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

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Fossil Timers Fail Evolution

There has been a wagon train-load of news about fossils, especially aspects of soft tissues, because what has been found is oppugnant to minerals-to-mocker evolution. Proponents have gone into damage control by looking for excuses, making wild extrapolations (such as, "Iron preserved tissues for a year in a lab, therefore, they were preserved for millions of years in the wild"), going into denial, and even calling biblical creationists "liars". Their worldview is threatened by reality, and they can't deal with it.

Evolutionists are upset by facts supporting creation and refuting "deep time" and evolution. There are certain "timers" that they cannot legitimately deny.
Image credit: Morguefile / gary3141
But these owlhoots are not entitled to mangle the facts to suit the Darwinian storyline, nor are they entitled to make up their own facts. There are "timers" in biology; things will dissipate after a long enough period. Pigments, chitin, collagen, and more have been found that should be there if the fossils were as old as evolutionists claim — the timers would have expired. The facts support recent creation, pilgrim.
If fossils really are millions of years old, then the Bible has problems. It would place death before sin—undermining the work of Christ on the cross. It would also fictionalize the Bible’s timeline—undermining confidence in scriptural authority and accuracy. However, if fossils were deposited only thousands of years ago, then the biblical record stands firm. Fortunately, secular researchers have discovered timers that show fossils formed only thousands of years ago, as expected from God’s Word.
To read the rest, click on "Six Fossil Timers Stun Secular Scientists". 

Friday, December 30, 2016

Star Formation Storytelling Failures Continue

Believers in cosmic evolution insist that stars formed in the past, and they are forming today. Nice tale, since nobody has seen a star form (it takes 100,000 to tens of millions of years in Evospeak). Secular astronomers have manifold stories about old stars, new stars, red stars, blue stars, how they formed, and so forth. When flaws in their credenda are descried, circular reasoning ensues: "Of course stars evolved from the Big Bang. We see them, ya idjit!"

Secularists have many assertions and stories about star formation, but they cannot produce an adequate model.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech, who would not endorse this site even if they knew it existed
Secularists have told wild tales that have been discredited, made numerous assertions, and even lied outright, but have yet to present a plausible model of how the laws of physics can be superseded in the formation of all them stars up yonder. The logical conclusion from scientific evidence and failed conjectures is that God created the universe.
Many astronomy articles have a bad habit of assuming star formation without demonstrating or explaining it.

In Hollywood, A Star Is Born by intelligent design. Out in the near vacuum of space, however, it’s complicated. The laws of physics don’t cooperate. Gravity may begin condensing gas and dust toward a hopeful career in the lights, but then those darn laws of heat and pressure take over, pushing the gas back out. Something has to give the gas an extra push to make it over the pressure barrier. Maybe a supernova explosion could do it. That appeal, however, is likely to get philosophers of science smirking. They will ask, “If that is your answer, where did the first stars come from, before there were no supernovas?” [For purists, that’s supernovae.] “You can’t require stars to make stars.”
If you took a shine to this post, you can read the entire article by clicking on "Wishing Upon Star Formation". 


Thursday, December 29, 2016

The Faith-Based Multiverse

Y'all understand multiverse, right? It's when a song has a lot of, well, verses. "Amazing Grace" has —

"You made me facepalm very hard with that one, Cowboy Bob."

Moving on... There are many suppositious remarks about parallel universes, and some of those universes are just like ours with very slight changes. If you were able to saddle up and ride sideways through these universes, eventually the changes would add up and you might find, say, Clinton Richard Dawkins as a respected biblical creationist, Rome never fell, dinosaurs are common pets, and so on. Some very interesting stories have arisen from the parallel universe concept. I've even read that some think every decision that is ever made causes a new universe to form where the unmade choice in this one has been made in that one.

The Big Bang is not supported by scientific evidence, nor is the "multiverse" concept that is linked with the Big Bang.
Another fine image by Gerd Altmann (geralt) at Pixabay
Folks are adding the multiverse to the foundering Big Bang choplogic, and astronomy is being dragged into the mix. When you have one concept based on assumptions and personal preferences (the Big Bang) that is contrary to actual observed evidence, may as well bring along another dose of pseudoscience by adding on the multiverse, right? Sure, cosmic and biological evolution have things to add on, like we do with Web browsers. (About as scientific as the ideas of an astrophysicist who believes aliens are all around us, but it's all based on his assumptions, not science.) Why do they resort to faith-based ideas that have no scientific support? Because then they would be compelled to be intellectually honest and admit that the universe was Created, just like God told us in his Word.
Scientists today increasingly talk and write about the multiverse. What is the multiverse? The multiverse is the belief that our universe is just one of many universes. Presumably, each universe exists parallel to and independent of one another. If this sounds like science fiction, philosophy, or religion, it is, because the multiverse could be classified in any one of those categories. Whatever the multiverse is, it definitely is not science. How can the multiverse be scientific (given that science is the study of the natural world using our five senses) when other universes, by definition, are beyond our ability to detect? If the multiverse is not science, why do so many scientists believe in it? The reasons have nothing to do with science but instead are the result of presuppositions and worldview.
To finish reading, click on "Multiverse: Is Our Universe One of Many?" 

