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

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Defense and the Ruffed Grouse

First, a story. Way back when I was much younger and James Madison was President, we were visiting my grandmother in the northern part of Michigan, in the lower peninsula. It was a small town (still is), and there was a parcel of land behind the house, just a field. This bored child went a-wandering. There was some activity from a killdeer, making all sorts of racket and playing at having a broken wing. I'd heard of such shenanigans to protect the young'uns, so I went in the opposite direction. I could imagine the call of the killdeer as saying, "Fleeee, baby!, and I found the little ones in the tall grass. Had sense enough to leave them alone.


Man and beast consider the ruffed grouse to be mighty tasty. So how did the Creator equip it to keep from going extinct in a hurry?
Ruffed Grouse, John James Audubon
Other birds that lay eggs on the ground do this broken wing business as well, including the star of today's show, the ruffed grouse. They're not very big, and both man and beast consider them good eatin'. How can they keep from going extinct in a hurry? The Creator gave them several ways to stay alive, including laying a passel of eggs, the broken wing trick, warning sounds, and other methods.
The North American ruffed grouse (Bonasaumbellus) is common to northern USA, southern Canada, and central Alaska. Bonasa is Latin for ox (cf. Bison bonasus, the European bison). Some writers feel that the term refers to the drumming sound the bird makes which, to some, might sound like a bellowing, or even stampeding, bison. Others have suggested a resemblance of the startled grouse’s wild initial flight to the action of a charging buffalo.

The species name, umbellus, means something that shades (e.g. an umbrella). During the courtship display, the male raises his beautifully banded, 18-feather tail and forms it into a fan. At the same time, he elevates the feathers around his neck, making them look like a collar (or ruff).
Don't grouse, you can read the full article in context by clicking on "The remarkable ruffed grouse".

 

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Cave Wall Animation?

Video action is commonplace today, and we can pull out a camera, phone, or other device and record something that we can view instantly. (I marvel at how people can have a live video broadcast that is also being uploaded to places like YouTube, free, and I've never bothered to use the tools at my disposal to do it.) Technology can be fun!

Step back a ways, and many of us remember watching movies that were on film, whether in the cinema or in school. Those kinds of movies were actually optical illusions, relying on the brain, film speed, and persistence of vision so we would not see the individual frames, but perceive actual motion. Movies on film that lasted a long time. What happened before? One gadget was Thomas Edison's kinetoscope, using film and that optical illusion thing. (A short video about the kinetoscope is here, and a kind of tour of the machine is here.) The earliest Western films were on the kinetoscope as well.

Before that, there was a toy called the thaumatrope, where a card or disk was given drawings on each side and it was twirled on a string. There could be a bird on one side, a cage on the other, and twirling gave the viewer the image of a bird in a cage. So, that's the beginning of animation history, right?

Not exactly.

We have convenient video-making capabilities today. A forerunner of animation technology was discovered on cave walls!
Rhinos in Chauvet Cave, public domain via Wikimedia Commons
Before I commence to telling you something even more fascinating, we need to discuss the Chauvet Cave paintings. Evolutionary anthropologists have marveled at their skill, arguing from faulty presuppositions that humans had not evolved enough to have such abilities. Biblical creationists know that humans were intelligent from the beginning of creation, so we're not surprised at their skill. Admire it, yes, but not surprised that they have it.

Due to a bit of observant happenstance, burning torches flickered on the cave walls with paintings in Lascaux, and animation effects were observed. Sure does look like ancient humans were using some very advanced techniques indeed!
Fred Flintstone may have been able to go to the movies after all if researchers are right in their observations that so-called Stone-Age man used animation effects.

Cave paintings that archaeologist Marc Azéma, of the University of Toulouse–Le Mirail in France, and artist Florent Rivère studied are a fascinating insight into the technical knowledge ancient man possessed.

. . .

They say ancient man drew multiple images of the same animal with what they described as cartoon–like techniques to create the effect of movement across cave walls. The cinematic effects were revealed by the flickering light of burning torches.
To read the entire short article, click on "Movie-making an off-the-wall idea". Also, a pretty good student report on the thaumatrope is below.



