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

Friday, June 30, 2017

Evolution and Teleology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A spell back, an anti-creationist troll shared one of these here posts to social media, and complained that I was claiming that evolution uses teleology. It showed two things about him: First, he did not bother to read the article that he shared before ridiculing it, and second, the article was showing how evolutionists themselves are using teleology! It was "The Spirit of the Origin of Life" if I recollect rightly. He was a mite upset because evolution is supposed to be through chance, and does not have a purpose-driven life.

"What's teleology, Cowboy Bob?"

Great timing, I was about to get into that. Sounds like the study of telecommunications or something, doesn't it? Basically, it means design in nature. Going a bit further, it means that the Creator designed living things, and the design refutes evolution through intricate specified complexity. Christian apologists have used the teleological argument (or fine tuning, or argument from design) for God's existence. This child isn't too fond of that argument by itself.

Credit: US Department of Agriculture / ARS Corn And Soybean Research Unit
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In a presentation by Frank Sherwin about the design of insects, he mentioned news a few years ago about the amazing gear design found in the nymph planthopper, and some comments made by a researcher. Annoying insects things spread a plant disease called maise mosaic. But Greg Sutton was studying the way the critter was able to hop. Way down inside each leg is a gear assembly that is very similar to the kind that humans use in various mechanical applications.

Instead of giving praise to our Creator for his ingenuity, he commenced to bow down to the spirit of evolution. No, evolution is not an entity, that's the fallacy of reification. Even so, evolutionists have been acting pantheistic and making evolution (or nature) into a goal-oriented entity. Sutton said, "“These gears are not designed; they are evolved – representing high speed and precision machinery evolved for synchronization in the animal world.” There ya go: teleology for evolution.

But wait, there's more! Greg Sutton also said, "What we have is a prototype for incredibly small, high-speed, high-precision gears . . . that prototype is given to us by nature." He is not presenting us with actual science, but sciencey statements of faith. There is no model or plausible explanation. For a short but interesting article from a creationary perspective, see "'Living Gears' Might Have Evolutionists Hopping Mad".

Sorry, buckaroo, but the prototype was given to us by God, and he used it in nature. We are also told that the evidence for God the Creator is all around us and unbelievers are without excuse (Rom. 1:20), that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), and did not honor him (Rom. 1:21). Mr. Sutton honors some vague spirit of evolutionism, not the Creator. Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is typical of evolutionists. God tells us that people like this have become fools (Rom. 1:22-23), and the money they spent on getting a secularist education will be worthless when they have to stand before Jesus Christ the Creator at the Final Judgement. This is just one more instance where these people are inadvertently admitting that God is right: they know that he exists, but do not want to acknowledge him.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Hummingbirds Are Marvels of Flight

These winged wonders are found in the Western Hemisphere, and there are a lot of them, more than 325 species. Most are in the Southern United States, except those that see fit to migrate to parts far away. They have a range of sizes, such as the bee hummingbird that's, well, about the size of a bee. There's also the giant hummingbird ("giant" being a relative term), 9.1 inches (23 cm). Here's something I won't leave alone: if you have a hummingbird feeder, clean it often so you don't end up poisoning them (and don't use bleach!), you savvy?

Credit: Pixabay / luxlioness
Creationists like hummingbirds. Not just because they're amazing, but also because they fustigate evolution. (Darwinists cannot explain their intricate specified complexity, and have to resort to the mysterium tremendum of evolution: they don't know how, but they evolved.) These little critters can move mighty fast when they want to, and have an extremely fast metabolism that needs frequent refueling. One of the main puzzlers about them is their aerobatics. They can not only do basic flying, but hover, move backwards, fly upside down, and do other feats. How? Special wing movements and air currents that scientists cannot quite explain.
The hummingbird may be one of the most well-known birds on earth, yet this colorful acrobat continues to mystify the greatest mathematicians and aeronautical engineers. Just when they think they’ve learned all there is to learn about these birds, they discover more.

Hummers differ greatly from other birds. . . No other creature can match their skills. And man-made craft don’t compare. (What helicopter can cross the Caribbean Sea on a half ounce of fuel?)
To read the rest or download the audio version (by my favorite narrator), click on "Hummingbirds—Avian Acrobats of the Americas". Two other items of interest, "Hummingbirds Fly in the Face of Evolution" (which has an interesting video at the bottom) and "Flighty Evolutionary Speculations Taint Hummingbird Taste Study".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Reindeer Eyes Thwart Evolutionary Stories

Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to explaining the intricacies of sight. You'll get a passel of speculations sans evidence and models, and even a dodge, such as, "The human eye is poorly designed, therefore, evolution". So, uninformed evolutionists want to deny the Creator, and inadvertently admit that evolution does a poor job of causing the eye to happen. Sure, Poindexter, keep deceiving yourself with that pile of bad science. Things do not get better for you.

