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

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Unconformities Not Conforming to Secular Geological Views

So, when rock layers that have assigned ages are separated by non-depositional or erosional surface, that surface is called an unconformity. There are four of them, with words that are unlikely to be found in casual conversation: nonconformity, angular unconformity, disconformity, and paraconformity. The last is the most troubling for uniformitarian geologists.

Unconformities are explained by Genesis Flood models, not by uniformitarian geology
Angular conformity near Catskill, NY, about half an hour north of me (street view, I drove right by this)
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Michael C. Rygel (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Since geological activity happened in the past, it is history, and not strictly science, so there cannot be eyewitnesses. Scientists have speculations, reasoning, models, and so forth based on the presumption of an old earth. Errors are made, and some facts are neglected. What we really have is geology that is best explained by the rapidly-flowing water and catastrophic tectonics of the Genesis Flood.
What are unconformities and what do they mean to young-earth, biblical creationists? The simple definition is that they are surfaces, usually seen as a linear contact in a vertical rock outcrop or exposure, that separate younger overlying rock strata or layers from the older strata below. They are interpreted by uniformitarian (evolutionist and “old-earth creationist”) geologists as gaps in the record, each gap representing missing time and sediments. But is this interpretation warranted by the field evidence?
To read the rest, click on "Geological Unconformities: What Are They and How Much Time Do They Represent?"

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

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

That Star is Older Than It Should Be

According to Big Bang mythology, the numbering of "population" stars is backward. Population III stars are presumed to be the oldest, although none have been discovered. Population II stars are somewhat younger, and were brought into being by population II stars. These have more metals. (In astronomical terms, "metal" is defined as elements heavier than helium. Yeah, makes sense to me, too.) So, population I stars are the ones with even more metals, and are youngest.

Credit: Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), STScI/AURA, Palomar/Caltech, and UKSTU/AAO
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Some factors in determining the ages of stars is first by presuming the Big Bang and stellar evolution in the first place, rejecting special creation, measuring brightness and metal content, and so forth. There's a star with the romantic name of HD 140283. (I'm going to write a song, "Kiss Me when HD 140283 Rises, Oh My Darling".) Using secular models, assumptions, and logic, this recalcitrant orb has been determined to be older than the universe itself. Secularists don't cotton to objects in the heavens that cannot fit their schemes, so a bit of adjustment can be done. But then it's too young to have even formed. Mayhaps they'll adjust the Hubble constant again or something. Looks like a model fail to me. Biblical creationists do not have these problems.
Author Howard E. Bond and his collaborators presented their work on the star HD 140283.2 From its high velocity and low metal content, astronomers had long thought HD 140283 was an extreme population II star and hence among the oldest stars. . . . Application of the most up-to-date models of how such stars evolve enabled the team to determine the age of HD 140283 to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. The age of the universe currently is thought to be 13.77 ± 0.06 billion years.
To read the rest of the article (which is not all that lengthy and will not bombard you with numbers that make your eyes go crossed), click on "HD 140283: Older than the Universe?"

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

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Cavitation and the Genesis Flood

Never underestimate the power of water — especially when it is moving. People get hurt or killed when they think they can drive or walk through swiftly-moving flood waters, and storms on the ocean shore can fling huge boulders. Waterjets have been developed to direct the stuff at high velocity and cut through hard objects with precision. Another way that water can pack a punch is through cavitation.

Bubble cavitation fits Genesis Flood models of creationists
Credit: Pixabay / Tobias Dahlberg
Water commences a-churning from pumps, dams, propellers, and other sources. Bubbles are formed. Under the right conditions, they implode with sound and fury, signifying destruction. When your outboard motor's propeller has been pitted and possibly damaged, cavitation has happened. Tiny bubbles, but the energy in them is tremendous, and is also very hot. Interestingly, our Creator equipped a kind of shrimp with the ability to hunt by cavitation! On a large scale, dams have been dramatically damaged by cavitation, and this kind of power fits in mighty nicely with Genesis Flood models.
When Britain’s Royal Navy ships were suffering considerable and unexplained damage to their ships’ propellers in WWI, physicists worked out that violent ‘bubble cavitation’ was the cause. This happens because tiny bubbles grow and then collapse as a result of pressure variations in the turbulent water around a propeller. But nobody knew just how hot the bubbles could get before releasing their destructive energy.
However, in recent years researchers have found that temperatures inside the tiny bubbles can rise so high that the bubbles start to glow. In fact, there’s evidence that temperatures can rise as high as 15,000 Kelvin (~15,000ºC; 27,000ºF). This indicates that the collapsed bubble has a hot plasma core, i.e. “as hot as the surface of a bright star”.
I know you're bubbling with excitement to read the rest. To do so, click on "Beware the bubble’s burst".