Monday, November 28, 2016

Evolution, Aliens, Religion — Wackiness Ensues

If you study on it for a spell, you'll notice that secularists have double standards, especially related to anything Christian or creationist:

  • When we teach our children about biblical creation, we're "indoctrinating" them. When government-run secularist education centers give them materialistic and evolutionary material for several hours a day over a period of years, they're "educating" them.
  • When evolutionists disagree about hypotheses and models, it's good for science. When creationary scientists disagree with each other or offer other possible interpretations of evidence, well, creationists cannot get along with each other.
  • When atheists and evolutionists attack Christians and creationists, they're being "rational". When creationists present evidence and refute the attacks, we're "right wing extremists" and "science deniers".
  • When using quotes of evolutionists admitting they have problems, it's "quote mining". When taking creationists out of context and misrepresenting them, that is acceptable for anti-creationists.
  • When evolutionists speculate, it's "science", and the obligatory denigration of anything biblical (using remarks like "a fictional worldwide flood" to dismiss Genesis Flood geology) can be included. When creationists speculate, it's the ravings of incompetent lying ideologues.
  • Similar to the point above, when creationary evidence is rejected out of hand without even considering its merit because it's "religious". When secular scientists present faith-based statements, they are worthy of serious consideration in scientific journals, even though no evidence is provided.
I could continue, but you get the idea. Let's focus on faith-based speculations as science. In this case, it's about communicating with extraterrestrial life.

Double standards. Secularists reject creation evidence as "religious", and yet they give wild, faith-based speculations about extraterrestrials scientific credence.
Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak
Searching for signs of extraterrestrial life way out yonder generally receives its impetus from the presupposition that algae-to-architect evolution is true; if it happened here, then it happened out there. Quite a bit of work these owlhoots indulge in to deny the Creator, isn't it?

Saying that bursts of radio waves are examples of aliens trying to tell us something (but that's faith-based assumptions without evidence or logic). Based on how evolution allegedly works, it may be a good idea to not contact them. Wait, there's more! Aliens changed so much, they've become the laws of nature — they're in us, we're in them, and we are all together, goo goo g' joob. Or how about how the aliens we meet will be super-intelligent machines? 

This wacky religion stuff about aliens gets serious consideration, but if a creationists offer something, they're told to get out of Dodge. Two articles on these subjects are submitted for your approval. First, "Alien Religion Unrebuked", and then, "The End of SETI". ADDENDUM: CMI published an article that deals extensively with one of the sections in "Alien Religion Unrebuked", where a professor has some very strange views. See "Aliens are all around us?".

 

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Quantum Soul?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The soul has been a source of controversy for a mighty long time. What is it? Where does it reside? Is there a difference between soul and spirit? Some Christians believe that humans are sort of triune, saying something to the effect of, "You are a soul, you have a spirit, and you live in a body". This may reflect the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe in only two aspects, with soul and spirit being interchangeable.

Secularists contradict their naturalistic views by searching for the location of the soul. One says the answer is in quantum physics, but this is logically fallacious.
Image credit: dan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Secular scientists with their materialistic (often reductionist) worldviews contradict themselves. They use the laws of logic, but those are not material things. For that matter, some consider mathematics to be something pure, but numbers are also immaterial. The secular worldview precludes the existence of God and spirits, and yet, scientists search for the location of free will, which indicates that they believe there is a soul (or consciousness, if you will) after all. And yet, they believe that naturalistic evolutionism can explain what is experienced.

Looking for the immaterial spirit/soul/consciousness is pretty close to the logical fallacy called the category error, using material means to search for something that is not material. Atheists make that error when they demand scientific proof of God, who is not confined to the space-time limits of his creation, and is a spirit.

Now, I don't cotton to near-death experiences (NDEs) as being conclusive evidence of life after death. However, a neurosurgeon makes a compelling case that the soul is independent of the brain, and only uses the brain as a vehicle. He believes that this is a truth that needs to be pursued.

Some scientists, such as physicist Roger Penrose (who rejects the concept of cosmic inflation), believe that there is evidence that the soul lives on after death, and have reduced the soul to information stored at the quantum level. One of the main problems with reductionism is that this philosophy is dehumanizing and sterile. 

Although secularists in general deny the Bible, the truth is there. We have souls, and will be judged by God our Creator. Are you prepared for where you will spend eternity? 
 

Friday, November 25, 2016

Constellations and the Genesis Dispersal

For me, stargazing is a wondrous thing, but I'm not good with constellations. F'rinstance, I don't get seeing Cassiopeia on her throne, just a kind of W shape. That one over there, a scorpion, you say? Not happening for this child, sorry. Odd that I can see figures in clouds but not in constellations. Especially on a clear night, there's all kinds of other stars making it hard to pick out the ones in the constellation. Big dipper (or "plough")? Yes, I can see that. And the little one, too. No, I don't see the Great Bear in it. Oh look, a shooting star!

Ancient stories related to constellations can be found in diverse areas and cultures around the world. The may help support the Genesis dispersal timeline.
Starry Night over the Rhone, Vincent van Gogh, 1888
Those constellations have some mighty fanciful tales associated with them, don't they? What people may not know is that the same basic story is found in diverse areas of the globe, in different cultures. How is that? Getting into the history of constellations, star maps, and the biblical timeline, looks like this may help support the Genesis dispersal.
Do you remember as a child looking into the sky to find shapes in cotton-ball clouds? How often did you see the same shape as someone else? For my family, we saw very different animals or objects, and it was only when we specifically pointed out distinct features that we could agree on a shape.