Rangifer tarandus credit: US National Park Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Way up yonder in the northern polar areas is a caribou (also called the reindeer) that has a neat trick: the eyes change color. No, not quickly, but in winter and summer. They have a golden hue in the summer, and blue in the winter. This is due to a complex arrangement of factors involving light wavelength, eye structure, reflectivity, and so on. We see again the failure of evolution to explain what is observed, and another testimony of the ingenuity of our Creator.
The golden-coloured eyes of Arctic reindeer (caribou, Rangifer tarandus) turn deep blue in winter. A researcher involved with this 2001 discovery, neuroscientist Glen Jeffery, studies vision at University College London. Describing the colour difference as “dramatic”, he said, “It has taken us 12 years to slowly find out what is going on and why.”

It turns out the colour change is because the reindeer seasonally change the wavelength reflection from their tapetum lucidum (TL)—the reflective surface commonly known as ‘cat’s eye’ behind the retina.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Why reindeer eyes turn blue in winter".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Further Trashing the "Junk" DNA Concept

As we have pointed out before, pompous Darwinists studied some of the human genome, did not understand certain aspects, and labeled them as "junk" DNA — especially if they did not code for proteins. This reaction became zombified, reappearing time and again to make strong men faint and women scream. And this is in the science lab. Okay, so I exaggerate a mite, but with additional research comes additional embarrassment for arrogant evolutionary scientists who spoke from evolutionary assumptions and without knowledge.

Biomedical genomics refuting "junk" DNA

The transcription of information into RNA is pervasive. There are different sections with different functions, including long non-coding RNA, lncRNA. There's a heap of the stuff, and it has very precise functions that are being analyzed. No, scientists do not understand the genome yet, but progress has been made. The genome testifies of the ingenuity of our Creator, and frustrates evolutionary speculations. In addition, some scientists in biomedical genomics are working mighty hard to cure disease, and are not letting evolutionary ideas hinder their work.
The genome, the complete set of chromosomes in a cell, is like a computer hard drive that encodes the information stored in its DNA. Protein-coding genes are segments of DNA carrying instructions for making proteins. These segments are copied (transcribed) into RNA in a temporary fashion, just like copies of software programs are put into temporary memory on a computer. These temporary RNA instructions are then used as templates to make proteins
To read the rest, click on "Pervasive Genome Function Debunks Junk DNA".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 26, 2017

Evolutionists Still Baffled by Sex

From a materialistic standpoint, the origin of sex is puzzling, and has been so for decades. According to universal common ancestor evolution, the goal for living things is to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Not a heap of personal fulfillment or purpose there, really. So why sexual reproduction? Seems like asexual reproduction is the most efficient from an evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution cannot explain origin of sex
Credit: Clker clipart
In addition to secularist science deniers that believe someone's sex can be changed, others claim that gender is "fluid", and point to the animal world. A few creatures actually change gender, but this is done because there is a reproductive need, not a personal identity or desire for recreation. They are animals, so comparing them with us is a bit silly. Other critters have the option to lay eggs or give live birth, and there are other baffling reproductive procedures in the animal kingdom. For sexual reproduction between a male and a female, a whole passel of parts have to be in the right place at the right time, or nothing will happen. No wonder evolutionists are confused! In reality, our Creator provided diversity among animals, and sex between a man and a woman in the bounds of marriage is one of his gifts to us.
Researchers in our day still admit they are baffled about the origin of sexual reproduction. Why sex exists is problematic for many reasons, such as the fact that many organisms, from dividing microbes to plants that grow from cuttings, do very well without it. The problem for evolution has always been that sexual reproduction cannot occur until both the copulatory organs are well matched, and the gametes, both the eggs and sperm, are functional so that the union of the two cells produces viable offspring. Sex is a classic case of irreducible complexity.
To finish reading, click on "Evolutionists Have No Idea How Sex Evolved".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Evolution, Atheism, and Intolerance

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Note: There is an addendum at the very bottom, beneath the music video.

When riding the dusty trail of the internet, it's not uncommon to encounter several illegitimate beliefs and manipulations from intolerant atheists and evolutionists. Evolution is a cornerstone of the atheist religion, and not only have attacks on contrary views intensified, evolutionary indoctrination in schools is also increasing. Ironically, proselytizers of evolutionism do not understand it themselves, but they're "certain" that biblical creationists are wrong, and want us silenced. Aside from opposition to the truth, these folks are opposed to critical (logical) thinking, which would put atheism and evolutionism under anatomization and possible rejection. Christians and creationists need to stand firm, become more educated in both Scripture and science, and continue to put burrs of truth under their collective saddle.

Atheists are the smart ones?

Atheists claim to be more intelligent than Christians, and especially those of us who reject fish-to-fool evolutionism. A common mantra of the atheist religion is, essentially, "We are smarter than theists". So, does joining the club instantly make someone intelligent? Not hardly! I've encountered many atheists on the web that are excerebrose, and try to prove that they're smarter than us st00pid dumb Xtians, but usually fail to demonstrate the ability to reason. A large number of the greatest minds in history have been theists, and many founders of modern science have been biblical creationists.