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

The Japanese Sparrowhawk Defies Evolution

Birds of prey know they're cool, right? The Japanese Sparrowhawk has features that could not have been the product of changes and random processes in common-ancestor evolution. Lots of features. It does have some traits that can be traced to natural selection, but that's not evolution, old son.

The Japanese Sparrowhawk is a successful hunter, and all of its features need to be in place and working from the start. This fact defies evolution.
Image credit: たー坊 / Wikimedia Commons
Like so many other things (including those parts in other living things), everything has to be in place at the same time and fully functional. If not, nothing makes sense and the critter is not able to survive. But — what do biblical creationists have to say about God designing birds to be successful hunters? Let's find out.
The Japanese Sparrowhawk is an impressive bird. With its keen eyesight, short wings, and long tail, it is ideally suited to flying quickly through dense forests to catch its prey. The barred colouring on its underparts makes it hard to detect in this habitat, leaving its dinner unsuspecting until it is too late. In short, this bird is well designed to be a highly efficient woodland hunter.

The Japanese Sparrowhawk is a raptor, or bird of prey, and is diurnal, i.e. active in the daytime (as opposed to nocturnal, active at night). It is 29–34 cm (~1 ft) long, and females are larger than males. Most of its prey consists of small birds. However, it will also feed on larger birds, small mammals and even insects.
To read the rest, click on "The Japanese Sparrowhawk — A testament to design—and natural selection?

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

About that Feathered Mud Dragon Thingie

Seems like feathers have been in the science news quite a bit lately. The biggest story was the attempt to say that a feathered tail fragment in amber belonged to a dinosaur. Recently, we looked at reports of fossilized bird feathers that had proteins and pigments. Now we have the "mud dragon" fossil, from a report in November 2016.

A fossil shows that a dinosaur was buried in mud. Some evolutionists claim it had feathers, even though there is no evidence for that. Evolutionists give weak "explanations" for the mud and the alleged feathers.
Generated at Image Chef
There are two aspects to the story. First, the claim that it had feathers, even though there's no evidence of that. This apparently came about because some bumps on a dinosaur looked kinda sorta like the beginnings of feathers, especially if you squint really hard and ignore other possible (and more logical) explanations. Also, they shove it into the "dinosaurs-to-birds" myth to get away from admitting there's a Creator. Therefore, illogically speaking, this one must have had feathers as well. Some creationary scientists have a view of, "If a dinosaur was conclusively shown to have feathers, so what? It doesn't prove they evolved into birds". But owlhoot evolutionists use bad science and worse logic to leap to that conclusion, so it's good to at least try to keep them honest.

Another part of the story is that the fossilized critter was buried in mud when it died. Evolutionists have a sad story, but it doesn't explain the evidence right in front of their eyes. Rapid burial because of the Genesis Flood is the far better explanation.
Evolutionary scientists recently announced another spectacular dinosaur discovery. They nicknamed this one the Mud Dragon because it seems it died buried in mud. Junchang Lü and co-authors describe the new oviraptorid dinosaur in Scientific Reports.

This is the sixth oviraptor-like dinosaur unearthed from the Ganzhou area of Jiangxi Province in southeastern China. The Chinese name for this poor creature is Tongtianlong limosus or “muddy dragon on the road to heaven” due to its unusual posture.
To read the rest, click on "'Mud Dragon' Is Really 'Flood Dragon'". ADDENDUM: Many creationists feel it don't make no nevermind if some dinosaurs did have feathers. Problem is, evolutionists are using their principle of Making Stuff Up™ and talking about feathers when none were found. They want to believe in feathers, fine. But tell what was actually found, not what you sidewinders wanted to find, savvy? See "Sorry, how many feathers did you find? More feathered-dinosaur story telling".

Monday, December 26, 2016

Fossils of Early Birds Baffle Evolutionists

Paleontologists seem to have found bird fossils dated at 120 million Darwin years (I said "seem to have found" because the location in China has been the source of bad material in the past). Darwinistas managed to give the required homage to evolution, and then speculated on the origin of colors in feathers. The "remarkably preserved" fossils gave rise to further speculations and assertions without evidence and mechanisms. Worse for their old Earth beliefs, the feathers were "modern" looking. Of course they were, Earth and everything in it was created much more recently than is dreamt of in their philosophies.  For more about this, see "Early Fossil Bird Feathers Were Modern and Colorful".

Bird fossils are yielding evidence against long ages and evolution. Not only are colorful feather pigments found, but original proteins.
Image credit: Pixabay / Pexels
Moving on, additional information came in. A bird fossil that dates 10 million Darwin years older than those discussed above has a few surprises. The paper involved Mary Schweitzer, known for the discoveries of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils. We have original proteins. Many assertions about the birds were made, but they cannot explain (nor did they predict) that proteins lasted 130 million years. Answer: although well-preserved, the planet isn't that old. To read details, click on "More Original Protein Found in Older Bird Fossil".