Similarly, how likely is it for cultures scattered across the globe to see the same shapes in the stars? Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, the Big and Little Bears with distorted tails, are well-known constellations in today’s world because they are easy to spot, hold the asterisms we know as the Big Dipper and Little Dipper, and are important for finding the North Star. Even though these bears have long tails unlike any bear we know today, they caught the attention of the Ancient World as well.
To finish reading, click on "Do the Big and Little Dipper Support the Bible’s Timeline?
 

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Thanks for the Spices

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Today is Thanksgiving Day in the United States (Canada has one the second Monday in October), and many people are happy for the day off from work, feasting, slumbering, and watching our version of football. Some actually pause and consider the things they're thankful for, such as the food, family, friends, salvation in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:9-9, Acts 4:12, John 14:6), having a job, and other big things. I want to talk about something small that I'm thankful for: spices.


There are many big things to be thankful for, but our Creator has blessed us with small things. In this case, spices.
Image credit: Freeimages / Kyle Edwards
"Spices are the variety of life, Cowboy Bob!"

Uh... something like that.

Don't tell anyone, but cinnamon is my second greatest weakness. That stuff is versatile, you can add some to coffee, donuts, pies, make it into candy, and so on. Nutmeg is a frequent companion of cinnamon. Bay leaf adds flavor to legume soups. The misnamed allspice is certainly not a combination of spices, but comes from the pimenta tree, and is said to taste like a mixture of nutmeg, cinnamon, and clove. Ginger livens many things up as well. Salt is not a spice, but technically, it's a mineral; we just use it like a spice, as well as a preservative. (Actual spices are basically dried seeds and herbs.) If salt loses its saltiness, it's not good for much, and spices can lose their spiciness over time. There's a passel of spices listed at this encyclopedia.

When reading or hearing evolutionary material, it's easy to get the impression that everything evolved for a purpose, as if the puny god of evolution had a plan. Some spices have health benefits, but many have little or no nutritional value. They sure do liven up foods, though. Interesting that some foods are difficult on the palate, but important for health. (On a 12th season episode of The Simpsons, Dr. Hibbard said of broccoli, "One of the deadliest plants on Earth. Why, it tries to warn you itself with its terrible taste." Fortunately, most of us don't rely on doctors in animated comedy shows for advice.) Evolutionists can't explain why spices taste so good to many people, but I think it's obvious: our Creator cares about us, and gives us many things for our benefit, and even our pleasure. This includes the little things like spices.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Weak Storytelling to Dodge Genesis Flood Evidence

When presented with evidence that does not conform to long-age and evolutionary expectations, secularists employ rescuing devices. Sure, we all have rescuing devices, but to for scientists to reject investigation and simply make excuses is, well, inexcusable.

After all, scientists who are supposed to be interested in evidence. Instead, many will make up stories, ignore the evidence, call biblical creationists "liars", and other silliness.


When confronted with evidence contrary to deep-time and evolutionary views, secularists ignore the data or make up unscientific excuses.
Image credit: US National Park Service
Marine fossils are found in areas that are (or were) considered fresh water places. Instead of saying that something started out as a fresh water creature and then somehow evolved to salt water doesn't cut it, old son. These owlhoots make up stories without anything resembling evidence, and Evolution's True Believers™ accept guesswork as fact. Since there's such a mixture of fossils, the best explanation for what is found is the Genesis Flood.
On a recent visit to the Royal Tyrell Museum in Alberta, Canada, I headed straight to the famous Dinosaur Hall that houses over 40 mounted specimens, including the Tyrannosaurus rex known as “Black Beauty.” However, a seemingly insignificant pair of fossil fish caught my eye—fossils that illustrate the fallacy inherent in uniformitarian thought and interpretation.

The first display was a beautifully preserved fossil herring with signage stating, “Modern herring live in salt water, but close Eocene relatives were abundant in the fresh water lakes of western North America.” A second display featured a spectacularly preserved fossil ray and claimed, “Rays are rarely preserved as fossils, in part because their skeletons are made of cartilage rather than bone. Most rays prefer salt water, making this fresh water form an even more remarkable fossil.”
To read the rest, click on "Fresh Water and Salt Water Don't Mix".
 

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

More Signs of a Young Solar System

Predictions and expectations of secular models of the age and formation of the solar system are not happening. 

"Don't biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution give opportunities for predictions, Cowboy Bob? "

They would if they were true, and if scientists actually understood what they were talking about before pontificating. But they're not true, and secular scientists have a habit of being un-humble.


