click on "Mammoth — riddle of the Ice Age".



For lyrics to "Holiest One", click here.
Some listeners may recognize singer John Elefante, final lead singer
of the group "Kansas", who was one of three Christians with them at the end. 

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Naturalism is not Conducive to Science

Secularists have been somewhat effective in portraying a "war between science and religion" and giving the impression that if someone is going to be a scientist, he or she must have a worldview that is rooted in naturalism. That is, no non-atheists need apply. Such propaganda utterly false, and one example is the dishonest use of the Scopes "Monkey Trial".


Secular humanists have been promoting the idea that to be a scientist, atheistic naturalism is required. But that worldview makes science impossible to conduct and remain consistent with such a philosophy.
Image credit: NASA (use does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you study on the propaganda and do a little research, you'll see that it's ridiculous. The founders of modern science were Christians, and many of those were biblical creationists. Science depends on methods that are repeatable, testable, observable, and so forth. An atheistic worldview is incoherent, with random processes of evolution as one of it's main foundations. You can't do science that way. Meanwhile, there have been and still are many people who believe the Bible and do science quite well.
Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies. But is this really the case, or are these opponents of a biblical worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?

A friend of the ministry was recently challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is.
To read the rest, click on "Is Science Secular?"

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Evolutionists Blunder on "Bad Design" Claims

More and more, we can see that molecules-to-meteorologist evolutionists have some serious problems with logic and prejudicial conjecture. Case in point: bad design. The human eye is badly designed, so God didn't intelligently design it, so it must have been evolution. I reckon such a claim is not the product of intelligence.


Evolutionists blindly parrot the ignorant claim that the human eye is poorly designed. People who actually know about the eye show that our Creator designed the eye quite well, thank you.

Logic and science don't work that way, old son. First, the fallacy of bifurcation in the "either God is a bad designer (or doesn't exist), therefore, evolution did it" idea. No third possibility? Anyone? Bueller? Okay. There's the fact that people talking about this are not ophthalmologists, no do they go beyond a superficial examination to support their anti-God tunnel vision. (When it comes to theistic evolutionists and other false teachers who corrupt the Bible, it's called "proof texting". Very similar to what's happening here.) Another possibility is that they simply do not want to see that the eye is well-designed, because that would mean there's a Creator and evolution did not do it. Upon closer inspection by people who know what they're talking about, the "bad eye design" is dismissed.
Evolutionists believe they have discovered numerous design flaws in living organisms. According to them, flaws arise because organisms evolve bit by bit over long ages in a ruthless struggle to survive. Death, not intelligence, is embraced as the means that “fractions” out the DNA needed to build new traits in a process that somehow operates without thought or purpose. Brown University’s Kenneth Miller explains how his evolutionary beliefs contrast with seeing creatures as being made by a wise, benevolent God:
Though some insist that life as we know it sprang from a Grand Designer’s Original blueprints, Biology offers new evidence that organisms were cobbled together layer upon layer by a timeless tinkerer called evolution.
Anything cobbled together by a “tinkerer” would likely have many mistakes—especially when compared to the creations of a craftsman. Thus, the evolutionist’s argument is that the presence of design mistakes reveals evolutionary tinkering and not the work of God. Richard Dawkins thinks he sees some huge problems in how the human eye is put together. To him, creationists are caught in a dilemma—either God did not design the eye or He made mistakes.
To take a look at the rest of the article in context, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionists Can't See Eye Design". You may also want to see these related articles.


Monday, October 24, 2016

Lunar Face Lifts?

The stereotype of aging movie stars and high society types is that they go to a cosmetic surgeon and get their faces lifted so they can look younger. Seems that our old pal the Man in the Moon has been doing that all by his lonesome (with the help of meteorite impacts) for quite some time.

With the help of meteorite impacts, the moon has been getting face lifts. New studies trouble deep-time advocates, and they've declared the moon much younger than previously thought.
Giordano Bruno crater image credits: NASA / Goddard / Arizona State University
The moon is hit by meteorites, and secondary craters are formed when the debris comes back down. (Not a good place for housing, since there are quite a few rocks zipping around up there. Earth gets to slow them down and burn off many in our atmosphere, giving us tons of dust every day.) New observations have changed a passel of ideas about the age of the moon and other things. Sorry, deep-time advocates, but the age of the moon has been reset way back — the universe was created recently.
New study of craters shows that moon’s surface gets churned every 81,000 years, not every million years.