"Yeah, but studies show..."

Big deal. There are studies for many things, and quite a few of them are fundamentally flawed. What questions were asked? Of whom? When? Where? Under what conditions? Do they mention the study that shows how atheism uses less brain function? I reckon not. There are several points about studies that need to be considered.

A recent article in a science publication entitled, “Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?” author Laura Geggel starts out with the complex question fallacy. That is, it should be two questions: "Are atheists generally smarter than religious people? If so, why?" Laura also makes a false, impossible assertion that scholars have wondered about this alleged greater intelligence (as if it were a fact) for "more than a millennium". Retract your claws, kitten, intelligence tests aren't that old. Also, tests only measure certain things — especially the ability to score well on a test. Even if the claim was correct, it would not mean that atheism is true!

One of the primary subjects of testing is university students. Secularists are notoriously anti-Christian and anti-creationist, and a disproportionately high number of educators in government-run school systems have such views. Naturally, they seek to increase indoctrination. For more about this, I recommend "Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?" If you study on it a spell, if atheists actually were "smarter" than Christians, you'd think they'd be self-assured enough to eschew trolling the web and subjecting us to straw man arguments, personal attacks, outright lying, unsustainable arbitrary assertions, intimidation, manipulation, and so forth. They do not understand that ridicule and contradiction have no place in a rational discussion. I documented the intellectual prowess of one such Mighty Atheist™ in this video. Also:

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Evolutionary Indoctrination

A big part of this educational indoctrination is the belief in atoms-to-atheopath evolution. As other creationists and I have pointed out for a mighty long time, evolution is presented at every turn, including music, advertising, movies, works of fiction, legitimate science research corrupted into the obligatory homage to Darwin, and much more. It was determined that children are born theist (despite the false assertions of atheists), so evolutionary indoctrination is ramped up. See "Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children" for more.

Evolution is the atheist's creation myth. With it, they try to justify their rebellion against God and suppression of the truth (Rom. 1:18-23) so they can appear "intellectual" and "scientific". As we have frequently seen here and in sites that are linked, there is a paucity of actual science as well as logic in evolutionary dogmas. Hysterical assertions and omissions of pertinent contrary evidence, those are certainly presented. Whatever it takes to get someone to believe in evolution, right, pilgrim?

Viperine tactics

I've had people criticize things I've posted at The Question Evolution Project as well as on this site, and demand explanations from me regarding the work of others. This happens to other creationists as well. Somehow, we're each expected to have all knowledge of everything we share, and must be a physicist, astronomer, geologist, biologist, microbiologist, psychologist, geneticist, whateverologist on demand. If I refuse to speculate on matters in an article, the frequent conclusion is that since I can not or will not answer, it's "proof" that creation science is false and there is no God. No, scoffers cannot be bothered to contact the author or organization the gave us the article or video in question. Yes, that's how logic works for many anti-creationists and atheists.

Another disingenuous tactic is to complain about what is not in a post, article or video, while at the same time ignoring material that is provided. I've posted short videos that contain interesting information, and atheopaths call creationists "liars" because a certain topic was not addressed in a video or article. Just how long do these tinhorns want an article or video to be, anyway? Much of what I share is made or written for us reg'lar folk, and the scientific discourses are linked elsewhere. Mockers conveniently ignore the part about, "To find out more, go to our site", and even the additional resources that many provide — including scientific material. It's not difficult: watch the video, go to the site, do further reading. That is too much like thinking for many opponents of God and creation, rquiring intellectual honesty from a serious inquirer. Besides, their goal in such cases is to silence creationists through ridicule and misrepresentation, attempting to negate what we have to say without actually dealing with the content.

A further manipulative tactic is to smugly assert the definition of evolution, and give a simplistic, malleable definition that can "prove" almost anything. (This is similar to the bullying approach of saying that if you deny evolution, you must not understand it. Such a lie has been dealt with many times elsewhere, including here to some extent.) But many evolutionists do not really understand evolution themselves! Even so, I'll take the word of creationary scientists over that of some internet saddle tramp with a bad attitude.

False moral standards

Unfortunately, Darwinoids evangelize people into their worldview. They think they're doing good things (Jeremiah 17:9, Matt. 15:9, 1 Tim. 1:13-15, Psalm 14:1, Rom. 6:23), by attacking God, his people, the Bible, and creation science. But atheists do not have a consistent moral standard, and are unable to account for morality itself. In addition, they show that they are standing on the biblical creationist worldview when they say something is right or wrong. Some accuse us of being "liars" when we say something they dislike. Even if we did lie, they cannot say why it would be wrong. In their materialistic paradigm, there is no free will, and we're all just dancing to our electrochemical impulses. It is hypocritical of the atheist evangelist to condemn Christians, since we are "born that way" and have no choice, according to their paradigm.