More signs from Mars, Venus, and the Rosetta comet mission that the solar system is nowhere near as old as secularists think.
Maat Mons volcano on Venus image credit: NASA/JPL, who would not endorse this site
Some newer problems for secularists are occurring out yonder. Mars has carbon dioxide eruptions that are eroding the surface that look to be about 2,500 years old. Rescuing devices are being utilized. Meanwhile, Venus is showing signs of very recent volcanic activity. Then there's that Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko mission by Rosetta, which I suspicion that scientists may be regretting because they're none to happy with the results about comet dust, the formation of the planets, and the age of the solar system itself. That's because they start with bad assumptions and deny that the life, the universe, and everything were created much more recently than they want to admit.

To read about these trouble spots for secularists, click on "Activity on Planets Suggests Youth".


Monday, November 21, 2016

Lizard Mutation and the Origin of Hair, Scales, and Fur?

With apologies to writers Don Barnes, Jeff Carlisi, and Jim Peterik of the band Thirty-Eight Special, "You see it all around you, good science gone bad..." Yes, once again, we have an instance of unwarranted conjecture be proclaimed as science. In other news, evolutionists Make Stuff Up™.


Evolutionary scientists ruined decent science by turning it into proclamations that their research "conclusively" shows common ancestor evolution. They used discredited ideas and bad extrapolation to do this.
Generated at ImageChef
Bearded dragons are popular pets ("bearded" because of the frill that happens under the neck). Someone got a notion to do some actual science and find out why the "naked bearded dragon" has no scales. They had some good science happening at first, but then sought evolutionary clues. First clue: it's a mutation. Second clue: disingenuously using the discredited myth of embryonic recapitulation. Third clue: comparing a mutation in birds, mammals, and reptiles. The Darwinoids saw some similarities and claimed to "conclusively" show that everything evolved from a common ancestor. Naturally, the press stampeded with this bad science. Praise Darwin, blessed be! No, since no mutations were observed, and no evidence was added to genes, there is no evidence for evolution. What we do have is a refusal to acknowledge the work of the Creator.
Before a bird grows feathers or a mammal grows fur, its embryo must develop tiny, thickened spots that develop into feather or hair follicles. (These spots are called placodes.) Just as feathers and hairs are very different, so the way these placodes develop further into feather or hair follicles is very different. Reptile scales differ from both feathers and fur, and they develop in a way that is likewise very different from either. The dramatic differences between scales, feathers, and hair—whether in the developing embryo or in their mature form—have made it difficult to connect the evolutionary dots between reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Evolutionists are convinced, however, that both birds and mammals evolved, though along separate paths, from reptiles. Therefore, they have searched diligently for a connection between the signature coverings of these three groups. Now evolutionary biologists Nicolas Di-Poï and Michel Milinkovitch believe they have found this scale-hair-feather connection in the previously undiscovered reptilian embryo’s placodes.
To finish reading, click on "Do Naked Bearded Dragons Reveal Common Ancestry of Scales, Feathers, and Fur?
 

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Not So Smart, Really

Here we are with our digital technology, space rockets, increases in medical care, and more. God some mighty fine plans for the future, too, if we don't blast ourselves back a thousand years. We think we're lords of all we survey, don't we? Reckon so. Except that the idea that we're more intelligent than our ancestors is based on evolutionary presuppositions and arrogance. The storyline goes that stupid brutes evolved, then gradually evolved intelligence, and on from there. Not hardly!


We think we're getting more intelligent, but that's based on evolutionary assumptions. History gives a different picture of ancient humans that is contrary to evolution.
Image credit: Pixabay / geralt
We're not really the sharpest knives in the drawer, we've just accumulated more knowledge and learned a lot. When you study on ancient people (including the surprising, fully-human Neanderthals), you'll see that there are many examples in ancient history of human ingenuity. People with an evolutionary paradigm get all worked up over this and sometimes even say that our ancestors had help from aliens because they "could not" be clever enough to do what they done did. Of course they did those things! Man was created in the image of God, fully functional, intelligent, from the get-go.
We live in a technological age. We see incredible inventions all around us that have been mastered since the Industrial Revolution. We have computers, phones, radar, heart stents, cars, jets, spaceships (and a space station!), and let’s not forget the brilliant invention called . . . air conditioning!

We might be tempted to say that man is getting smarter because we have all these great inventions and new gadgets at our fingertips. But are we? I suggest we need to exercise caution on this subject.
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "Is Man Getting 'Smarter'? Modern Technology, Ancient Man, and the Explosion of Science".
  

Friday, November 18, 2016

Evolutionists Thrown Out at Third Base

Heading up Deception Pass way, you might catch the hands at the Darwin Ranch feeling a mite glum over the outcome of the latest facts. Another of their latest efforts to support common-ancestor evolution has been thrown onto the compost pile out back. Again, it involves DNA, which has never been a friend to their paradigm.