Can't get enough of watching evolutionists try to explain away inconvenient evidence? Great, I have one more for you. It's a further development of the original protein article just above. How did fossils get so well preserved? Darwinists get infuriated, but the best answers is the Genesis Flood. More information can be found at "Fossil Feather Proteins Confirm Recent Flood".

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Creation, Genesis, and the Virgin Birth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

This article contains links to several items that are articles, videos, and audio. I realize that this is a busy time of year for many, but if you have some time, I hope you'll delve into the material. Or maybe save some of the items for a more convenient time.

Although there is dispute about the actual day, most people who identify as Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25. No, we are not commanded to celebrate Christmas or Easter, we have the liberty to celebrate or leave it alone. (Saying it's wrong to celebrate because we're not commanded to do so is the argument from silence fallacy. Also, Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, John 10:22–39, although it was not a required observance. Nor are we required to observe Hanukkah, but some think it's a good idea.) We commemorate the day that Jesus Christ, God the Son, our Creator, humbled himself and took on human form for our redemption. Creationists have many reasons to celebrate the day.

Genesis is foundational to Christian doctrines, including the virgin birth. Not only do atheists and evolutionists attack the virgin birth, but so do false teachers like Andy Stanley.
Adoration of the Shepherds, 1646, by "Pupil of Rembrandt", modified with galaxy
Atheists, evolutionists and liberal "Christians" attack the book of Genesis with extreme ferocity. They know it is the foundation of all major Christian doctrines. We know about the virgin birth of Jesus, that it was prophesied, and happened in Bethlehem. We have a problem when people say that the virgin birth is unimportant. Guess where it was first prophesied? In that most attacked book, in Genesis 3:15. One thing is really quite simple: those of us who believe the Bible also believe the virgin birth (more specifically, virgin conception) because that's what it clearly teaches.

Before we get to the audio and video material, if'n you want something to read, I recommend Dr. Mohler's article, "Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?" For a free Mp3 audio lesson by Dr. Mohler that is pertinent, this lesson is quite good.

Although I'm reluctant to embed videos, the one below is less then seventeen minutes. Andy Stanley shows his lack of theological knowledge (or perhaps his desire to undermine the authority of Scripture) by saying it's not important. Pastor Chris Rosebrough of "Fighting for the Faith" plays an excerpt from Stanley, then explains why what Stanley does is very dangerous. (In addition to the reasons discussed, a personal reason I'm bothered by Andy's treatment of the Bible is that his father, Dr. Charles Stanley, affirms the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. His teachings have been helpful to me over the years.) Please take some time to ponder this, and listen to how Andy downplays the importance of not only the virgin birth, but the Bible itself. In addition, Dr. James White discussed this on "The Dividing Line", at the beginning of this video.

So, I'll turn you over to Chris Rosebrough's material in the audio-in-video-format below, and I wish all y'all a happy, safe, blessed Christmas!

Friday, December 23, 2016

BLASTN the Human-Chimpanzee DNA Claim

An established dogma used by proponents of common-ancestor evolution is the alleged similarity between human and chimp DNA, sometimes cited as high ninety eight percent similarity, depending on who you talk to. Chimpanzees are allegedly our close evolutionary cousins, so the similarities in DNA are mighty important to some folks. They conveniently ignore the human-gorilla genome similarities, because that doesn't fit the storyline, and they also ignore lincRNA regions. Genome similarities are nowhere near proof of evolution, old son.

That human-chimpanzee genome similarity claim of evolutionists is getting shaken out of the tree by creation science.
Assembled from components at Clker clipart.
There are very some serious scientific problems with that human-chimp genome similarity. Creationary scientist Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins did new calculations and found out that the similarities were much lower than evolutionists had proclaimed. Then it was learned that the software was defective. What's a scientist who wants to know the truth to do? Keep working! His latest technical paper on this subject involves human contamination in the early tests, evolutionary bias in selecting data, and other problems with the old tests. His results are inconvenient to disciples of Darwin. Again, this is technical, and includes details on how Dr. Tomkins did the research. The paper also explains how he reached his conclusions.
The current chimpanzee genome assembly has problems that reduce its veracity as an authentic representation. First, it has been assembled using the human genome as a reference scaffold and does not stand on its own merits. Second, given the fact that significant levels of human DNA exist in non-primate databases due to laboratory and worker contamination, the potential for human DNA in the pre-assembled chimpanzee sequencing reads is highly probable. Therefore, 101 Sanger-style publically available trace read data sets were downloaded, end-trimmed for low quality bases, and purged of vector sequence. Then, 25,000 sequences were selected at random from each of the 101 data sets and queried against the human genome using BLASTN v2.2.31 with gap extension. Results from the BLASTN analysis indicated that two different groups of chimpanzee DNA sequences could be found. Those that were completed early in the chimpanzee genome project that contributed to the initial 5-fold draft genome, were considerably more similar to human than those that were produced later in the project by a difference of about 7% overall data set identity and produced 6% less hits onto the human genome. Sequences (both alignable and non-alignable) from the seemingly less contaminated data sets indicate that the chimpanzee genome is approximately 85% identical overall to human. Extensive poor alignment of chimpanzee DNA sequences that did not have hits on the human genome that were blasted on the chimpanzee genome revealed regions of miss-assembly for the chimpanzee genome.
To read the rest (perhaps saving the link for reference), click on "Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets: Assessment of Their Overall Similarity to Human and Possible Contamination With Human DNA". 