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

Monday, October 16, 2017

Engineered by the Master Architect

Some rather deep articles have been linked from here regarding engineering causality as a response to Darwinism. The short form is that Darwin and most of his followers believe that external forces are responsible for changes, and they extrapolate horizontal changes into vertical evolution — of which there is no evidence. The answer for Darwinism's silly idea is that organisms were designed by the Master Engineer. It is interesting that many human inventions and structures reflect designs in living organisms.

Cathedrals and other architecture reflect our Creator's brilliant designs in living things.
Interior of Salisbury Cathedral, William Turner, 1805
Architects who engineered cathedrals built them to endure, and many have lasted many centuries. Some of the support structures are found in the skeletons of animals. Only took humans a few thousand years to catch on to that aspect of our Creator's design. For that matter, the box turtle's shell exhibits architectural engineering as well! Interestingly, some evolutionists give credit to nature (which is the fallacy of reification, making nature into a being that makes decisions), instead of where the credit rightfully belongs.
“Nature is a pretty impressive engineer,” states evolutionist Daniel Lieberman in an issue of Nature magazine. He notes:
The physical world poses many basic challenges, such as gravity, viscosity and pressure gradients, to all living creatures, which in turn have evolved an astonishing array of solutions. Many of these, such as paddles, valves and hydrostats, are so widespread that we rarely notice them. Others perform so well that we marvel at their superiority to human-made devices.
Creationists maintain it was God who addressed these basic challenges with astonishing solutions—not chance evolutionary processes working for millions of years. Indeed, even if we were to give more time than what the evolutionists would like, we would still never see “nature” producing animals and their multiple systems with such superior function and detail.
To read the rest of this fascinating article, click on "Architecture  and Engineering  in Created  Creatures".

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

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Evolutionary Thinking is Wrecking Society

Biblical creationists have pointed out for a long time that evolution is not just a campfire discussion topic for academics and scientists. It is far more than that, since it is a worldview that not only covers origins, but meaning, purpose, the future, and more. Materialists who control the science industry use atheism and evolution to affect Western society.

Evolutionists consider humans "just another animal", and are wrecking society
Credit: Pixabay / Herbert Aust
The biblical creationists present a message of hope:
  • We are created in God's image
  • There is a purpose in life
  • Our Creator has redeemed his people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
  • There is a final Judgment where people are recompensed according to their deeds, evil receives eternal punishment and God's adopted children are rewarded. 
Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet want to destroy this, offering:
  • We are the products of time, chance, and random processes
  • There is no purpose in life
  • There is no ultimate justice, we're just worm food when we die
  • We're here to keep on spreading our genes around.
Evolution is foundational to atheism. No wonder they have such a high suicide rate!

Just stop and think about the foundation of morality for these people. In the real world, evolutionists not only agree with the dismal presentations of those on the internet, but also make things much worse on a large scale. They are portraying humans as just animals, nothing special. Evolution is being used to justify abortion and eugenics. Marx, a sidewinder who admired Darwin (and vice versa) is being brought out of mothballs, but his bloody legacy is being ignored by leftists and atheists. Read about these and more by clicking on "Evolutionary Ethics Ruins Families".

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

Friday, October 13, 2017

Conspiracy of Hidden Fossils?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"I spy with my little eye...something beginning with F."


"Right. How did you guess so fast?"

"Because we're in the fossil section of the natural history museum, doofus. So which fossil?"

"That one — hey, it's gone! Those people are taking it away!"

"Bad luck, pal."

Hidden in the Museum

It is a fact that museums have much more in their collections than are visible to the public. This applies to archaeology, religious art, erotica, paleontology, and more [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. They are so secret, we can read about them on the web. Is there a conspiracy  here yet? Actually, some artifacts and such are hidden away for the safety of the items, additional research is needed, offensive nature of ancient art, to simply rotate the stock because they have so much to exhibit, and other reasons. In addition, some people who do not know how to handle things like fossils will ruin them or take them away to sell [9]. A few folks believe that evidence for giant humans, items refuting evolution, and the like are hidden away in museums because they don't want us to see them.

Inconvenient Photos

What about all those photos of giant humans? People saddle up, ride out, and lasso photos to put in their corral of "evidence" for huge ancient humans. Many are hoaxes manufactured by trimming away the credits from Photoshop contest sites [10] or other digital manipulations [11]. (I suspicion that some are so large, they would have to defy the laws of physics to move around.) Even so, fossil evidence clearly shows that many critters were much, much larger in those thrilling days of yesteryear. Were our ancestors supersized? Maybe some of those giant swords and stuff exist for novelty purposes or decorations instead of combat.

My wife obtained the giant fork and spoon at an archaeological dig and had to sneak them away.
Actually, she got them at a store in upstate New York for decorations.
Are they all fake? This gets me to cognating on UFO stories, videos, and photos. UFO researchers — believers and disbelievers alike — agree that the overwhelming majority are misidentified, photographic anomalies such as lens flares [12] [13] (I've seen videos of "spirit orbs" that were refuted as lens flares), and have other natural explanations.