Evolutionists said that bases in codons supported evolution, but that was disproved. They held out for the third base codon, and that, too, has failed them.
Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
Evolutionary scientists show a heap of hubris by asserting that something is due to evolution because they don't understand it. For example, the "junk" DNA fiasco, where sections of DNA were declared leftover junk from our alleged evolutionary past, then discovered to be very important indeed. Three bases in RNA work on coding for a protein. The third base was considered redundant (no reflection on Kris Bryant), therefore, evolution could maybe perhaps occur. Evolutionists tried this trick before to no avail, and it's not working now. (They can cry, protest, and riot if they want to, but that won't change the outcome of the facts.) The specified complexity of DNA is far beyond the possibility of evolution, and is clearly the product of our Creator.
One of the main themes of evolution is the belief that certain types of DNA sequences freely mutate and develop new functions that allow for new creatures to evolve. This mostly mythical concept was applied to the protein-coding regions of genes, but in recent years this idea was discredited by the discovery of multiple codes imbedded in the same sequence—because the disruption of these codes is typically harmful, mutations are not tolerated. And now another critical imbedded code was discovered, further discrediting the idea of pervasive mutable DNA in genes.
To read the rest, click on "Codon Degeneracy Discredited Again".

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Fundamental Flaw Flusters Evolutionists

Once again, a fatal flaw in fungus-to-philologist evolution has been found, putting the evolutionary establishment in an uproar. Fossils have been misinterpreted, and the discovered problem means that the "facts" are stampeding away to freedom on the open plains.


Evolutionists found out that they've been doing certain fossil analysis all wrong, and years of research is worthless. We creationists tried to tell you folks, but would you listen?
Image credit: US National Park Service,
who would not endorse this content even if they knew it existed.
The method of correcting fossil diversity records has been found to be extremely inaccurate. The authors suggest a phylogenetic approach, which is still based on the presumption of evolution, and is circular reasoning. In reality, the only worldview that makes sense of the data and doesn't need excuses from Charlie Darwin's Fudge Factory is: biblical creation.
Fossils may be real, but the methods used to analyze them have come under fire, with implications for Darwinian theory.

It can ruin your whole day. Finding that, after years of work, your assumptions undermine everything you believed can be hard to take. But that’s exactly what scientists at the Universities of Bristol and Reading (UK) announced: “Flawed analysis casts doubt on years of evolutionary research.” What went wrong?
To read the rest, click on "Fossil Flaw Tosses Years of Evolutionary Research".
  

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Stars Falling to Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It's interesting to me when things come together in a short period of time, and I kind of wonder if God is prompting me to do (or, in this case, write) something. The other day, I was asked about how to deal with the question of stars falling to Earth.

Scoffers have a problem with contexts in the Bible. They frequently cherry-pick verses out of context and claim something is a contradiction or an impossibility. Often, parallel accounts in the Bible of an event can offer clarification, but there are times when we need to get into bigger contexts: historical, cultural, grammatical, linguistic, and so on.

Can the stars fall from the sky, even to Earth? Scoffers say "no way". Context can put this objection in proper perspective.
Image Credit: NASA / Bill Ingalls
I was contacted by someone who was challenged about the phrase, "The stars will fall from the sky". Now come on, that can't happen, they're giant super-hot balls of gas and they're not going to come crashing down here. First, look at the immediate context. The scoffer drew from a passage in the Gospel of Matthew, but Matthew 24:29-31 is apocalyptic literature about the end times and the return of Jesus Christ. It's poetic, and also needs interpretation. Further, the passage does not say the stars fall "to Earth". 

Also, the word star in the Bible had different meanings. What "scientific" terms would they use if they had such a notion? Scientific views have changed over the years as knowledge has accumulated, and the writers were not compelled by God to write in specific scientific terminologies. They were writing to communicate God's Word.

Let's take this here side trail for a spell. Revelation 6:13 says that stars fall to Earth. Now what? Again, it's apocalyptic literature. In the Bible, star has various meanings. Some commentators have said that this passage about the opening of the sixth seal meant that there would be a meteorites striking Earth. To complicate matters, stars have also meant angels. When Satan rebelled, a third of the angels joined up with him and were cast down. We cannot expect those who have materialistic worldviews to believe, or even understand such things (2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 2:14).

Context matters, and there are several kinds of contexts to consider. We need to keep that in mind when people say they want something explained, and also to remember that God's Word is true, and is not subject to man's various worldviews.

Dr. Ben Scripture has some interesting things to say on this. His November 12, 2016 broadcast, "Is the Sun a star and who is Lucifer?" (and the three before that on questions from listeners) can be helpful as well. To listen or download (either way is free), click on this sermon player link and navigate to the appropriate sections.
 



Tuesday, November 15, 2016

A Slick Idea for Biomimetics

Biomimetics (or biomimicry) is the concept of getting ideas from nature and building practical applications for our use. Usually, the owlhoots give credit to the puny god of evolution for the design in nature. (In academia, this theft of credit is called plagiarism.)