Thursday, December 22, 2016

Further Fake Evolution News Down at Deception Pass

Edited for wording on December 23, 2016

There's a great deal of talk these days about "fake news". As I understand the term, some sites write up "reports" for the Web that are entirely false, and people believe them. (These are unlike clearly identifiable parody sites.) But what about untrue news from sources that are considered reputable? Darwinists are cranking that stuff out mighty fast.

Over yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are getting a mite consternated. They're losing their grip on public sentiment, credible evidence, and even on reality. (The failure of "Lucy" made matters quite a bit worse for them.) To keep the funding coming in, they whip their ponies of persuasive propaganda into a gallop and commence to presenting strong evidence for evolution — or so they think. What really happens is that we get a passel of speculations, assertions, guesswork, bad reasoning, and the like that are passed off as "real science". Not hardly! But their devotion to Darwin is unflagging.

Seems like evolutionists are getting more desperate to keep the funding coming in. Storytelling seems to be getting worse.

Part of the problem is the secular science press (such as with the "dinosaur feather in amber" nonsense). Scientists present non-science, and "journalists" go rip-roaring to their editors with fake news stories having grandiose claims that the scientists didn't even say. At least, not outright. Scientists were often using the "maybe", "we think", "must have happened", "perhaps", and related unconvincing phrases. No wonder there are still many people who are deceived by evolution, they believe what scientists say without using critical thinking and healthy skepticism. This here child contends that evolutionists don't want to know the truth of creation and the Creator, because they'll have to admit that they're accountable to him.
Mainstream science media cast a false illusion of Darwinism’s success by making promises in the headlines that the articles don’t deliver.

If all you read are the headlines at major science sites, you are being tricked when it comes to evolution. They regularly announce that some evolutionary mystery has been solved, but then the details down below don’t show that. The headline promises a scientific explanation, in the form, “How the [whatever] got its [whatzit],” but then all you read is a Kipling-like just-so story. Reporters and journals seem preoccupied with making Darwin look good at all costs. Below are some examples of the Darwin media racket at work.
To see some amazing examples of false science, click on "Empty Promises from Darwin Storytellers". 

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Evolving the Ability to Copy

Sometimes, it's mighty nice to have a copy of something. To make a copy, you need the necessary equipment, such as a computer, printing press, or somesuch. I have a series of steps to obtain articles: go to the Web article, send it to the e-book reader, then convert it using text-to-speech into an MP3. For copies of other objects, you need skill, imagination, special equipment — here, I'm thinking of biomimetics, where nature inspires man-made applications. When we copy a feature of something that God designed, it's clunky at best when compared to the original.

When it comes to living things copying themselves, the problems are insurmountable for evolutionists.
Image credit: Pixabay / Patrice_Audet
One of the strongest indications of life is that something is able to reproduce itself. You know, like make young 'uns. Even at the cellular level, copying happens. The Evo Sith disingenuously try to distance themselves from abiogenesis (the origin of life), because the origin of cells, and the steps needed in reproduction (not to mention evolving into higher life forms) presents insurmountable problems. Life can only be given from God, who is made known through the Bible.
Scientists at the University of California in Berkeley have embarked on a research project to create an artificial ‘housefly’ that can fly around in dangerous or small spaces, such as collapsed buildings, and send back sensory information on what it finds. In studying the way that houseflies accomplish their amazing aerobatic feats, one worker remarked that ‘they are the most skilful flyers on the planet’.

Indeed, man’s attempts to imitate nature show up the huge gap that lies between us and our Creator. It is only when we start to come close to such feats as flying that we begin to understand the vast achievements of our Creator God.

The Berkeley team hope to have a flying prototype ready within a couple of years. They have already solved a number of problems such as finding materials that are strong, flexible and light enough to endure the huge forces that are involved in flying. But the navigating challenge is looming rather larger. It looks simple enough, once you can fly, to zoom around wherever you want. But appearances are deceptive, and several more years of research will be required to solve the navigation problem.
No more copying the text here. To read the rest, go to the original at "Copy challenge — Can evolution even begin to explain the near-miracle of even the simplest reproduction?

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Clever Fish?

According to mythology, humans are at the top of the evolutionary tree. Our ancestors went through many changes, and we eventually evolved intelligence, so here we are. Kind of curious that all of our alleged ancestors and their relatives didn't do a whole heap of learning and pass along safety tips to the next generations, isn't it? Critters just don't do that.