“I like it when theories are proven wrong, or exciting new things come up,” remarked Kathleen Mandt of Southwest Research Institute, quoted by New Scientist. That’s how to put a cheerful spin on an orders-of-magnitude correction. “The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is starting to show there’s a lot we don’t know about the moon.” Data from LRO are showing a much higher influx of meteorites to the moon’s surface, implying that future astronauts stand a bigger-than-trivial chance of being in danger from flying rocks and dust. The data raise questions about the age of the lunar surface.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Moon Just Got 100-fold Younger".

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Revisiting the Flat Earth

Back on August 27, 2016, I posted on one of my other Weblogs about how atheists like to ridicule Christians for believing in a flat Earth. (Funny how they ignore the fact that the leader of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist. I reckon that guilt by association doesn't work when applied to atheists, huh?) Since then, I came across some additional — and disturbing — information.


Pointing readers to an existing post that has been substantially revised with additional information refuting flat Earth concepts.
"A rendered picture of the Flat Earth model.
The white around the outside of the globe is thought to be an 'Ice Wall',
preventing people from falling off the surface of the earth."
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Trekky0623
There is an increasing number of professing Christians (I suspicion that many are atheist owlhoots) who claim to believe that Earth is flat. This is why I said above that I find it disturbing.) Some of their reasoning is based on Scripture that is not properly understood, and I reckon that some want to think they're spreading "important" things. Some strike me as being plumb crazy, and you'd probably agree if you tried to have rational discussions with some.

It occurs to me that flat Earth believers are like geocentrists and evolutionists: they keep on clinging to their bad science, adding on and making excuses, until the whole thing begins to collapse under its own weight. Seems that the accusation of "science deniers" applies to them.

The additional information I came across has been recent, since Christian ministries and individuals have seen a need to write refutations of flat Earth beliefs from both biblical and scientific approaches. So, I updated an existing post with additional information, including articles and podcasts. To learn more, click on "The Bible and the Flat Earth". BONUS: The video embedded below is not at the link (a different video is there).


Friday, October 21, 2016

Dinosaurs Showing their True Colors?

Dinosaur models, movies, animatronics, and so on have been pretty much up to the imagination. Since they were "terrible lizards", we pretty much got lizard looks with greens and grays. Of course, that nasty frilled thing in the first Jurassic Park movie had some color. But how does anyone know? With developments in science and technology, we seem to be getting a mite closer.

Exceptionally well-preserved dinosaur remnants have been used to detect the critter's colors. This is possible because the materials used could not have lasted 120 million years. Sorry, Darwin.
Modified stamps of dinosaurs from my collection, issued by the Commonwealth of Dominica
A certain well-preserved dinosaur had enough pigments, proteins, and skin that gave scientists something to work with, and they have a pretty good idea how that bad boy was colored. Fortunately, their assigned age has to be wrong, else their source material would have been long destroyed. Interesting that they didn't try to date the proteins, though. Probably because they know it would show that Earth isn't as old as Darwinistas want, it was created much more recently.
Scientists mapped the color shading of a particularly well-preserved Chinese fossil—a Psittacosaurus [sit uh kuh SAWR us]—onto several three-dimensional, lifelike models of the dinosaur. They discovered that the extent of lighter areas on its belly matched that of today's animals that live in shaded areas, like beneath trees, as opposed to open plains. In the process, the researchers confirmed pigment and protein remnants in the fossil skin that should have decayed long ago if they were really millions of years old.

This pristine, small dinosaur fossil came from China's Jehol Biota, fossil beds to which secular geologists attach an age of over 120 million years based on when they believe some of its now-fossilized creatures were alive and evolving. But if that many years actually elapsed since sediments suddenly buried this entire animal, then how could it still contain the short-lived biochemicals that made its skin color darker on its back? How could it still have what appear to be remnants of the proteins that make its reptilian scales still bumpy?
Don't be sore, Dinah. You can read the rest by clicking on "Scales, Colors, Proteins in Dinosaur Skin".