Scientists get inspired by God's creation and make practical applications, but do not give the Creator credit. In this case, a super-slick surfaces was inspired by the pitcher plant.
Image credit: Elizabeth Hertel / US National Park Service
Use does not imply endorsement of site contents
Moving on, pitcher — I mean, picture this: a slick surface is needed. Sure, we get those, they repel water. But how about repelling other fluids as well? And repair itself? Such a thing is happening, inspired by our Creator's handiwork on the pitcher plant.
We have probably all seen the sign, “Caution—slippery surface,” and likely experienced the slipperiness of a wet floor firsthand. Not surprisingly, surfaces which repel fluids efficiently are correspondingly slippery, and such surfaces can have many useful applications in industry.

Vast amounts of money are spent each year in developing materials that are more and more repellent. Researchers have developed materials that are very good at repelling water on its own.

Scientists and design engineers have increasingly been copying designs from nature, in a rapidly growing field known as biomimetics—and surfaces are part of this trend.
To finish reading, slide on over to "Caution—slippery surface". 
 

Monday, November 14, 2016

Methane Won't Rescue Long-Age View

Often times, something that is confusion or contradictory is the result of faulty presuppositions. The hands at the Darwin Ranch insist on Earth being old, and the universe itself being older, because they speculate that evolution will happen if given enough time.


Secularists insist that Earth is old, but cannot support this view scientifically. The "faint young sun paradox" has never been solved, and another rescuing device bit the dust.
Image credit: Morguefile / jusbiblpon (cropped)
In their view of cosmic evolution, Earth formed bunches of years ago, but the sun hadn't hottened up enough to heat Earth and make life possible. They call it the "faint young sun paradox", and come up with excuses such as the "solar belch" and other things, such as solar flares. These smack of desperation, since secularists must have long ages, but they're not getting the time they want. While we're on the subject, another long-standing attempted explanation of the faint young sun paradox has been shot down by secular scientists: methane. Maybe they'll actually catch on to what creationists have been saying all along: the evidence does not support deep time, it supports recent creation.
Secular speculations insist Earth coalesced into its current state over four billion years ago, leaving one huge problem: the young sun would have been so dim that Earth would have frozen. Secular astronomers have long invoked methane gas to defray this dilemma, called the "faint young sun paradox." A recent study revealed two new reasons to totally reject methane as a rescuing device, leaving this paradox stronger than ever.

According to a University of California Riverside (UCR) news release, "For at least a billion years of the distant past, planet Earth should have been frozen over but wasn't." Life forms that left fossils fitted to these "ages" clearly show that Earth wasn't frozen, but perfectly suited for life from the time of its earliest rock deposits. A methane-packed atmosphere might have generated enough of a greenhouse effect to insulate the planet for life to survive those long ages.
To read the rest, click on "If Earth Is Old, It Should Have Frozen". 
 

Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Fall of Lucy?

Mention Australopithecus afarensis, and you invariably get proponents of algae-to-ape evolution get all worked up and claim it's evidence of humanity's first ancestor, and if you disagree, you're a liar. Such excitement shows not only intolerance of other views, but ignores controversy among evolutionists about the bones.

This ape is commonly called Lucy (although researchers Häusler & Schmid claim that Lucy is a male, and should be renamed Lucifer). One anthropologist seemed to be trippin' out when he had a vision of it falling out of the tree, bless her heart. So, did Lucy have a great fall? Maybe she had a great summer, too. That fall may have looked like this "Far Side" fantasy.


New stories from Planet Darwin about our alleged ancestor "Lucy" are circulating. Did the ape fall out of a tree? Some researchers didn't do enough work.
Full replica of Lucy's (Australopithecus afarensis) skeleton in the
Museo Nacional de Antropología at Mexico City.

Image credit: danrha / Wikimedia Commons
There are many stories swirling around Darwin's home world that are put together to support the storyline that the critter walked upright and was on the way to becoming human; the narrative dictates the evidence, and not the other way around. All we have is an incomplete skeleton, but "artistic license" gives Lucy human-looking eyes, expressions, and is walking upright. Mighty convincing to people who don't care about actual evidence.

So, did the funny monkey get rabies and lose its balance, falling to its death? There is some evidence of Lucy falling down, but since the narrative controls the evidence for some owlhoots, they neglected to explore other possibilities to explain what is observed (evolutionists do that stuff). However, there are some evolutionists who reject the concept of a fall. Too bad they don't reject common-ancestor evolution that has no evidence, and admit that the evidence actually shows that we were Created — without evolution — a few thousand years ago.
Everyone loves a mystery, and scientists are no exception. Take the famous Piltdown man—an amalgamation of medieval human and orangutan parts fraudulently cobbled-together and offered to the world as a real transitional ape-man. Was that human ancestral hoax the result of a conspiracy or the work of one man? A recent study has declared that the perpetrator was a single individual. . .