By the way, this is one reason that professing atheists have antipathy toward presuppositional apologetics: we show the internal consistencies of an atheistic worldview. Further, we are unwilling to to elevate man-made philosophies (science or otherwise) above the Word of God; they have their presupposed starting point of naturalism, ours is the Bible. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, and only the biblical worldview contains the necessary preconditions of human experience.

I took a side trail there, now back to the main one. Atheists push evolution, because evolution is a gateway to their belief system, and evolution is a pseudo-intellectual appeal to pride to justify rebellion against our Creator. See "Evolution Is the Doorway to Atheism" and "Evolution makes atheists out of people!" for further information.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Opposition to critical thinking

Secularists and other evolutionists are opposed to critical thinking, especially in education. Biblical creationists strive to teach people how to think, to perceive errors in reasoning, to notice how evolutionary owlhoots put forth speculations and bad science as if they were established facts, and so on. Darwinists and atheists are more interested in telling you what to think. I suspicion they use Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Blair's pupil at Eton, Eric Arthur Blair, as an interfused instruction manual for life, education, and morality. 

For example, this animation of whale evolution is cute, and people will think that evolutionists are such brilliant people. Except that the video is misleading, since there is no justification for the purported changes — especially zillions of missing transitional forms. The animator admits that "we don't know exactly what those ancestors looked like". But it is presented as "science", and Darwinoids are willingly deceived, then the commence to spreading further disinformation.

Did you notice that people who complain about "intolerance" are often the most intolerant? This is actually fitting with evolutionary thinking! If you study on it a spell, you'll see that demonizing people so they are unwilling to allow other people to present their views helps atheistic and evolutionary views. That worldview continues its dominance — especially in academia, nay-sayers are streng verboten.

Also, consider that (generally speaking), materialists espouse leftist elitism, and Bible-believing Christians tend to be more on the right politically. Albert Mohler has an interesting podcast/transcript on The Briefing in "Is your pastor a Democrat or Republican? The fascinating link between denomination & party affiliation".

Atheists and leftists think they're taking the morally and intellectually honorable high road by attacking Christians, God, the Bible, and creationists. They suppress what we have to say, and they demand "equal time" with against, even on our own sites, forums, social media, and so on. The end justifies the means, mein Herr?) I believe this is out of fear of the truth, and because they are controlled by their father down below (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, Psalm 14:1, Rom. 1:18-23). Ironically, evolutionists and atheists are the ones guilty of the censorship that they decry (here is just one of many examples), and they complain about not being given a platform on creationary sites and Pages as well; they want theirs and they want ours, but a biblical creationists is hard pressed to get a fair hearing from atheists and evolutionists. This atheopath even brags while playing the victim card because his bigoted diatribe was deleted — by Facebook, of all things! If these atheists didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. 

I'll allow that not all atheists are sidewinders like those discussed here (generally considered "New Atheists"; the only thing "new" about them is the intensity of their hatred and vituperation.) Not all atheists are bigots, but they don't seem to care about the vile behavior of their fellow travelers. For example, this anti-creationist forum apparently approves of atheistic bigotry and libelOther professing atheists don't seem to make their presence known on the web nearly as much, nor do they police their own and say, "Hey, that's not cool! Our reputation is bad enough without your bad behavior!" 

The foundations of creation in Scripture are vitally important, and the opposition is intensifying. Christians need to know what and why they believe. This ministry, and many of those where I direct readers, seek to equip Christians to stand for their faith, learn that both science and Scripture support biblical creation, and we hope that intellectually honest skeptics will question evolution and learn about the truth of creation. Nobody is saying that it's easy, but in the end, it's worth it.

ADDENDUM: This narcissistic atheopath lost access to his main Page, and resumed his conceit on another of the same name — still using graphics taken from The Question Evolution Project. He "debunks" by throwing out irrelevant links and making inane, sarcastic comment. Then he congratulates himself, receiving accolades from Haywire the Stalker and other weak-minded individuals. That is not something to brag about. Actually analyzing the material and dealing with it? Not hardly! This graphic was made for me by another Admin (click for full size):

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

Friday, June 23, 2017

More Confusion about H. Naledi

Science is tedious at time, since there is a great deal of testing, observation, research, re-testing, patience, and so on. Other times, science is exciting when a test is confirmed, a breakthrough is made, or a discovery is presented. But science is also exasperating, since those new discoveries yield new information, old results are refined and discarded, the science industry causes embarrassment by making grand announcements over incomplete data, and additional studies need to be made.