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Proteins Detected on Stone Tools in Jordan

Yet still another conundrum for atoms-to-anthropologist evolution happened with stone tools found in Jordan. These are considered "stone age" (a term that actually is the product of imagination to support evolutionary beliefs), dated at 250,000 Darwin years ago. There are two problems for the Darwinistas.

One problem is that certain tools were selected for testing, and proteins were found and identified. They were killing and carving up meat.

Stone tools with protein residue have thrown off evolutionary timelines. This kind of thing is happening rather frequently.
Image modified from Clker clipart
 "Big deal. So they forgot to throw their utensils in the dishwasher."

Aye, there's the rub, pilgrim. Cleanliness and all mod cons (modern conveniences) aside, those proteins should not have lasted for such a huge amount of time. This is yet another item to add to the list of faulty deep-time dating methods. In addition, humans were created as intelligent beings. Evolutionists wrongly presuppose evolution, which would mean that archaic humans had not evolved intelligence yet.
Would you expect pieces of meat to survive on flakes of rock in the desert for 250,000 years?

Modern humans are typically dated from 200,000 years ago to the present, according to the evolutionary timeline. Stone tools found in Jordan from “human-like species” older than moderns still have identifiable protein remains of the animals the hunters slaughtered with the tools, according to a press release from the University of Victoria:  
To read the press release and the rest of the article, click on "Protein Residue Found on Hominin Stone Tools". 

 

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Faulty Evolutionary Reasoning on the Genetic Code

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch head into town from Deception Pass, don't play cards with them; they have a reputation for dealing from the bottom of the deck. Although common-ancestor evolution is supposed to be upward and increasing in complexity, these owlhoots have the notion that a loss of function or information is evidence for evolution! They use a similar bad argument about the genetic code.


Apparently the amazingly complex genome is not complex enough to suit some people, therefore, evolution. Yes, they really think that way.
Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.
science.energy.gov/ber/ Image source here. Use on this site does not imply endorsement.
Your computer uses a binary code to do all its amazing (and sometimes annoying) functions. The genetic code is quarternary, which is far more complex. From that, a passel of things develop with various RNA molecules, proteins, enzymes, and the like. Evolutionists claim that the specified complexity of the DNA language is not complex enough, so there's no need for the Creator. These same educated people should know that any code or language requires a mind behind it, and the mind of God is far beyond ours. In addition, there is a great deal that remains unknown in this area, but evolutionists lack humility and make pronouncements anyway.
When I was taking my first General Chemistry class as an undergraduate at The Ohio State University, I never realized that my professor was the codiscoverer of the 21st amino acid. Amino acids are the individual building blocks that make up proteins. Each amino acid is important in making the right protein because one amino acid change can lead to diseases like sickle-cell anemia. While there are myriad amino acids, the standard genetic code found in living things only incorporates 20 of those amino acids. Discovery of the 21st amino acid (called selenocysteine) was significant because of the possibility to elucidate new protein combinations. Since discovery of the 21st amino acid (along with the 22nd amino acid pyrrolysine), we now know not all organisms incorporate these extra amino acids and some only rarely do so. The genetic code is very important because it turns the information in our DNA into proteins that do all the work in every single cell. If the genetic code is altered significantly, then life cannot exist.


What Is the Genetic Code?

Evolutionists frequently cite the genetic code’s universality as proof of evolution from a common ancestor. The genetic code is the series of nucleotides that encode for a particular amino acid. Nucleotides are the Adenine, Cytosine, Guanosine, and Thymine (ACGT) present in your DNA. During a process called transcription, the information from DNA is synthesized into RNA. When transcription occurs, all Thymines in DNA are replaced with Uracils in RNA. It is difficult to say exactly how many different kinds of RNA molecules exist,1 but the three forms of RNA important for the production of proteins from genes are messenger RNA (mRNA), ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and transfer RNA (tRNA).  
To read the rest, click on "Is a Limited Genetic Code Proof That God Is Not Required?" It's your deal.