Now the authors of a study in Nature claim to have solved human history’s oldest cold case: how and why our iconic, supposed ancestor Lucy died. And just as the scientific community originally fell for the fraudulent Piltdown man because it showed evolutionists the ape-man they assumed existed, so the authors of Lucy’s forensic analysis have colored their ultimate conclusions to fit their own evolutionary assumptions. They have started with interesting observations—possibly discovering Lucy’s cause of death—but then interpreted them within the context of an evolutionary story tailored to the personified Lucy of their dreams.
To read the rest, swing on over to "Did Lucy Fall to Her Death Because She Climbed Our Family Tree?"

Friday, November 11, 2016

Dimensional DNA Refutes Evolution

A huge problem for advocates of particles-to-painter evolution is the genome, which is recalcitrant to their purposes. Some evolutionists get on their high horses and imperiously proclaim that DNA supports evolution. Ain't happening, old son. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Comparing the genome to computer programs can work for a while, but it fails quickly. The four-dimensional genome's amazingly complex operating system shows that there is no way it could have evolved.
Image composed of manipulated graphics found at Clker clipart
The human genome is chock full o' specified complexity, and scientists are learning more and more all the time. Even the comparatively simple E. coli bacterium can be compared to a computer program, and is more efficient. It seems that our amazing genome is complex and efficient at the same time, and analogies to computer program get left behind in the dust on the trail. Computer programs operate in one dimension, and the genome operates in four dimensions. There is no way such a thing could have arisen through naturalistic processes, and must be the product of the superior Mind. Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
The human genome is the most complex computer operating system anywhere in the known universe. It controls a super-complex biochemistry that acts with single-molecule precision. It controls the interaction network of hundreds of thousands of proteins. It is a wonderful testament to the creative brilliance of God and an excellent example of the scientific bankruptcy of neo-Darwinian theory. Why? Because the more complex life is, the less tenable evolutionary theory becomes. Super-complex machines cannot be tinkered with haphazardly or they will break. And super-complex machines do not arise from random changes.

I am serious when I compare the genome to a computer operating system. The only problem with this analogy is that we have no computers that can compare to the genome in terms of complexity or efficiency. It is only on the most base level that the analogy works, but that is what makes the comparison so powerful. After millions of hours of writing and debugging we have only managed to create operating systems that can run a laptop or a server, and they crash, a lot. The genome, though, runs a hyper-complex machine called the human body. The organization of the two are radically different as well.
I'm not kidding you, the rest of this article has some fascinating material. To finish reading, click on "The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations". 
 

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Still Using Haeckel's Drawings to Lie for Evolution

A proponent of Darwinian evolution was Ernst Haeckel, and he was so het up about proving evolution, he made some drawings about it. Ever heard of "ontology recapitulates phylogeny"? That's the fantasy that an embryo goes through the various stages of evolutionary history, and Ernie illustrated it. With fake drawings. The concept has been lassoed and hog-tied for a mighty long time.


Ernst Haeckel wanted to prove evolution, so he made up fake drawings to illustrate a false concept. Although long disproved, the drawings are still used to indoctrinate people today.

But "science" must prevail, even if dishonesty is necessary! So, even though government school indoctrinators and textbook writers know that Haeckel's material was proved to be fake, they use them anyway! Some people have tried to redeem him. I've even had people comment that it doesn't matter if they drawings are fake, what they show is true. Sure, Poindexter. I bet you believe in square circles, too. Can't let people know there's a Creator God, now, can we? Mayhaps they keep bringing this nonsense back is because they use it to support abortion.

There are superficial resemblances to gill slits, tails, and the like. Let's have an honest medical doctor explain.
“Generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.” Science magazine is referring to Haeckel’s sketches of diverse animal embryos first published in 1874 (Figure 1). They report that Haeckel fraudulently minimized major differences between animals at the earliest developmental stages. This fraud is peculiar because it is being “rediscovered” by new research. Remarkably, Science notes that some embryologists of Haeckel’s day had doubts about the drawing’s accuracy, and his peers actually got him to admit he used “artistic license.” Yet these drawings (or similar reproductions) have been incorporated into nearly every major biology textbook ever since. So, unlike Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, and other evolutionary frauds that only temporarily duped everyone, Haeckel’s blunder misleads to this day.

Thus, present biology students are still deceived by a complicated tangle of misleading ideas that clever evolutionists regularly attach to Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings.
To read the rest, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination". You may also want to see "Haeckel, Fraud, Deceit and Evolutionary Education".

 

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Insurmountable Problems for Evolution

In a previous post, we saw that some proponents of common-ancestor evolution are admitting that they have mighty big problems in their paradigm. There are many problems with evolution, including bad logic, playing fast 'n' loose with the data, constantly revising and re-dating "evidence", the evils of Darwinism applied to society, and more.