Homo naledi not good candidate for human evolution after all
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Paul H. G. M. Dirks et al / Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
News about bones in remote cave chambers began trickling in, and the hands at the Darwin Ranch were having a hootenanny for their ownselves. As the puzzle pieces were assembled, the party slowed a mite, as the bones were dated to be much more recent than evolutionists had hoped. Further, some of the bones may indicate not extreme age or another alleged evolutionary form, but pathological conditions, such as cretinism. There is no compelling reason to believe that these bones are evidence of human evolution.
On Tuesday 9 May 2017, the second live streaming instalment of the Homo naledi saga occurred, broadcast from Wits University, Johannesburg, South Africa. Lee Berger, Paul Dirks and John Hawks took turns in presenting the latest findings regarding the so-called hominin (or hominid) fossils from the Rising Star cave system.
They were also first authors on three new papers on the topic, published on the same day. Paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, of Wits University, is the leader of the Rising Star research team. A similar live streaming event occurred on 10 September 2015, introducing the alleged ‘ape-man’ species Homo naledi to the world, accompanied by the initial Homo naledi publications.
The following article is long, technical, and has 128 references, so it's intended for people with significant knowledge in the area, and are smarter than me. To proceed, click on "Den of ape-men or chambers of the sickly?" You may also want to check out the "Related Articles" and "Further Reading" items at the end.

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

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Cry "Reason" and Let Slip the Dogs of Creation

"But Cowboy Bob, shouldn't that title read —"

Yes, I know, the real phrase is, "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war", from Shakespeare. I figured it was the leashed I could do.

Creationists have used dog breeds for many illustrations, including the variety of diversification that our Creator built into the genetic structure of the dog kind, and also how breeding (artificial selection) reduces the fitness for survival of the animals. 

New genetic study of dog kind diversity
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Bill Perry
In days long passed, dogs were bred for their abilities. Now they are also bred for their appearance. A new study surprised scientists because they expected certain breeds to be related due to similar traits, and vice versa. But with all of the genetic studying, there is no evidence supporting Darwin's dreadful idea; dogs are still dogs and are not turning into something completely other — even with human interference.
People have loved (or hated) dogs for thousands of years. Dogs were frowned upon as dirty scavengers in Biblical times, but for many centuries more recently, they have been man’s best friend. Because of their usefulness for hunting and herding, people groups around the world have bred individuals to accentuate traits they desired. A new survey of 160 dog breeds, described in Nature, shows that genetics is now allowing scientists to untangle the complicated lineages of different types.
To finish reading, click on "Dog Breeding: Exploring the Limits of Change". Yippie ky yay, secularists!
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Elephant Species in Darwin's Room

Ever heard the expression "the elephant in the room"? Not sure if it's used much outside these here United States, but it basically means an obvious problem that people are uncomfortable discussing for various reasons, including a desire to avoid making problems for the group. A problem for scientists as well as us reg'lar folk is the definition of species.

Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo
It's a common term and convenient, and people can use it to sound all sciencey and stuff. Carl (also, Carolus) Linnaeus was the creationist who is called the "father of modern taxonomy", and originated the concept. It's had problems ever since, as the classification system becomes increasingly difficult. Can two critters reproduce? Maybe, but they're on different continents. Similar characteristics? Not so fast, Freddy, lots of things have similarities but are unrelated in other ways. Scientists dispute whether or not to classify certain organisms as different species. The biblical term kind works, but people want smaller details, and secularists prefer the more difficult man-made term. Can't get the Creator any credit, because evolution, right?
When you think of the largest land animals on earth today, what comes to mind? Most people would probably say those creatures with long trunks and sharp ivory tusks. But do you mean the floppy-eared elephants of Africa or their small-eared cousins in Asia?
Identifying animals is much harder than you might think. Indeed, it touches on one of the most fundamental questions of biology. This difficulty actually has a name: “the species problem.”
To finish reading, click on "Defining Species—An Elephant-Sized Problem". Also, you may be interested in a more recent post here, "Bears, Hybrids, and Evolution".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Science, Miracles, and Natural Law

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch are playing cards down at the bunkhouse, sometimes a troublemaker will bring up the subject of miracles. They promptly dismiss miracles as impossibilities because miracles don't happen, and besides, they violate natural law, whatever that is. Then they go back to cheating a poker.

Jesus heals blind man, miracles excluded by naturalistic presuppositions
Christ Healing the Blind Man, Eustache Le Sueur, 1600s
Of course, the naturalists' mantra of "Miracles do not happen because they are impossible" is based on circular reasoning as well as materialistic presuppositions. As for violating natural law? There's a prairie schooner-full of of natural laws that we're not rightly cognating on yet, but scoffers and evolutionists still rely on certain unknown and unseen things by faith. They have the a priori atheistic assumption that God does not exist and therefore cannot make himself known in his creation. I'll allow that the word miracle is thrown around far too often when something is most definitely not a miracle, but people are pleased about some good circumstance. There are also documented instances of healing that cannot be explained through natural means, so scoffers reject them and place faith (again) in Science of the Gaps, and even believe in the "miracle" of evolution without real evidence. Even though we do not know how something works does not mean it does not happen. There are times that referring to something as a miracle is indeed the most logical conclusion — especially the most obvious miracle, creation itself.
Atheists and agnostics don’t like miracles (though ironically they need them to justify their evolutionary worldview: Five Atheist miracles and A miracle by any other name would be … called science?). They often claim that miracles are somehow impossible, or inherently improbable, or unprovable—although their proofs become circular, as explained in Miracles and science. The idea is that miracles can be safely ignored as an option before the evidence is considered . . .
To read the rest with your miraculously, intelligently-designed eyes and brain, click on "How do miracles happen?"