Assembled from elements at Clker clipart
Seems like our "closest cousins" according to evolutionism would have learned a thing or two as well. But a baboon can still be caught because he reached into a hole for a prize and refused to let go. Apes haven't learned any kind of musical innovation, but some birds have the ability that matches human skills. While fish haven't learned how to avoid nets and do other stupid things, there are some that exhibit skills that surpass those of apes.
Since evolutionary thinking permeates the entire spectrum of biology, scientists are consistently surprised by the mental abilities of creatures thought to be lower on the so-called tree of life. In this mythical tree of evolutionary progression, apes are thought to be at the top of the intelligence scale—second only to humans. But now we have numerous examples of other land creatures, most notably birds, that rival or exceed apes’ mental capabilities.

But what about fish, the supposed ancient ancestors of all land-dwelling animals? With such a low position on the tree of life, they can’t be nearly as smart as apes—can they? Perhaps a few captivating and evolution-negating examples are in order.
To finish reading, swim on over to "Fish as Smart as Apes?

Monday, December 19, 2016

Volcanoes, Plate Tectonics, and the Ice Age

Secular geologists are proposing some interesting ideas about how plate tectonics caused the Ice Age. Their scenario has an interesting sequence of events where continental plates collided, volcanoes were formed, gasses were released, and the Ice Age happened. And you thought volcanoes were just hollow mountains where criminal masterminds had secret bases, didn't you?

Secular geologists have an interesting model involving continental plates, carbon dioxide, volcanoes, and the Ice Age. Biblical creationary scientists have a more plausible explanation.
Manam volcano image credit: Jesse Allen / NASA, who are not endorsing the contents
In all this tectonic activity, rocks were exposed, carbon dioxide was absorbed from the atmosphere. Seems plausible at first, but there's a problem with the presumptions for which the evidence is interpreted. Biblical creationary scientists have a far different (and better) interpretation of the data, which involves the Genesis Flood and a young Earth. Remember, there is no "our facts" and "their facts", we all have the same facts to work with.
In the evolutionary uniformitarian (slow-and-gradual) view of earth’s history, the earth’s climate remained on a fairly even keel for hundreds of millions of years. However, it is claimed that there were some dramatic exceptions. Around 80 million years ago, the planet’s temperature supposedly plummeted, along with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The earth is said to have eventually recovered from that cooling event, only to swing back into the present-day Ice Age 50 million years ago.

That’s right! You did read that correctly. Evolutionary uniformitarian geologists are saying we are still currently in an Ice Age! Perhaps you didn’t realize that when you sweated through the heat and humidity of the summer months and were told that the soaring temperatures were due to global warming or climate change!

Now geologists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claim to have identified the likely cause of both the cooling event at 80 million years ago, and the onset of the Ice Age around 50 million years ago, as well as a natural mechanism for carbon sequestration. Evidently, just prior to both periods, massive tectonic collisions took place near the earth’s equator—a tropical zone where rocks undergo heavy weathering due to frequent rain and other environmental conditions. This weathering involves chemical reactions that absorb a large amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The dramatic drawdown of carbon dioxide cooled the atmosphere, they suggest, and set the planet up for the cooling event at 80 million years ago and the Ice Age beginning 50 million years ago, in the late Cretaceous and the Eocene, respectively.
To read the rest of this very moving topic, click on "Did Tectonic Activity Trigger the Ice Age?"

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Resource — Lucy the Ape Continues to Fall

I wasn't going to post about "Lucy" again so soon, but more information has come in and this will be a link-loaded resource, including articles and a new video.

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been mighty glum lately. News about the alleged transitional form known as Lucy have been going from bad to worse, and it's not only because of biblical creationists. That's right, even evolutionists are admitting that Lucy's status upright-walking link is poor. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders will deny the evidence (preferring outdated material and uninformed opinions to credible evidence). Do they know that one of the bones assigned to the creature was actually from a baboon?

A new article, new video, other links to show that Lucy was not our evolutionary ancestor.
Modified from a public domain image at Wikimedia Commons
First, an article. Further studies show that this extinct ape was swinging from the trees, but they still cling to their story and say that maybe perhaps somehow she spent part of the time on the ground. Pretty desperate to promote lack of evidence as science in order to deny the fact that we were created, and not the product of random chance evolution, isn't it? To read the report from Creation-Evolution Headlines, click on "Lucy Lived in the Trees".

Next, we have a new video ("webinar") from Genesis Apologetics, the people that brought us the "Debunking Evolution" material. The first part establishes that this is a biblical creation science organization, and gives some other creation science information that people who are not so familiar with the origins controversy may appreciate. Later, Lucy gets the treatment — mostly from evolutionists. One of my favorite video scenes is included, where a cast of the bones are modified to fit together the way they're "supposed" to be! Again, we see that scientists have presuppositions, and sometimes those cause them to tamper with the data. To see "Lucy's Fall from Science", click here and select the last of the four videos.