Not all UFO images and stories are supposititious, leaving some objects that are genuinely unknown. Similarly, there are many stories, images, and so on about artifacts from paleontology and archaeology that seem to be inexplicable. It seems to me that they cannot all be fake or mistakes, and some need serious examination. Even if experts say, "We don't know what this is". Yeah, that'd be great.

Conspiracy Against Creationary Evidence?

It is true that creationary scientists are blackballed against presenting evidence for creation and against evolution in mainstream scientific journals [14]. Also, there is blatant discrimination against creationists [15], even when they are not actively promoting creation science, such as with Mark Armitage [16]. Further, there is abundant evidence that fraud is common in the promotion of Darwinian ideas [17], which is in keeping with their secular worldview [18]. Still, it's a mite too easy to say that the entire secular scientific community is suppressing physical evidence that conflicts with their views. But then, museums have used fake whale fossils [19].

Some items presented for creationary evidence are indeed questionable. How about the Ica stones of Peru? Those get scant mention in the major creation science sites, and I won't use them as evidence on my sites. While secular scientists dismiss them out of hand because some depict dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously, there are other reasons to be suspicious: the originator says he faked them, no he didn't, yes he did out of fear of the authorities, and so on. Because of insufficient evidence, creationists should leave Ica stones alone [20]. I'd like to own a reproduction, though. Stones aside, there is a great deal of historical evidence that dinosaurs (dragons) lived with humans [21]. Is this evidence of a conspiracy? Well, it indicates bias against creationary evidence because of naturalistic presuppositions: there is no evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans, because evolution demands otherwise. That's how they work.

A frequent question asked of creationists is, "Where are the human fossils?" After all, there were many humans that existed before the Genesis Flood. The human skeletons and fossils seem to be post-Flood. According to biblical creation science models, we should not expect to find pre-Flood skeletons (including giants that may or may not represent the Nephilim). Biblical creation science models tell us why not [22].

Not Helping Our Own Cause

Creationists, like other Christians, need to have healthy skepticism. This applies not only to the latest "evidence" given for fish-to-faker evolution, but some "evidence" affirming the Bible, such as put forth by the late Ron Wyatt [23]. Like evolutionists, some creationists are incautious — and even gullible. Don't do that. Settle down, think, do some research, and wait for information that supports or refutes...whatever claims were made. 

Also, keep a balance. We can accept or reject evidence without being hyper-suspicious. An example of this is when someone foolishly uses a fallacious argument from silence to imply that, since no dinosaur fossils have been discovered at the Grand Canyon, the Genesis Flood is false [24]. Someone like that needs to do some research instead of showing his ignorance of both creation and secular models [25]. Same with us.

Like Creation Ministries International [26], I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I especially detest the anti-vaccination, 9-11 GovernmentDidIt "truther", moon landing fake, flat Earth [27], and other claims. Like some of the spurious evidences presented for God's existence [28], we can get our healthy skepticism ready when we have anonymous sources, a friend of a cousin of someone who worked at NASA told a guy under conditions of secrecy, sources that cite other sources that are selling natural food supplements instead of crediting verifiable sources, a whole heap of emotional appeal, and so on. When those red flags get waved, I often move on because I have better things to do.

Christians and creationists need to be wary and keep with the strongest evidence for our position. More importantly, we must use proper reasoning and be biblical in our approach.

Submitted for Your Approval — Or Not

I could have ended this article with the above paragraph, but I have a couple of things to offer. First, a creationary organization has given me some excellent information in the short time I've been aware of them, so the article that I'm linking below was a bit startling. There are several things to consider, and I think of points raised as, "On the other hand...but on the other hand...still, on the other hand..." and so on. It is about the suppression of evidence in museums against evolution. Some of the material raises those red flags found on conspiracy theorist sites and in social media posts. However, there are points raised that, conspiracist-sounding or not, should not be rejected out of hand. After all that, I refer you to "Missing Fossils and Fake Fossils", by David Plaisted, Ph.D. As you can see, I'm not enthusiastically endorsing the article, just presenting it to give you some things to spark some thinking in y'all.

Second, the Greater Ancestors World Museum has material to consider. There are subjects that are clearly true, and others where the proprietor may have been fooled by hucksters. You'll probably find a mix of truth and unintentional error.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for the next passage of the planet Nibiru [29].

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

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Reading Chemical Evolution Research Properly

There's nothing cowboys like more than riding into town for supplies and slipping off to the library to do some reading on abiogenesis. Good times, good times... Just kidding, science fiction is low on their list of priorities. Even so, some folks want to read secular materials to get a handle on how Darwinists are thinking, and how they try to deny the Creator.

Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
First off, to tackle that kind of thing, it helps to have a strong background in science. Second (and this is the kind of thing creationists discuss frequently), a reader needs to understand the presuppositions of materialists and the assumptions upon which they base their research and conclusions. Third (one of my favorites), keep an eye out for bad logic — especially circular reasoning and affirming the consequent. Fourth, a good knowledge of creationary material is very important, since creationists are not likely to twist science to advance secular paradigms. There are some other things to consider as well, but I'll let the article give you a thorough briefing.
Learning how to read secular research literature with a careful eye is not easy to do. Discerning fact and interpretation can be tricky, since they are often weaved together so tightly that it can be hard to know where fact ends and interpretation begins. 

. . .
Part of the difficulty is that people often get so caught up in the particulars of a paper that they can get ‘swept along’ with the argument, producing doubt. Regarding the origin of life literature, they often address details of the chemistry of amino acids, or nucleotides, or the way they polymerize, that when read from the perspective of the researchers sound like they provide significant progress towards solving the problem of chemical evolution (‘abiogenesis’). Because they have gotten caught up in the flow of their argument, they end up asking questions that presuppose the framework of thought the papers adopt.
To read the rest, click on "Reading ‘origin of life’ research".

That's a Fact - Dumb Luck from Institute for Creation Research on Vimeo.
Feeling lucky? Scientists tell us that the building blocks of life are amazingly complex, and the chances for basic life to exist are 1 in trillions! And yet, we see the wonder of life all around us.

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Lunar Collision Origin All Wet

One of the popular speculations about the origin of Earth's moon is that a celestial body was unable to stay in its traffic lane, lost control, and smacked into Earth way back when. This would explain the absence of lunar water to the satisfaction of naturalists who deny the truth of recent creation.

Impact hypothesis of moon origin refuted by water on moon
The Harvest Moon, Samuel Palmer, 1833
Even a cursory consideration of this idea shows that it is ridiculous. After all, the moon is the perfect size to obscure the sun during a total eclipse, and the moon is necessary for keeping life on Earth working efficiently. It has that almost-circular orbit and all. Rocks that Apollo astronauts brought back were tested in 2008 and found to have water, but that didn't seem to make an impression. Now that the moon can be studied from a distance, scientists learn that there is indeed water in the rocks. But it shouldn't be there according to proponents of the impact hypothesis.
New clues confirm that the moon looks created.

In stark contrast to Genesis 1, secular scientists claim that a collision between a planet-sized rocky object and an ancient Earth somehow crafted the moon billions of years ago. This supposed collision was so violent and hot that it would have burned off all the original moon water— assuming there was any. So why do researchers keep finding evidence of water inside the moon?
To read the rest, click on "Lunar Water Douses Collision Origin".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Secularists Devalue Dinosaur Soft Tissues

Advocates of deep time and dust-to-dinosaur evolution presuppose that dinosaurs died off 65 million Darwin years ago, and biblical creationists presuppose that Earth is much, much younger. With incontrovertible evidence of soft tissues in dinosaur bones, evolutionists had to circle the wagons and open fire on facts (and people presenting those facts) that threaten their belief systems.

Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are a problem for evolutionists that will not go away
Credit: Freeimages / jim daly
Some people tried to say that there were errors in lab testing, and Darwinoids on the web called the creationists who knew more about science than they did "liars". Other folks tried to get dismissive about this massive problem for deep time and evolution, hoping that their bad news would go away and things would be peachy keen if they pulled the covers over their heads and got a good night's sleep. Didn't happen. People at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (who are also fond of advancing the bad science promoting evolutionism) cannot make the problem go away, so they try to make it seem unimportant. The facts are extremely important, since they indicate that biblical creationists are right: Earth is not billions of years old, and life was created, not evolved.
The biggest bombshell of the century in paleontology threatens evolutionary time. It’s not surprising that the AAAS would want to put out the fire.

Dinosaur soft tissue pulls the rug out from millions of years. Most people get that. Tell them that blood vessels, blood cells and original proteins have been found in dinosaur fossils, and a light bulb will go off in their heads: ‘then they can’t be that old’ is the logical conclusion. With few exceptions, fossils are supposed to be remains of organisms that have turned to stone. But when Mary Schweitzer went on 60 Minutes in 2010 (see YouTube) showing stretchy material she found inside a T. rex bone, it elicited gasps from host Lesley Stahl. Nobody on that show could believe it. And her mentor, dinosaurologist Jack Horner, had no explanation. Schweitzer’s “unorthodox approach”, the narrator stated, “may be changing the whole dino ball game”.
To read the rest of the article, click on "AAAS Tries to Downplay Dinosaur Soft Tissue".

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

Monday, October 9, 2017

The Taste of Water

Everybody knows that water has no taste, right? That's a good thing when riding the long, hot trail and you need a good draw from your canteen that doesn't taste fruity or bitter. Well, I don't want flavor when I'm all hottened up. Don't be so sure there's no taste. A study indicates that mice are able to taste — more likely, maybe distinguish or discern that they are actually drinking water. Mice, critters, and people are designed to have many things in common, so it's likely that we can "taste" water as well.