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

Monday, June 19, 2017

Chicxulub Crater Questions

If you're heading south down Mexico way, past Mexico City but before the Guatemala border, you can find the Yucat√°n Peninsula. That's the place that some folks of the long age persuasion say that a meteorite or asteroid hit some 65 million Darwin years ago and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. While some call it a "smoking gun" piece of evidence for the dino demise idea and an old earth, others (not just creationists) are not so certain.

Chicxulub meteorite dinosaur extinction not compelling
Artist's conception of Chicxulub impact / credit: NASA Goddard
While the site looks like it would have accommodated a large object from space, but the "smoking gun" didn't eject expected amounts of iridium, which is common in meteorites. Other minerals found there that could be from a meteorite are sparse, and the expected melting is nowhere near deep enough. Creationary scientists speculate that an impact may have happened at the time of the Genesis Flood (the results of the Flood would have eventually led to the demise of dinosaurs), the impact was nowhere near as large as the secular science industry is proclaiming.
In secular literature and movies, the most popular explanation for the dinosaurs’ extinction is an asteroid impact. The Chicxulub crater in Mexico is often referred to as the “smoking gun” for this idea. But do the data support an asteroid impact at Chicxulub? I recently reviewed the evidence and found some surprising results.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Chicxulub Crater Theory Mostly Smoke".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Fast Frog Food Flusters Evolutionists

Most of us probably know that frogs eat insects with the use of their sticky tongues. Have you ever seen it happen? Probably not, since the procedure takes less than the blink of an eye. Also, they eat more than insects. And yes, toads have the same food-zapping apparatus.

Frog sticky tongue meal process defies evolution

There are many factors at work here. The tongue flips out, but it's very soft and acts like a shock absorber so it doesn't knock lunch into the next county. At the same time, the saliva is honey-thick at the start, but much thinner when it reaches its prey. After it reels in its lunch, it has to get it off the tongue. Many factors have to be happening correctly at the same time, or nothing works, nothing makes sense to have without the rest. Gradual evolution is woefully inadequate to explain frog feeding, this is all in place because of the wisdom and planning of our Creator.
Frogs have the incredible ability to catch and eat a wide variety of prey, from hairy to furry to oddly-shaped. This prey can be up to 1.4 times their own body weight. A recent study published in Journal of the Royal Society Interface sought to figure out how frogs can accomplish this since not much research had been done previously. Their findings were summed up in an article from Science News.

After viewing slow-motion video footage, conducting experiments, and analyzing frog spit (it took several hours of scraping fifteen frog tongues to put together enough spit for just one test. Now who says science isn’t glamorous?), researchers discovered that the frog’s super-soft tongue and unique saliva work in tandem.
Stick with me now. You can read the rest by clicking on "Super-Sticky Spit: How a Frog Gets a Meal".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 16, 2017

A Blast of Evidence against Uniformitarian Geology

Way back in 1770s, David Hume said, "For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities". James Hutton was studying geoscience, which was not yet a formalized field of study (doctorates would b given in geology many decades later). Still, he liked what he was doing and published books in the late 1700s, establishing uniformitarianism, summarized as "the present is the key to the past"; processes we see in geology today are the same as they've always been.

Hutton influenced lawyer Charles Lyell, who expanded on Hutton's work. He wanted to save geology, "freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses." When people like Lyell oppose the Bible, it's no surprise that they're willing to lie to promote their views. From here, failed medical student and backslidden clergyman Charles Darwin became excited by Lyell's uniformitarian-promoting, God-denying tomes. Through paganism, plagiarism, and his own observations, Darwin came up with his own version of evolutionism. Evolution demands long ages, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© attack any evidence for a young earth with the fervor of MS-13 gang members. On the web and in paper, of course.

Mt. St. Helens eruption supported biblical creation science
Credit: NOAA/NGDC, Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When Mt. St. Helens reminded the world of its presence in 1980 (and not without warning signs by any means), geologists were justifiably excited about the opportunity to make observations, take measurements, and do scientist stuff. What they found is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition: nobody expected what was found! Even worse for views of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin's supporters, this little volcanic explosion ("little" in comparison with other volcanoes) provided refutation for uniformitarian speculations and supported biblical creation science. Sure, they come up with excuses at the Darwin Ranch, but not much in the way of actual science to explain away the facts — especially the fact that the world was created recently, and not billions of Darwin years ago.
After decades of inactivity, Mount St Helens coughed to life in March 1980, some two months before its explosive eruption. Its smoke and rumbling were warning that something big was building up. Officials set up an exclusion zone around the volcano based on scientists’ ideas about how an eruption would occur. However, the blast was larger than expected, plus it first erupted sideways to the north instead of vertically. Of the 57 people that died, all but three were outside the exclusion zone.Wrong geological ideas can be deadly.