Here are some other articles to help you put the ape back in the trees:
Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Friday, December 16, 2016

The "Higgs Bison" Frustrates Evolutionists

You'd think the hands at the Darwin Ranch would know a thing or two about cattle down there at Deception Pass, but the only thing they grow is conjectures. (I think they get into the peyote buttons on occasion, but never mind about that now.) Some cattle kinds from the days of yore are causing some consternation.

An ancient bovine hybrid has upset the oxcart for evolutionists who say it's "not meant to happen". It did, which supports biblical creation.
Image credits: both from Morguefile:
Bison (left) by gduncan, Longhorn (right) by ArturoYee
When microcephalic thrill-seekers drove the bison of the American Great Plains to near extinction, Longhorn cattle were brought in. Longhorns are hearty and strong, and will breed with other cattle. Crossbreeding got so intensive that the Texas Longhorn itself almost became extinct. The point is that cattle are willing to crossbreed. DNA from very old cattle bones, plus help from archaeologists who know about cave paintings, sculptures, and other things, helped identify three kinds of cattle. One of them was a baffling hybrid they called the "Higgs Bison" (I like it when scientists show some humor). Evolutionists are saying what they found isn't meant to happen. But it happened. Darwinian ideas are failing here, and biblical creation is affirmed again.
Buried bones, ancient carvings, and cave paintings reveal early European cow-types. Some had the large shoulder humps of bison, some showed the big horns of the aurochs—extinct ancestors of modern cattle—and others seemed like hybrids between these forms. Classic Darwinian evolution asserts one ancestor for various descendants. These supposedly separate into isolated species which can't breed, like tree branches extending far from their trunk. A recent study exposed how this concept clashes with the actual trends in cow-kind variation.

The study, published in Nature Communications, analyzed both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences extracted from numerous ancient European bovine bones. The team identified three species among the remains: the steppe bison, the aurochs, and a mysterious hybrid species they nicknamed the "Higgs Bison" as a play on the mysterious subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. When they pinned each bone's radiocarbon age to a timeline, an unexpected pattern emerged.

The mystery species dominated the European landscape for a while, then gave way to the Steppe Bison, only to reassert itself again later on, repeatedly.
To finish reading, click on "Cattle-Bison Hybrid Stomps On Evolutionary Expectations". 

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Why Does Evolution Complicate Matters?

To hear proponents of goo-to-gunslinger evolution talk, evolution is a random, unguided process. They also present it as something that has a kind of will and decision-making ability; a Gnostic-type demiurge, if you will. Evolution is also a sort of irresistible force — except when it isn't. The inconsistencies of the paradigm help illustrate the weakness of the paradigm.

The discovery of a multicellular fossil got evolutionists excited, but it raises bigger questions on now only how, but why single-celled organisms evolved in the first place.
Amoeba lassoes a bacterium for chow.
Image credit: CDC / Dr. Barry S. Fields, who are not endorsing these here contents
Some Darwinoids got themselves all agitated when a multicellular fossils was found and dated way, way back yonder. Dubious dating methods aside, there are still some basic questions that evolutionists are unable to answer: how and why would unicellular organisms have any need of evolving? These organisms are getting along right well, and even if you give evolutionists the existences of unicellular organisms (including abiogenesis to start the whole life thing going), they cannot explain how organisms moved upward. Sometimes they'll refer to evolution as "life", but that's just playing with words. Evolutionists give us a whole heap of guesses and call it science, but there's really no explanation. Of course, those of us who believe what the Creator said in his Word know that this was all part of the plan.
The recent report of a 1.5-billion-year-old fossil has brought attention once again to the alleged evolution of multicellular systems. This 30-centimeter fossil is offered as evidence that multicellular life evolved a billion years before the so-called Cambrian Explosion. Pyritic structures have also been suggested as showing that the first multicellular life may have evolved even earlier.

Yet the key question—the “elephant in the room”—is why would multicellular systems have ever evolved? This question has long puzzled evolutionists. Single-celled (unicellular) organisms, such as bacteria, are the most versatile and adaptable organisms on earth. They are often described as Darwinian engines. Why would there be an evolutionary advantage to “evolve” multicellular systems (with more complex biological apparatus, less adaptability, and slower reproduction)?
To read the rest, click on "Could Life Have Evolved Multicellular Systems?

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

That "Beneficial Mutations" Thing

Microbes-to-Medical Doctor evolution requires a prairie schooner full of random mutations that need to be beneficial to each and every organism, but they're difficult to find, and not necessarily helpful after all. Some mutations are neutral, most are harmful, and some are considered "beneficial". (The CCR5-delta32 mutation was at first thought to be very beneficial, but it was later discovered to be associated with a potentially life-threatening liver disease.) "Beneficial" is in the eye of the beholder's agenda. One example touted by Darwinistas is sickle-cell anemia, which sometimes gives a person resistance to malaria. They conveniently ignore the fact that it's still anemia and often fatal.