New study shows that the tongue can "taste" water, in a way.
Credit: Pixabay / Capri23auto
The Big Box Chain Store sells its own brand of water, and I think it tastes mighty find. But on the label, it lists the ingredients as purified water (as I wanted), some chemicals, and minerals to enhance flavor. Strikes me as odd that they're enhancing something that has no flavor, but that's just marketing. People have subjected brands of bottled water to taste tests as well. My speculation is that the testers were responding to the additives, not the water itself. Interestingly, two hours south of me, New York City tap water won a taste competition.

Being able to "taste" water is helpful so we can know that we're actually drinking the stuff and not something that looks very similar. Like other things we taste, this appears to be built into the tongue itself. This helps illustrate that our Creator cares about even seemingly little details.
Our tongues can sense five basic tastes with specialized nerve cells for each: salty, sour, sweet, bitter, and umami (savory). But a new study suggests our tongues can detect another “taste”—tasteless water. A paper published in the journal Nature Neuroscience details this fascinating new research, which uses mice as the test subjects.
To lap up the rest of this short article, click on "Study: Tongues Can 'Taste' Tasteless Water". Of course, they don't know about the living water that all men and women need.

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

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Fossils Unfriendly to Evolution

Supporters of universal common ancestor evolution claim that the fossil record contains some of the strongest evidence for their belief system. Evolution requires huge amounts of time so things can go about the business of changing into other things, so there should be a multitude of transitional forms. Ain't happening, Zeke. 

"But we've got excuses because you're wrong because evolution!"

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have worked overtime down at the propaganda mill to cover the fact that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Sure, they cite propaganda mills like Wikipedia, propaganda.talk.origins, and so forth that state what they want to believe, but those shnooks are at odds with the experts.

The fossil record is hostile to evolution and supports the Genesis Flood
I'd like to see trilobites do a coelacanth trick and suddenly get discovered alive
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
Doesn't a proper scientific attitude require evidence before a hypothesis is formed? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” He expected the evidence to be found. That's not science, that's wishful thinking, Chuck.

There are numerous citations from evolutionists who have admitted over the years that there are still no transitional forms. They also admit that evolutionary paleontologists engage in circular reasoning. At this point, someone will get on the prod and want to slap leather, saying, "That there's quote mining, Mister! I'm calling you out!" But he's shooting blanks because we're not quote mining. As it was then, so it is today: paucity of transitional forms, and circular reasoning. The missing links will remain missing, and the transitional forms do not exist, because evolution did not happen. The evidence actually supports the global Genesis Flood.
How many of us have heard that evolution is supported by the evidence of the fossil record or that millions of fossils prove evolution had to have occurred? It has been assumed that as more research accumulated and more fossils were discovered, there would be increasing evidence to support the thesis of Darwin that evolution of species has occurred. In fact, it now seems to be popular to think that this has indeed occurred, and that new fossil evidence - including evidence of whale evolution, etc. - now has lent increased support to the theory of evolution. We will look at the results of the research in the years following Darwin. We will also examine claims or statements from scientists, including evolutionists, about this fossil evidence. Let’s look at this and see what the actual fossil evidence tells us!
To learn some interesting things about fossils, the absence of what evolutionists need, and evidence for the Flood, click on "Fossils"

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

Friday, October 6, 2017

Hilarity Ensues in Tardigrade Research

There is an ultra-small critter known as the tardigrade —

"Is this going to be about astronomy, Cowboy Bob?"

Not hardly! You're thinking of retrograde, going in a reverse or worsening state or having retrogression. The astronomy part is where planets we observe from Earth appear to move backward over a period of time in the night sky. Also, most of the planets in the solar system rotate in one fashion, but Venus goes the opposite, so it's orbit is retrograde. A few moons out there do that, too. Makes problems for the accretion theory. Oh, thanks a lot! Now I gotta turn this horsie around and get back on the right trail.

As I was saying, the tiny tardigrade is very small, and is classified with over a thousand species. Most eat plants, but some are carnivorous, and live in many environments. They are considered to be relatives of arthropods, and have eight legs. Something even more interesting about tardigrades is that they are very difficult to make deceased. Research was conducted and crazy conclusions were reached.