 

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Creationism and Child Abuse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Feral atheists and evolutionists are upset when Christians and creationists teach children about the Bible and creation, so they call it "indoctrination" — and "child abuse". Those really take the rag off the bush, since they're emotion-provoking falsehoods. Meanwhile, children get materialistic indoctrination in government-run schools. Most likely, they know what Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."


Atheists hate biblical creation so much, they imperiously proclaim that for Christians and creationists to teach the Bible to our children is "child abuse". Such "reasoning" and bigotry are dismantled.
School Teacher, Jan Steen, 1668
Laurence Krauss, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and others have expressed their imperious outrage that Christians would have the unmitigated gall to teach our children in accordance with our beliefs. Yes, it's wrong to deliberately lie to children when teaching, so we can agree with Krauss on that point. The rest of the claims of these tinhorns is simply prejudicial conjecture and bigotry. Further, for them to say that teachings they dislike are child abuse cheapens the term and cause it to have less of an impact when discussing real child abuse.

What do they want taught? I've summarized it as teaching that the universe inexplicably came from nothing (which is really something conveniently redefined as "nothing") by chance. From there, stars and planets formed. Abiogenesis happened, life evolved triumphantly upward, all by time, chance, random processes, copying mistakes (mutations), and so on. There is no Creator, no Judgement, no final justice or reward, no punishment of the wicked. When you die, you're worm food. There is no purpose. Yeah, Pilgrim, that's an atheistic message of hope. If you want to say that a teaching is child abuse, atheism fits the bill.

What I consider dangerous about these atheist celebrities is that some of them are scientists, and people tend to believe what scientists say instead of thinking for themselves. Further, they are not even doing science, but pontificating. They play to their base of drones who dutifully repeat their uninformed words when trolling Christians and creationists. Then atheists wonder why people don't like them a whole heap.

I have some articles about the irrational "child abuse" charge, followed by a YouTube playlist of three videos totaling about 22 minutes (or click here for the playlist).

Monday, October 17, 2016

Little Things that Matter — Subatomic Particles

Back in the olden days, we were told in school that molecules make everything, and molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, with protons having a positive charge, neutrons are neutral, and electrons are negative. Right, got it. Is class dismissed yet? Not hardly!


Subatomic particles testify to the work and skill of the Creator. They have structure, order, and purpose. They could not have evolved.
Image credit: Pixabay / geralt
People toyed with the idea that if we could get extreme magnification, we'd see that there's another universe way, way down yonder with stars, galaxies, planets and intelligent beings. That's been pretty much dismissed, except for the final moment in the first Men in Black movie. If you want an interesting story from 1932 about a race from down there that comes up here to try and take over the world, click on "The Seed of the Toc-Toc Birds", by George Henry Weiss.

As research and knowledge progress, scientists should be humbled that there is still more to learn. There are several subatomic particles in quantum physics. (No, faster-than-light tachyons are only hypothetical, rejected by most physicists, so that "tachyon drive" stays in the realm of science fiction. Sorry.) Photons have no mass (so they are probably Protestant), yet the human eye can detect a single photon. These tiny particles are invoked in the magic of the Big Bang, and since there is not enough antimatter to match up with the matter, secular cosmologists invoke the baryon asymmetry problem

Particles have "spin", charges (including "color charge" that has nothing to do with the colors we see, but are used to keep track of things), so physicists have quite a bit to keep track of. You have your strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and a passel of other things going on. 

How did these particles evolve? Like common-ancestor evolution, it did not happen. The tiny particles are the product of the design of the Creator, having structure, order, and purpose. Here is a series of four articles that discuss the particles and what they do, and the implications for creation:
Yes, it's a bit heady, but definitely worth your time. You may want to save the Web pages for reference.

 

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Facial Expressions and Evolution

Darwin thought that our expressions showing emotion came from animal ancestors, but that is clearly ridiculous, since human facial expressions are extremely diverse and unique, far more so than any animals. Some animals show surprise, fear, and a few other basic emotions, but people often "see" an expression of emotion that is not necessarily there and give it a meaning. When Basement Cat gives me a look that my wife and I cannot fathom, I jokingly refer to it as her "I know what you did" look. Also, I've never seen an animal's expression when it smelled something either pleasant or awful. (I thought of this when I was in a corridor at the workplace and walked into an invisible fog of bad perfume, and made a face about it.)