There are many serious problems with evolution, but the three most difficult ones happen in the area that evolution is supposed to be strongest.
Cross-section view of pumpkin's stalk
Image credit: Freeimages / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski
There are three insurmountable problems for evolution right in the area where it's supposed to be strongest: biology. When Darwinistas are presented with these problems, they usually come up with excuses and word games, plus a bit of data tinkering. May as well admit the truth, old son, life was created and didn't evolve.
For more than a century Christians have looked for the scientific silver bullet that would destroy Darwinian evolution and prove biblical creation to be true. We already know from God’s revealed, infallible Word how the universe, the earth, and all life came into being: He spoke them into existence (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; Hebrews 11:3). This fact alone refutes Darwinian evolution. Yet in a world where secular researchers reject the supernatural and divine revelation, many Christians still feel compelled to provide empirical (observable and repeatable) evidence to confirm the Bible’s claim.

The problem is that neither creation nor evolution is observable or repeatable. Empirical science alone can’t prove a miraculous, onetime historical event any more than it can prove evolution. Instead, we must make assumptions, and our conclusions are only as good as our starting assumptions.

The issue is not the evidence, but how we interpret the evidence through our worldview. Does our worldview make sense of the world we observe today?
To find out more, click on "Three Puzzles Evolution Can’t Solve". Note that there's a free audio version to download just below the title, which I thought was excellent. 
 

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

If You're Violent, Blame Evolution

Although everything was created "very good" (Gen. 1:31), there has been much violence in the world after the fall of man (Rom. 5:12, Gen. 4:8 and 6:11). It has even been a spectator sport, such as in the Roman Coliseum and its modern offshoots in several competitive sports. This is a product of our sin nature (Gal. 5:17-22, Eph. 2:1, Col. 3:5), but naturalistic thinking is attributing it to common-ancestor evolution.


Darwinists are giving people excuses for violent behavior (without evidence, of course) and ignoring the real cause.
Fight With Cudgels, Francisco Goya, 1820-1823
There's a passel of evils that can be traced to evolution, such as "Social Darwinism", the Nazi legal system, "scientific" racism, eugenics, abortion, and other horrors. Now we can blame evolution for the violence inherent in our systems based on more evolutionary speculations? Not hardly! Last I knew, people are supposed to be responsible for their own choices.
The implications of saying violence is a product of natural selection are disturbing.

Lethal violence is rooted deep in our animal ancestry, says Mark Pagel in Nature. “Researchers estimate that the incidence of human lethal violence at the time of the origin of our species was about six times higher than for the average mammal, but about as violent as expected, given our great-ape ancestry.” Well if researchers say it, it must be true, right? The researchers are from Spain, with their Nature paper titled, “The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence.” Phylogeny is code for universal common ancestry by natural selection, i.e., neo-Darwinism. Pagel makes that clear:
To find out what Pagel said and finish the article, click on "Violence Is Natural, Darwinians Say". 
 

Monday, November 7, 2016

A Rapidly-Forming Canyon

The consensus is that the landforms we see today are based on the slow, constant processes of uniformitarianism. For instance, dogma stated the Grand Canyon began to get itself carved out by the Colorado River about seventeen million years ago. Catastrophism (major changes in much shorter periods of time) challenges that assumption, and some geologists are reconsidering the long-time view. Also, catastrophism has the advantage of having observational evidence, such as the canyon system formed after the Mt. St. Helens eruption.


Secular geologists tell us that landforms such as canyons take a very long time to form. How about the canyon that formed in about 150 years?
Part of Providence Canyon from rim near entrance road image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Robbie Honerkamp
Riding over Georgia way, just east of the town of Lumpkin is Providence Canyon Outdoor Recreation Area. That's right, they've got themselves a canyon of their very own, and the start of it was blamed on bad farming practices, since those yahoos didn't really know how to care for the land. But the canyon started to form, and it kept on growing. Kind of makes you think about biblical catastrophism and the big scale version in the Genesis Flood, doesn't it?
Many people believe canyons take a long time to form. In North America, though, there is a canyon that simply wasn’t there 150 years ago.

Providence Canyon is near the town of Lumpkin in southwest Georgia. Where there were once rolling hills covered with untouched pine forest, there is now a deep chasm with nine finger-like canyons. They range in size up to 50 m (160 ft ) deep, 180 m (600 ft) wide and 400 m (1,300 ft) long.

The exposed canyon bluffs are extremely beautiful with many bands of different coloured rocks—bright red clay, white kaolin, as well as sands coloured ochre, pink, orange, beige, purple, lavender, grey, yellow, tan and black.
To read the rest, click on "Canyon creation". 
  

Labels