Evolutionary scientists have conclusions that are thoroughly mad
Mad Scientist image from Clker clipart
Using a prairie schooner-full of circular reasoning (assuming something is true in order to argue for it), scientists decided that tardigrades must have evolved, and they're mighty hardy, so if life was wiped out on a planet, they'd probably keep on going. (Wonder what they'd have as a food source?) Since there are no decent candidate planets for life in space, this proves that life can happen even under the harshest conditions. What the things evolved from, or would evolve into, and how, remain unstated. Pretty goofy stuff, isn't it? Also, seems like even more desperation from materialists to avoid dealing with the fact that life was created, not evolved.
Tardigrades, also known as water bears, are smaller than a millimeter, live in water, and can endure all kinds of harsh environments. A recent research project found that asteroid impacts and nearby supernovae and gamma-ray bursts would wreck humanity but leave tardigrades unscathed. Does this mean we should expect to find tardigrade-like life on other planets and moons?
Oxford physicists David Sloan and Rafael Batista joined Harvard astronomer Abraham Loeb to publish in the online journal Scientific Reports.
To read the rest of their embarrassingly dreadful reasoning and wishful thinking, click on "Wacky Conclusion from Tardigrade Research".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Express Delivery to Chromosome Two

According to some outdated versions of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution, the human genome was examined. Using outdated technology, evolutionary assumptions, and a whole heap of hubris, some DNA ("noncoding") was considered "junk". That is, containing material that was important in the past but we evolved and don't need it anymore. Not a good idea to slap a branding iron on something you don't rightly understand and herd it into the Settled Science Corral, because the "junk" is constantly being found useful

Direct delivery to Chromosome 2 is another example of creation
Generated at RedKid.net
The extreme specified complexity of the molecular world, including DNA, RNA, cells, and so forth, cannot be explained by evolutionary ideas. In this case, a kind of package is sent from one chromosome, takes a ride on a protein, and makes a delivery to the exact location on another chromosome. Over a billion possibilities, and the package ends up where it's needed. Time, chance, random processes — with no evolutionary model or mechanism? That'll be the day! No, this is yet another of many evidences indicating that God engineered his creation. Creation deniers need to give some serious thought to their epistemology.
Think of the difficulty of sending a package from one location to another when there are a billion possible destinations. To make this process efficient it requires infrastructure and machines that can propel themselves and navigate. It’s even more amazing if this happens in an ever changing soup of molecules within a cell.

In 2007, John Rinn discovered a lncRNA (long non-coding RNA) transcribed from DNA on human Chromosome 12 that would somehow navigate and land at a specific location on human Chromosome 2 by riding a molecular “bus” known as the Suz12 protein. It was the first example of a transcript from one chromosome influencing the expression of a gene on another chromosome. This epigenetic action, he found, was a crucial part of cell signaling for differentiating skin cells in the body. It’s why the skin cells in the sole of the foot, for instance, have different qualities than skin cells in the lid of the eye.
To read the rest, shuttle yourself over to "Pinpoint Navigation and Propulsion in a Seemingly Random Soup".

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

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Seaweed Clogs Evolutionary Propellers

Imagine if you will being out in a motorboat on a fine, sunny day, ready to do some recreational activity. Maybe singing a happy song to yourself just over the sound of the outboard motor. Then, you hear that awful sound and the song dies on your lips as the motor stops running. Things were fine a moment ago. Checking the situation, you discover that you got into the seaweed, and that stuff got tangled into the propellers, bringing you to a halt. In a similar manner, a seaweed discovery clogged the works for Darwinists and their imaginary plant evolution timeline. 

Credit: Freeimages / Jacqueline Fouche
Ever hear of lignin? Looks like a misspelling, or an incomplete word, but it's actually a component in plant cell walls. It helps keep land plants standing up straight and looking mighty fine, and also helps water get from the from the roots to where it's needed in the far away regions of the plant. The story continues that lignin is not needed in aquatic plants, so it didn't evolve there.

Evolutionary storytelling (suitable for campfire entertainment on the trail, but not for serious science) gets complicated and collapses. Lignin was found in an alga. Specifically, a red seaweed. That's not supposed to happen! Not only does it confound Darwinists because of its "early" evolution, but it's in a kind of seaweed that allegedly diverged a few zillion Darwin years ago. Some have invoked the non-science magic of convergent evolution, a convenient story that actually explains nothing. But some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that lignin is exceptionally complex, and not just a simple cell modifier. Also, why would it evolve in the alga? It was doing fine getting water, and structural support wasn't exactly an issue. Seems self-contradictory to me. If they were more circumspect, Darwinists would realize that their evolutionary stories are meaningless, and the real scientific evidence indicates recent creation by the Master Engineer.
Lignin is a primary structural (strengthening) component of wood. It enables land plants to support themselves as they grow upward through the air, and is crucial to transporting water from roots up to the leaves. It has long been thought, and taught, that this feature is unique to land plants because aquatic plants, nicely bathed and supported by the surrounding water medium, do not have any lignin.

That textbook teaching is overturned now, however, by the discovery of lignin in marine algae.

Not a big deal, you might think, except that this discovery “has major evolutionary implications”. As the lead researcher, University of British Columbia Assistant Professor Patrick Martone, explained:
To find out what the professor explained and more about the implications of this discovery, click on "Overturnin’ the learnin’ about lignin". I wonder if you're eating that same seaweed in your sushi.