Human facial expressions are far more diverse than those of animals, and many of them cross cultural boundaries for communication.
The Card Players, Paul Cezanne, 1892
Poker players learn to use a "poker face" where they try to be devoid of expressions so that other players can't tell whether or not someone has a good hand. Skilled players watch for "tells" that involve body language as well as facial expressions and head movements. There are times when I put on a poker face to avoid showing emotion, and sometimes people have wondered if I was angry or depressed. Maybe I was a mite troubled, or not. Sometimes, we give very subtle and quick changes that others may pick up on, even subconsciously. 

The many facial muscles that are used to show emotion often cross cultural boundaries, such as the smile, which requires fewer muscles than anger. Communication with our facial expressions seems to be another gift of our Creator.
Even before they can say a word, newborn babies can “talk” with their faces. In fact, every human being has the ability to communicate in this language, with a range of expressions no other creature can match.

When we think of muscles, we generally think of the big ones in our arms and legs—under our voluntary control—which are attached at both ends to our skeleton and allow body movement. But the skin on our face has over 40 voluntary muscles that, among other things, allow us to move our skin around to create an amazing variety of facial expressions. These facial muscles originate in the skull bones but attach to the skin of the scalp, ears, neck and face. All facial muscles are controlled by the facial nerves that emerge from the skull behind our ears and split into five branches on each side of our head.
To read the rest, click on "Facial Expressions—The Universal Language". Bonuses: look for the description of the "Elvis Muscle", and there's a short video at the end. 

Friday, October 14, 2016

Human Life and the Cold Road of the Evolutionary Worldview

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As secularism takes hold in the rest of the world, it eventually reaches Canada, and then the United States. Indeed, Belgium recently allowed a child with a terminal illness (whose name and age are unknown) to be granted a request to be euthanized. Now, many countries have a legal voting age of 18 or 21, presumably based on the belief that minors are not mature enough to vote. Currently, the voting age in Belgium is 18, but a child has the maturity and wisdom to decide to end his or her own life? Not hardly! To further illustrate how Belgium is morally conflicted regarding children, that country may be lowering the age of sexual consent to a mere 13! What do you think is the root cause of these things? Increased secularization.


The evolutionary worldview has heavily influenced global secularization. We have to be steadfast in worsening times.

A recent report in Canada's National Post tells of how the academic journal Bioethics discussed a debate about disallowing conscientious objectors to abortion and euthanasia to be barred from refusing these procedures to patients. Your conscience, your religious values — those have to be stashed in your saddlebags while you're working. It's easy to see that this can escalate to a rule that if you don't agree with secularist views and place a value on human life that interferes with the state's protocol, you cannot be in the medical profession.

France is on the way to making it a crime to have pro-life activities and Websites. Their biased and misleading wording is staggering. A similar proposal by Steve Clark in the Journal of Medical Ethics suggests that medical professionals who object to abortion and euthanasia should have their objections evaluated by tribunals! Right, they should have the say whether or not someone has a serious conscience-related concern. And  medical pro-death activity is going on in the United States United States

Contrary to these things, Christians, especially biblical creationists, believe that men and women are created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and life is sacred. Since Darwinian evolution gained a stranglehold on science, people have been taught that we are nothing more than animals at the top of the food chain. We are falsely told that the Bible is disproved and irrelevant.

Christians have been a preserving force to slow society's journey down the cold road of the evolution-based worldview of the secularists. Many humanists, evolutionists, and others with a materialistic mindset want us silenced. To reach this goal, our legal rights have been challenged directly and indirectly. Barring legal means to stifle us, those who hate God and the Bible seek to demonize us through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and more. If they get their way, whether by our removal by God (the rapture), tremendously increased persecution, or some other means, what happens? Secularists are more likely to get what they want. They may realize they've reached their goals and regretted it, but hold the satisfaction that Christians and creationists are not around to interfere.