Wrong geological ideas have also led people to wrong ideas about the Bible—that the events it describes were mythological and did not actually happen. Mount St Helens changed that, which is why I have been so interested in what happened. The eruption demonstrated that geologic catastrophe can produce in hours and days geologic features previously believed to have taken millions of years. When we see what the volcano did in such a short time, we can better appreciate how the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood formed the much larger geological features on planet Earth.
To read the entire article, click on "Learning the lessons of Mount St Helens — How its eruption backs biblical history".

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

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Emotion in Your Eyes

People have a whole heap of ways to express emotions, what with tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, and so on. It seems that our eyes can convey a great deal. Notice how many songs talk about the eyes, and we use expressions like, "I see it in your eyes"? Pictures can convey some of the emotions, but when we're with someone, we can discern an emotion. I was upset and hiding it by giving myself a stone face, but people still knew something was wrong. People who know me can tell when I'm up to something, also.

Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
We were created with many special muscles, more than apes have, to help us communicate in a way that is unique to humans. Darwin's disciples have invented a silly story that an ancient ancestor copied from an ape, but conveniently ignore several important details, including evidence and a model. Face it (heh!), we were designed to be different, old son.
Unlike animals, we communicate all kinds of information with our eyes. One subtle glance might express doubt and another joy, all without a word. How did we get this way?
Evolutionary psychologists take Charles Darwin’s answer seriously. Supposedly, artful eye expressions evolved from primates that had no eye expressions. When psychologists from Cornell and the University of Colorado in Boulder presented their research results about eye expressions, they dragged up some evolutionary baggage. The journal Psychological Science carried their 2017 report.
To read the rest, click on "Why Eyes Express Emotion", see?
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Arthropod Powers Defy Evolution

You may not know the word, but arthropods are all over the place, on land, in the sea, and so on. They comprise most of the animal world, and have an external skeleton, many limbs, a segmented body, and are cold blooded. You have your spiders, insects, scorpions, lobsters, and a whole passel of other things. Let's highlight a few of them, which are being studied for biomimetics (imitation for our benefit).

Butterfly proboscis studied biomimetics
Credit: National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
That big nose-like thing you see in the butterfly picture that looks like a straw is called the proboscis. It works like a straw, or maybe a sponge, or is that a sensor, or some of all of those things. This is being studied for several applications, including a drug delivery system.

Did you know that mosquitoes beat their wings about 800 times a second? (I still swat at the things when I hear that annoying whine.) More impressive is that they make efficient use of their wing strokes to obtain lift. Ever blow on one while it's buzzing around you? It gets buffeted by your wind and is trying to compensate — and it does, because it doesn't crash.

In an earlier post, we learned about those critters that we consider disgusting, but are just doing their jobs, the dung beetles. It turns out that they navigate by the stars. Ahoy, a ball! Well, not specifically the star patterns, but the brightness. Bonus: dung beetle humor.

Of course, homage is paid to Darwin in some studies. Scientists don't know how and have no plausible model, but still put their faith in evolution. Then they mock us when we point out that evolution by chance, time, random processes, luck, and so on is an illogical way to explain the amazing features in God's creation.

You can read about the butterfly, mosquito, dung beetle, and several more gifted things by clicking on "Small Wonders: Arthropods With Superpowers".

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

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Promiscuity Idea Fails Evolution

Promiscuity does not aid evolution after all, new study supports creation science

Another idea in microbes-to-metallurgist evolution is being turned upside down, and it supports biblical creation science. Turns out that promiscuity to increase evolution is inconceivable; it slows down alleged evolutionary processes. Instead, monogamy is the real source of diversification. So for those folks with alley cat morals, you can't use evolution as an excuse any longer.

Once again, a study made speciation the equivalent of evolution. Not hardly! (This old terminology switcheroo happens so often, I wonder if many of these scientists are not so much deceptive as they are ignorant of biology basics.) Creationists believe in speciation and natural selection, which are not the things that add information for evolution to supposedly happen. 

We also have diversification after the Genesis Flood. If you study on it a spell, there were two of each created kind (seven of certain others) on the Ark. They were forced to be monogamous. Aw, I'm stumbling on my words here. Let the author if this article explain:
Conventional evolutionary wisdom has been overturned—again.