My upper left arm is sore, which reminds me... On the day I'm writing up this here post for y'all, I went to the doctor. (Blood pressure is up, but I'm sure that the doctor is an attractive woman has nothing to do with it.) I also got my flu shot. So, I decided to do a bit of research from her knowledge. I told her that some people were spreading a "report" on social media, I disremember what the exact contents were, but indicating that there were fewer outbreaks of the flu because fewer people had the shot. What a terrible cause and effect fallacy! She told me that not only does the injection take about two weeks to be fully effective. In addition, the vaccines are made long in advance of the "season", and they are attempting to predict which flu strains will be active. If someone gets the injection and still has the flu, it was from a different strain. There are mutations in flu viruses, but they are definitely not examples of evolution in action. Are the mutations beneficial to the viruses themselves? Depends on the backgrounds, and on other mutations. Ignoring medical advice to get a vaccination because of popular pseudoscience is bad medicine. For more information on flu vaccines, click on "Misconceptions about Seasonal Flu and Flu Vaccines".

Evolutionists claim that certain mutations are beneficial. Many appear to be good on the surface, but there is information they are not presenting that works against their views.
Image credit: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health,
who is not endorsing the contents of this site
Ever notice that evolutionists tend to find a few mutations that they think support their views, then extrapolate that the zillions of mutations required for molecules-to-man evolution happened? Bad reasoning.

Now we're coming to the article that gets featured today, if PCSK9 has a beneficial mutation. There is some benefit in some ways, but again, there is also a downside. This has to do with cholesterol, where some is considered "good" and some is 'bad", but that concept is based on limited views and incomplete knowledge. (Remember, the human genome continues to yield more information as well as puzzles.) Cholesterol is important, but it needs to be used properly on your insides or certain aspects contribute to heart disease. Similarly, this here child is diabetic (doctor says it's under control) and needs to be careful of carbohydrates, but they are also important fuel to keep us going. Cholesterol, carbohydrates, the genome — all were created with a purpose, but we're in a fallen world and things are going downhill mighty fast. Depending on knowledge and point of view, supposedly beneficial mutations may not be all they're cracked up to be.
Random DNA mistakes are central to Darwinian evolution. Allegedly, the huge diversity of life on Earth (including all organisms that are now extinct) was made possible through the slow, incremental addition of rare beneficial mutations over hundreds of millions of years. The theory demands them, but how is a beneficial mutation defined and are there actual examples we can point to that should give pause for thought to biblical creationists?

Tim C. from the United Kingdom sent us the following question:
Hi All,

I have been searching (without any success) on the internet to find a Christian defence to this example of beneficial mutation: people with the PCSK9 mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease. That’s taken from this article [link deleted according to feedback rules].
What is your defence to that?

Many thanks,

CMI’s Philip Bell responds:
To continue reading and acquire still more knowledge, click on "Is a mutation of PCSK9 beneficial?" Oh, and Doc? See you on the 16th.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Testing a Model for Earth's Magnetic Field

Something that biblical creationists freely admit is that events in the past cannot be observed, tested, or measured. Although secularists want people to believe that Earth is ancient, they have to admit to the same thing about the past. What's a scientist to do? Present an idea and see if it fits the data. Better yet, have a kind of model to go with it.

The age of Earth's magnetic field has been problematic for deep time advocates. One rescuing device is the "dynamo", which is not very promising for them.
Modified from images found at Clker clipart
Biblical creationists have long pointed out that if we take the current decay rate of Earth's magnetic field, it would have been long gone before now, and we'd have nothing to protect us from solar radiation and so forth. If we work backward, the magnetic field would be impossibly strong. Either way, Earth could not be 4-1/2 billion years old. Long age proponents came up with various rescuing devices, the most famous of which seems to be the dynamo model. One model test gave an upper limit of 700 million years, which puts a burr under the saddle of long agers. The problem is their starting assumptions: cosmic evolution leading to an ancient world. If they gave an honest evaluation of biblical creation science models, they wouldn't be having these problems.
What sustains Earth’s magnetic field? Creationists and secularists disagree on the answer, but a recent update from Physics Today seems to lend support to the creationists’ hypothesis that the magnetic field is both recent and decaying.

Magnetic fields naturally decay with time. If Earth were billions of years old, its magnetic field should be gone by now. But it isn’t. This has forced secular scientists to propose a recharging mechanism called a dynamo that supposedly sustained Earth’s magnetic field over billions of years.
I hope you're attracted to reading the rest of the article, click on "Earth's Young Magnetic Field Revisited". 

Monday, December 12, 2016

A Feathered Dinosaur Tail in Amber?

There is a featured article here, and links follow to additional material. The list will be updated.

Secularists have been making a lot of noise in the press lately, whoopin' and hollerin' about a bit of amber that they claim contains a dinosaur feather. We should be used to this kind of unbridled excitement, and you'd think the advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution would have learned to slow down and examine all the facts before making grandiose proclamations. After all, they made silly claims about dinosaur feathers in the past, and made much about nothing with Nebraska Man — among other follies.