In the 1931 dystopian novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (an evolutionist maintaining the Huxley family tradition), human life is nothing special. The worst obscenities possible are "mother" and "father", since there is no birth, marriage, or family in the civilized world. Sexual promiscuity is encouraged from an early age (everyone belongs to everyone), but homosexuality and other perversions were not considered. Contraception is a part of the many things that are conditioned into a child after it is "decanted" from an assembly line process. Abortion is easy, but usually unnecessary. Embryos are dumbed down to fit the needs of society, and more are grown or made as needed, whether with full mental capabilities, semi-moronic, or others between them. Alphas would not be happy with doing menial Epsilon work because they have their full faculties, while Epsilons have the least brain power.

There was a de facto secularist religion, and Ford's name was an epithet or a curse (Henry Ford was revered because of his invention of the assembly line). Society was fond of new things, and one reason that the real God is not considered is because he, and the Christian religion, are old, therefore, undesirable. Interestingly, science and art are also suppressed, and they keep science on a tight reign. Society's primary goals are personal happiness and the stability of society. Science, religion, and art threaten the stability, Ford be praised.

The community, and pleasing oneself as well others, are expected, stress is eliminated through the conditioning and embryonic growth process (Huxley included a few discredited remarks about evolution as "facts", including "gill slits"). Also, stress is dealt with through the recreational drug soma, which is encouraged by the state. Children were conditions to consider death irrelevant, so euthanasia was no big deal. Interestingly, Huxley (the author of the story) was dying of cancer when he was euthanized with LSD at his own request.

A short story got my attention, "2 B R 0 2 B" (to be or naught to be) by Kurt Vonnegut. In a future society, old age is nonexistent, and birth is seldom planned. So, if someone is born, someone else has to volunteer to die or the newborn child is killed. If you want to read it, click on "The Project Gutenberg EBook of 2 B R 0 2 B, by Kurt Vonnegut", or to listen for free, go to "Short Science Fiction Collection 020", it's the first entry and takes about 19 minutes.

I'll allow that secularists are not the only problem. There are pusillanimous "Christians" who are compromising on biblical principles, not only accepting materialistic presuppositions, but also encouraging them. Notice how conservative, Bible-believing Christians are the ones who are told to change, to compromise. Roman Catholics, evolutionists, deluded theistic evolutionists, homosexuals, atheists, terrorists, or any other Bible-denying group — they don't budge, continuing to reject the authority of the Word. To be accepted or seem "relevant", certain religious folks compromise on the truth. All of us will stand before God and have to explain ourselves, and I'm glad I won't be in the place of those who wreck the faith of others (Luke 17:2).

We need to learn how to defend our faith, beginning in Genesis, which is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines. As many of us keep saying, we need to know what and why we believe and develop critical thinking skills so we can spot the sidewinders who seek to destroy our faith. While we still have free speech and free thought, we must persevere for the name and glory of Jesus Christ.

I have some material for you to read and hear if you've a mind to. I hope you do. First, what started me on this was Albert Mohler's The Briefing podcast. You can listen to that or read the transcript here. Second, Janet Mefferd interviewed Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. You can listen to the interview at this link on SoundCloud (free to listen online, downloading requires a free SoundCloud account). Finally, I want to present you with an important article. Click on "Forced abortion and euthanasia? — ‘Bioethicists’ want to force doctors to murder". Be equipped, and stand firm. Secularists are on the warpath.




Thursday, October 13, 2016

Stromatolites Confound Evolution Again

The hands at the Darwin Ranch get a mite agitated when the discussion turns to stromatolites. They get big and bold, claiming that stromatolites support evolution, but in reality, stromatolites support the Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists and refute evolution.

Evolutionists are debunking their own origin of life conjectures for us. In this case, stromatolites are fouling up their timeline again.
Wikimedia Commons / Didier Descouins
This time, the consternation involves chemical evolution (abiogenesis, the alleged origin of life). Stromatolites have been dated a few zillion Darwin years old, back to a fictitious time when life was unable to evolve in the first place. Nice of them to continue to debunk their own conjectures for us, isn't it?