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

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Humans Are Not Causing Rapid Gecko Evolution

One of the favorite tricks of Darwinoids is to engage in equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. It is also called the bait-and-switch maneuver. For our purposes, we'll look at how the word evolution is used. This word actually has several definitions that involve change over time in one way or another. Humans were credited (or blamed, if you will) for "rapid evolution" involving geckos.

Credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto
Geckos, those baffling little critters that can hang by one toe and inspired self-cleaning adhesive tape, were observed changing over time. Although the geckos remained geckos, disingenuous proponents of  universal common ancestor evolution called these minor changes "evolution", equivocating on the key word to deceive people into believing that Darwin was right after all. Ain't happening, Zeke. Those sidewinders were implying that big picture evolution happened, but no new genetic information was added, and the geckos conveniently evolved into — no, they remained geckos. They were created to adapt, which is what they did.
News reports are proclaiming that human actions, in this case the building of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil, are “messing with evolution” because of changes in a species of gecko.

Here’s what happened: a portion of the Brazilian countryside was flooded for this dam, isolating gecko populations from the mainland. When the larger lizard species that used to inhabit this part of the countryside died off, the geckos dominated. Within a mere 15 years, the geckos had bigger mouths and heads to eat the larger insects the other lizards would otherwise have snapped up. This change in the lizards, which happened independently on all five new islands, is being heralded as an example of “rapid evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Are Humans Driving Rapid Lizard Evolution?"
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 2, 2017

Basic Science about Genetics, Evolution, and Creation

Darwin's defenders often say that the science of genetics refutes biblical creation science and affirms gunk-to-geneticist evolution. That'll be the day! In reality, further research in genetics has been a gold mine for creation science, and the prediction by creationists that there is no "junk" DNA has been confirmed several times. Evolutionists do not help their cause by using deception and bad science, such as when they stitched together the chimpanzee genome and say those critters are our closes relatives. The DNA puzzle is not yet complete, but continues to refute evolution and support special creation.

Puzzle of DNA is incomplete but new discoveries continue to refute evolution and support special creation.
Credit: Pixabay / qimono
Changes in what is known about genetics is rapidly changing, so what we read in textbooks is incomplete or even erroneous today. DNA is more than a storage medium for an amazing amount of information, it is a language as well. People who want to know more on the subject have an uphill climb. When scientists commence to writing their reports, the technical jargon can be mighty confusing, so it's easy to feel baffled. How about something scientific that starts on a more basic level?
Genetics is the science of heredity: the study of how traits are passed on from organisms to their descendants.  It is perhaps the most relevant field of science to the issue of creation and evolution.  Which position on origins is most consistent with our modern understanding of genetics?  Do all organisms on earth share a common ancestor as Charles Darwin believed?  Or do all organisms trace back to a large number of separately created kinds which are not biologically related to other kinds?  Can the science of genetics shed light on these questions?
Although it takes a while, you would do well to get comfortable and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Creation 101: Genetics". I have a feeling that there will be some more "101" courses later on. 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 30, 2017

DNA, Fetal Cells, and Women's Health

Going to have to use expensive words in this post, especially since the subject is rather technical. A chimera is a mythological creature made of multiple parts. Depending on the myth it would have the head of a lion, snake tail, and the body of a goat. This word has been incorporated into biological and medical sciences involving ethical considerations regarding biological tampering.

Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley
That was the easy part of the vocabulary. Now we move on to microchimerism, and you can see micro in there as well as chimera, but adding -ism does not make it into a religion. Instead, it is a rapidly-developing area of study for women's health. Simply put, it is male DNA in a woman's body, had has a great deal to do with fetal development. God's ideal for marriage and procreation is one man and one woman. The DNA is found in father, mother, and child, which includes a woman having multiple fathers for her children, and abortions. When people ignore God's ideal for their own purposes, they are putting a woman's health at risk, beginning at the cellular level.
Women are at risk from sexual involvement with multiple partners. This can impact their health and increase the risk of miscarriage in pregnancy, low birth weight and dangerous diseases that have the potential to kill. Additionally, the intriguing, relatively recent discovery of DNA in the bodies of women, originating from the fathers of their children, has brought attention to an unsuspected biological closeness between a woman and her children, and between a mother and her spouse. This DNA, clearly distinct from the mother’s, has been shown to persist in her body for decades after a pregnancy. Its presence not only may have health effects, but also exemplifies the deep biological union between a man and a woman, facilitated by the children they have together.
To read the rest, prepare to invest about half an hour and do some thinking. When you're ready, click on Dr. Kathy Wallace's "Becoming one flesh".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 29, 2017

Responding to Darwinism with Engineering Causality

The series continues on how Darwin's externalism has interfered with scientific investigation on living organisms, and evolutionists give credit to nature for changes real and imagined. Engineered complexity is the opposite and arguably more scientific approach. You can read the previous installment of the series here. Now we need to look at some additional factors.