Secular scientists and their lapdog press are all a-twitter about a supposed dinosaur feather found in amber. Apparently, they see what they want to see, and not what is actually found: a bird feather.
Image credit: Freeimages / Edwin Pijpe
Amber is a product of trees (evergreens have it) that is similar to sap, but much thicker. When a tree is damaged, it secretes resin to cover the wound. Insects and other small critters would get trapped in the sticky stuff, and it fossilized into amber. (Yes, I said fossilized, even though it hasn't been permineralized.) People make jewellery out of it. A Chinese paleontologist was shopping in an amber market and a particular specimen caught his attention.

Secular scientists have been doing that thing again where they find bits of data to support Darwinian dogma and proceed to rush to judgement. Like all scientists, they argue from their presuppositions, but they take it to irrationality. Regarding this specimen, the feather is very small, the amber covering interferes with full analysis, and explanations other than those they want to hear are ignored. According to secular dating methods, this specimen dates with other birds of the era, such as Confuciusornis. Can't be allowing the evidence to support creation, now, can we? No siree, gotta keep the storyline going.
Once again the popular media is abuzz with a new evolutionary breakthrough. This time it is purported to be a feathered dinosaur tail trapped in amber! Amber is essentially fossilized tree sap that may on occasion include insects and other small organisms of the type that one might expect to get trapped in tree sap. But a dinosaur tail trapped in tree sap? It should be noted that the fossil is not a whole dinosaur tail, but rather only a small piece of a tiny feathered tail measuring about 1.4 inches in length and containing 8 vertebrae, each about the size of a grain of rice! It is estimated that this would make this presumed relative of T. rex about the size of a sparrow. The tail piece is undoubtedly covered with tiny feathers that are essentially identical to those of modern birds, but is this in fact a dinosaur tail rather than a bird tail?
Don't be stuck up, you can finish reading by clicking on "Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?" Links to additional articles follow:

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Playing the Fascist Card

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

I've previously written on the way people label other people. Sometimes it's a means of reference, but quite often it's a way of pigeonholing them to avoid listening to what they have to say, or even as a means of trying to control their speech. Labeling can also be a means of demonizing and manipulation. There's another approach that is similar to labeling that is quite popular: playing the card.

Labeling people as a means of dismissal is one thing, but there are "trump cards" that get played when people want to attack others but have nothing rational to say.
Assembled using graphics from Openclipart and modified with Paint.Net
There are several cards to "play" that, in the mind of the user, trump all other considerations. In the United States, it's common to hear someone "refute" a criticism, complaint, or even an observation regarding someone of a minority ethnic heritage and say, "You're a racist!" That's the race card. (Reading that a black leftist called a black conservative a racist may cause Cranial Keyboard Embedment Syndrome.) Don't want women in elite combat forces? You hate women; the "woman" card was played. Christians have their version as well, the "Pharisee Card", generally used by someone who has a low view of Scripture against someone who is saying biblical truth. There is some material on the pharisee card that I recommend. First, an article. Second, and article and a podcast at "Fighting for the Faith". These can be found under the excellent graphic at this link from Why?Outreach.

One of the more recent trumps is the fascist card. I've been called this for the "crimes" in this "dictionary definition":

Labeling people as a means of dismissal is one thing, but there are "trump cards" that get played when people want to attack others but have nothing rational to say.

One of the earliest uses of the fascist card that I saw was on a television show. I disremember how long ago, and think it was the Phil Donohue show, but someone phoned in when Rush Limbaugh was on and called him a fascist. Rush asked him if he knew what the word meant. I believe this is a good way to holler, "Whoa!" I've pointed out to an angry atheist who calls me a fascist (he also uses this term for an American politician he hates) that he does not even know what the word means (which was further illustrated with his equating me with fascism and communism at the same time). If you ask for a definition, expect a retort along the lines of, "Well, I know what a fascist is, and you're one of them!" This shows that there's no need for further conversation.

Every once in a while, you'll encounter some tinhorn who refers to biblical creationists as fascists. There are several articles that do this, but again, they show ignorance of what the word really means. Ironically, evolutionary views were strong in Nazism. I've used the term "atheo-fascist", but have done it deliberately because I have laid out my case in "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism", but I have yet to see someone play the fascist card in anything other than as an emotive reaction.

Interesting that atheists who refer to Christians and creationists as fascists don't pay no nevermind when their cohorts will ban us from their sites, edit comments, misrepresent, and even lie about us. By their own definitions, I reckon that mayhaps they are the fascists.

When someone cries, "You're a fascist!", or any of the other "cards", they're employing a simplistic ad hominem attack. It is a trump card in an effort to win the hand. Even if someone was wrong, perhaps did say something racist/sexist/whateverist, that does not negate everything the person has to say. Usually, an accusation played through (whatever) card means that someone is furious, cannot refute arguments with reason, is attempting to gain support through an emotive term, and has nothing of substance to say. Also notice that people playing those trump cards demand "tolerance", but are the least tolerant of those who hold differing views. Keep an eye out, see if it's true that a trump-card player is actually the embodiment of what he or she is decrying. But you're not likely to get intelligent conversation, so it's best to move along. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.