May as well admit it, old son: life did not evolve, that's why there's no evidence to support your faith. Life was created on this here planet, made special for us.
Perhaps the greatest problem for evolution is where and how the first biomolecules and cells originated by means of random processes. And if that problem wasn't substantial enough—essentially statistically and biologically impossible—a new discovery makes the odds even worse. Colonies of complex fossil microbes have recently been found that allegedly push the origin of life to at least 3.7 billion years into the past—a period of time thought to be unfavorable for life to begin.

Fossils found by scientists in Greenland are now thought to be the oldest evidence of life yet discovered. The research team from the University of Wollongong just reported their stromatolite findings in the prestigious journal Nature. Stromatolites are biologically derived rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow marine waters. In fact, living photosynthesizing stromatolites can be readily observed today in the Bahamas and are thought to be the oldest living forms of life on earth.
To continue reading, click on "Cellular Evolution Debunked by Evolutionists". 

 

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Evolutionists Slap Down Author Over Dinosaur Remark

Gemma Tarlach is an author of fiction and nonfiction (with experience in journalism as well), and does a heap of hiking on her many travels. She is an evolutionist, and has had articles in Discover magazine. A recent article caused an uproar because she gave her opinion on what she saw: a carving that looked like a dinosaur at the Church of Tsminda Sameba. That raises many questions about what the people in that remote location saw, when, why they carved the images, and so on.


An evolutionist wrote that an ancient carving looked like a dinosaur, and secularists went ballistic. Their evolutionary dogma is threatened. Again. Still.

She didn't say that it was a scientific conclusion, she just said what she thought it looked like. Advocates of common-ancestor evolution were on the prod and gave her some slapping down for her remark. "After all, we know that dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million Darwin years, right? Our materialistic presuppositions require it, don'tcha know. And don't be saying that stuff, creationists will find out and make hay with it!" Or words to that effect.
Window dressing on the rock wall of a medieval church stirs unbelief, anger among anti-creationists.

At the outset, we are not going to claim with absolute certainty that these carvings are dinosaurs. But look at the photo included in an article for CMI by David Lewis. If you didn’t know where it came from, or when it was made, what would you think?

Gemma Tarlach sure thought they were dinosaurs. In her June 1 blog entry for Discover Magazine (written independently of the CMI article and apparently without knowledge of it), she startled her mostly-secular readers with a shocking headline: “FOUND: Medieval Dinosaurs!” (exclamation point hers).
To read the rest (and I hope you will), click on "Medieval Dinosaurs Too Incredible for Materialists". The CMI article that was mentioned is "Dinosaurs in Noah’s vineyard". 

 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Looks Like a Dog, Bites Like a Devil

Look at that cute little dog. No, it's a weasel. No, it looks like it could be related to several critters, but the Tasmanian Devil is a marsupial like koalas, wombats, and the like. But I wouldn't advise trying to pet it, they have a mighty powerful bite. Although they're fond of eating, they're primarily scavengers. Their portrayal in some animated cartoons is fanciful, and the fierceness portrayed may be based on its initial overblown reputation.


The Tasmanian Devil's fierce reputation is exaggerated. It is not friendly to evolutionary explanations of it's origin.
Image credit: Pixabay / annca
Evolutionists have difficulty giving its origin, using words like "probably", and the fossil record does not show much change over the years. Creationists offer an explanation for their dispersal after the Genesis Flood, but admittedly their speculation is about what likely happened.
One of the most undeserved reputations of all in the animal kingdom belongs to a marsupial, (Sarcophilus harrisii). Early written reports described it as “untameably savage, highly destructive to livestock and with such a fierce bite that ordinary-sized dogs were no match for it.” Even the scientific genus name means ‘flesh-lover’.

When a boatload of English officers, sailors and convicts settled by the Derwent River in South Tasmania in 1803, one could understand if they were somewhat apprehensive listening to the devil’s alien shrieks and screams during the night. Some descriptions bordered on the farcical, stating the devil will “slay other creatures for the mere wanton lust of slaughter.”
To read the rest, click on "The Tasmanian Devil". You may get a giggle out of the very short video clip from Bedevilled Rabbit, below.




Labels