Credit: Pixabay / Adi Rahman
Materialistic scientists are frequently surprised at what is found in nature. Organisms adapt, and do it quickly, but Darwinism requires huge amounts of time and assumes that conditions are the primary factors. While conditions are important, the best approach is to see that organisms adapt because they were designed by the Master Engineer to do so.

Anti-creationists often lie about biblical creationists that our argument is "GodDidIt", so there is no need to investigate further. Yet evolutionists essentially say "NatureDidIt", and even personify nature in a kind of pantheistic view. No, both camps want to know how something works. If Darwin's folks could bring themselves to admit that life is designed, they could commence to doing useful science instead of running into the wall of Darwin's externalism.
Discoveries of diverse internal mechanisms foster another new concept: Adaptation is based on a compilation of engineered systems that enable rapid growth and physiological changes to environmental cues and challenges.

A design-based, organism-focused model could posit that as organisms actively travel through space-time, they continuously track environmental conditions, and their inherent capabilities express suitable traits. These features are the outworking of systems with intrinsic sensors and programmed logic that are accurately described with engineering causality—which is characterized as internal to them.
To read the article in its entirety (and I reckon this series is getting mighty interesting), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Causality Is the Answer to Darwinian Externalism".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Carbon-14 and Dinosaur Bones

A prairie schooner-full of links to articles on dinosaur soft tissues can be found on this site alone, and there are many more on the web. Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny the existence of dinosaur soft tissues! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong.

No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete.
Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith
Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree, to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined. Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring©, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further evidence that the world was created recently, and the Genesis Flood is by far the best explanation for discoveries in geology and paleontology. Well, despite the desire to protect evolutionism from science, C-14 testing was eventually done. The results were not good for the Darwin club. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
This article will explain how recent events, including the announcement of dinosaur soft tissue and carbon-14 (C-14) in the otherwise ordinary bones of major classes of dinosaurs collected from museum shelves and throughout the geological column, may have placed evolutionists in a zugzwang-like position with respect to their long-held beliefs concerning the origin of life. In other words, like a chess player in zugzwang, they will now be compelled to move (investigate dinosaur bones) in a manner that can only weaken their position.
To check out the rest of this article (and get an overview of carbon-14 as well), click on "Carbon-14 in Dinosaur Bones Challenges Evolution Theory and Supports Genesis Flood Account". Also, you may like the one-minute video below, courtesy of Creation Ministries International.


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

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Universities Prohibit Science against Evolution

There was a time when education meant equipping students for the future. This included lectures, learning from books, debating, listening to lectures that would challenge their thinking, and more. Now we have "safe spaces" where the darlings can feel safe, and they are spoon-fed information that conforms to ideologies. This is a good way to protect evolution from scrutiny and logical thinking.

Generated at Add Letters
The politically/culturally correct movement is useful to suppress free speech, and is frequently advantageous for political and moral leftists. Evolution is the reigning paradigm in government-run educational centers (as well as liberal religious schools), and the very idea that Darwin's views are not supported by scientific evidence is harshly suppressed. (It interferes with their materialistic indoctrination.) Perhaps academics and students realize that if they have to admit there is a Creator, they have to also come to terms with what he has to say. Biblical creation science is not politically correct, nor will it ever be. So, bigots will keep anyone off campus who is politically conservative — especially if they reject evolutionism. Never mind that the true spirit of scientific inquiry would allow the consideration of contrary evidence. But leftists and atheists are not fond of logical thinking and free speech, especially if they expose political, evolution, and climate change falsehoods. Can't even let those be question or examined, no siree.
Much is in the news lately about the University of California at Berkeley, where riots have prevented planned guest speakers from appearing. The university claimed in an email about their decision to cancel a talk by Ann Coulter that they uphold the First Amendment, but canceled her talk out of “safety concerns”. As evidence, they referred to the recent riots at colleges over conservative speakers, such as a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos that was canceled in February. Coulter is a strong supporter of creation as documented in her book, Godless.

In another case, when Ben Shapiro was scheduled to speak at several colleges, demonstrations rose up to stop him. Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) comes from a Jewish family, partially from Russia. He is a conservative Republican, and a creationist. And yet the absurd reason they gave for preventing him from speaking is the claim that “Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro Is A ‘White Supremacist’” and a “Fascist”. It’s becoming increasingly common for protestors to use ad hominem tactics to block a variety of guests from speaking at college campuses, especially creationists.
Calling a Jew a "White Supremacist", how stupid can they get? News flash for those sidewinders: white supremacists hate Jews first, before other ethnicities! Sorry, I had to interject. To read the rest of the article, click on "Universities Ban Discussion of Creation by Speakers, Students".

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