Evolutionists have long taught and believed that promiscuity increases genetic and rapid diversity, thereby helping the evolution of new species along. But this “conventional wisdom” has now been overturned by a new study on shorebird populations, led by the University of Bath’s Milner Centre for Evolution.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "New Study Overturns the 'Conventional Wisdom' of Evolution".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 12, 2017

Australian Aborigines and Astronomy

When it comes to indigenous people, evolutionary thinking persists and affects how "white" people like me are supposed to view them. That is, the a priori assumption that atoms-to-aborigine evolution occurred, then the semi-sapient humans began to learn how to survive, think, sit around for a few thousand years and then build cities. Silly thing, that, since the evolutionary timeline does not jibe with human nature. So, what are we to make of evidence that conflicts with the evolutionary narrative?

Pleiades Aborigines stories astronomy support biblical creation refute evolution
Pleiades image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Evolutionary astrophysicist Roy Norris found out that the textbooks on Australian Aborigines were absolutely false. More than that, he learned that they had a deep understanding of celestial objects that belied biased evolutionary assumptions about their culture and intelligence. While Norris maintained his belief system, he noticed the amazing similarities between Aboriginal stories about certain constellations and those of people elsewhere in the world. His explanations were weak speculation, but the facts fit the biblical narrative and other histories that Babel (Babylon) was a center for astronomy, and there was a dispersal of people from Babel: people took their stories with them.
Conventional ‘wisdom’ says that Australia’s Aboriginal people have occupied the land for at least 40,000 years. That view of course derives from the evolutionary timeline, which links these people to a supposed ‘Stone Age’, with its attendant ‘prehistoric’ and ‘primitive’ connotations. And while it’s no longer socially acceptable to speak of nomadic hunter-gatherers as being ‘lesser evolved’ than other peoples, such implications from evolutionary teaching remain widely held.

Consequently, when facts come to light which contradict evolutionary stereotypes, it can come as quite a surprise to those who believe evolution. British-born astrophysicist Ray Norris speaks of this . . .

A personal interest in how Aboriginal people view the stars has led to him also becoming Adjunct Professor in Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University.
To read the entire article, click on "Aboriginal knowledge amazes evolutionist astronomer".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Secular Scientists "Discover" What Christians Have Already Known

The hands down yonder at the Darwin Ranch keep coming up with "discoveries" that are nothing new, but they get all agitated about them anyway. In this case, meaningful interaction between fathers and daughters is important. The Bible made it plain long ago about the importance of the family unit, beginning with God's plan for marriage back in Genesis.

Scientists find fathers important in lives of daughters, Bible already said that
Credit: Pixabay / platinumportfolio
Scientists learned that fathers giving stability in the household makes daughters less likely to engage in "risky sexual behavior". Both parents need to be united in child raising, whether boys or girls, and one parent must not undermine the efforts of the other. In addition, kids quickly develop a "divide and conquer" strategy, such as asking the father's permission, adding that, "Mom said it's okay with her if it's okay with you" — but Mom wasn't asked in the first place. That's not a part of the study, I'm sharing something additional.

Since we have a pagan materialistic mindset in much of Western society, secular scientists do not want to give credit to our Creator. Instead, they bow down to their religion of naturalism, giving praise to evolution as if it were an entity. As we've seen far too often, evolutionary thinking prompts secularists to present conjectures based on conjectures, but no actual models or even plausible reasoning.

There is more about the study in Dr. Albert Mohler's podcast The Briefing for June 7, 2017. You can download the episode, read the transcript, or listen to all or part of it online. The whole thing is interesting in my opinion.

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

Friday, June 9, 2017

Cave Soil DNA Disagreements

Can you imagine a game show where people need to match survey questions about items found in a cave?

"Stalactites, Steve!"
Gets a strange look from the host, checks the results. Buzzzzz! Nope, DNA didn't match the survey.

But DNA is in caves, especially in the soil. Some of it comes from our fully-human Neanderthal ancestors, too.

Credit: Morguefile / Koan
Scientists are disagreeing about the age and movement of the DNA. The stuff breaks down over a short amount of time. Maybe soil helps preserve it, but water in the soil helps mix it up and seep into deeper rock layers. Some secularists are believing that the DNA is way, way old, and others are saying, "Waitaminnit, it has age limits". To date the DNA because of their long-age assumptions require it to be old is circular reasoning, but actual science shows that the DNA cannot be all that old. There will be serious mental issues when dinosaur DNA is recovered as well. Can't have not-so-old DNA is "old" rocks, that would imply that Earth was created recently, which is anathema to evolutionary concepts.
New techniques are allowing scientists to extract ancient DNA from cave soil. But is it really as old as claimed?

DNA has a lifetime. It decays. That’s why researchers do not consider it likely that dinosaur DNA will ever be recovered sufficient to make “Jurassic Park” a reality. Now that DNA is being recovered from cave soil where early humans lived—without the need for bones—will the evolutionary dates drive the interpretation, or will known decay rates lead scientists to reconsider their assumptions about how old it is? We examine recent news reports for clues.
To read the rest, click on "Ancient DNA Recovered from Caves".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!