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

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!

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Decoding Meteorites

Rocks falling through the sky can be interesting, and those quick streaks of light indicate for us that a meteor burned up in the atmosphere. Most burn up, and tons of dust lands on Earth. No, they don't know quite how much, but it's a lot. When rocks do not burn up and actually reach the ground, then they're called meteorites. Big ones are rare, so there's no call to be worrying about them.


Meteor. Meteorites are used to determine the age of Earth using faulty dating methods
Meteor image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Meteorites have a lot to tell us. (No, they don't talk, and if you're hearing talking meteorites, I'll observe you from a safe distance.) We can learn from meteorites by studying them, especially the chemical composition. Secular geologists presuppose that they are the best things to use for obtaining the age of the earth through unreliable radiometric dating methods because they're not from Earth. Creationary scientists also have hypotheses about our planet's age that differ greatly from those of their secular counterparts, which involve stripping away deep time preconceptions and seeing how the observed data match with the biblical time frame.
Have you ever sat gazing at the stars on a clear night when a bright streak flashed across your vision, barreling toward the earth? “Falling stars” inspire wonder and mystery, but at times they also inspire terror.

In the cold early morning of February 15, 2013, a bright fireball exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, causing a sonic boom that damaged thousands of buildings and injured nearly 1,500 people due to shattered glass and other debris. No one saw it coming, a meteor approximately 65 feet (20 m) across and weighing over 13,000 tons (12,000 metric tons)—the largest object to smash into earth’s atmosphere in over a century.
You can read the rest of this very interesting article, or download the audio by my favorite narrator by clicking on "Misunderstood Messengers from Space".
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 25, 2017

Chemical Bonds in Fossil Plants Oppose Evolution

Believers in evolution and deep time get on the prod when soft tissues are discussed, mainly because they cannot exist over millions of Darwin years. Lately, the most frequent discussion on soft tissues involves dinosaurs, but they are found in other areas, such as the ink in a fossil ink sac that was used to draw a picture. In a similar manner to soft tissues, fossil plants are not cooperating with the evolution narrative.

Gingko leaves in autumn image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Joe Schneid
Even after the alleged millions of years, original plant molecules and chemical bonds were found — and a term that brings the concept of entropy to mind, thermodynamic stability, was used. Worse for Darwin's disciples, plant material was essentially unchanged between those in the fossils and living counterparts. I reckon that the term living fossils may be applicable here. Yee ha boy howdy, evolutionists were frustrated twice in one study! Truth is, the earth is not billions of years old, and the evidence supports creation while refuting evolution.
Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years. 

Research led by Lund University in Sweden used FTIR to find original molecular bonds still intact inside fossilized leaf wax. The technique detects stretches in specific chemical bonds.

To read the rest, click on "Fossil Plants Contain Original Molecules".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Those Scientists Who Revived Evolutionism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We've seen several times before that evolution was not the brainchild of Charles Darwin, and had been around since way back when. It is actually ancient pagan religions, and had received some "scientific" adjustments before Darwin became its chief popularizer. Darwin's disciples revere him as a "great scientist", as well as the other 19th century propagandists for evolutionism. Except that most were not scientists at all!

Darwin, Spencer, Lyell, others who established 19th century evolution had no formal scientific training

Many creationists point out that Darwin had no formal scientific training, and was actually a backslidden theology student. (I'll allow that he did make some good observations while learning in the field, however.) We also point out that old earth advocate Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Several others that influenced Darwin and the revival of evolutionism had no scientific training.

"That's not quite fair, Cowboy Bob. Geosciences are comparatively new, so they weren't giving away those doctorates so much back then."

That's true. However, my point is that these owlhoots had no formal scientific training of any consequence. In The Long War Against God by Dr. Henry M. Morris (1989), about 49 percent of the way along in my ebook, I noticed:

It is worth noting that almost none of the leaders of this evolutionary revival had been trained as scientists in the modern sense. None were educated as physicists or chemists or biologists or geologists or astronomers or other “natural” scientists. As already noted, Charles Darwin himself was an apostate divinity student whose only degree was in theology. Charles Lyell was a lawyer, William Smith a surveyor, James Hutton an agriculturalist, John Playfair a mathematician, Robert Chambers a journalist. Alfred Russel Wallace had little formal education of any kind, with only a brief apprenticeship in surveying. Thomas Huxley had an indifferent education in medicine. Herbert Spencer received practically no formal education except some practical experience in railroad engineering. Thomas Malthus was a theologian and economist, while Erasmus Darwin was a medical doctor and poet. Of all the chief contributors to the revival of evolutionism commonly associated with Charles Darwin, only Jean Lamarck in France and Ernst Haeckel in Germany seemed to have had a bona fide education in the branch of evolutionary “science” that they pursued, and they had their own particular anti-Christian agendas to promote.
Dr. Morris also pointed out that real scientists such as "Faraday, Cuvier, Brewster, Pasteur, Maxwell, Joule, Sedgwick, and others" opposed or ignored Darwinism. Ironically, the best support that anti-Bible evolutionism received came from apostatizing clergymen! Apparently, they wanted to look intelligent, so they accepted the deceptions of deep time concepts and even those of Darwin.

Yes, scientists today believe and promote evolution, I'm not saying that. No, evolution was not founded by scientists in the early days. Meanwhile, biblical creation science was — and is — upheld by theologians, lay people, and credentialed scientists.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 22, 2017

Design of the Ear

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level.

Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind.

Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what I want to believe, so I'll reject science and reason because evolution. Well, yeah!" Their "explanations" can be answered. Another place irreducible complexity applies is regarding the human ear.


Specified, irreducible complexity of the human ear is a testimony of our Creator's skill, and a refutation of evolution
Highly modified from a Pixabay image by Anemone123
Your sense of herring hearing happens when sound waves reach your ear, then tiny bones help process them through fluid, vibrations undergo chemical activity, they reach the brain, then we can understand and respond to sounds. Pretty much an example of specified complexity is happening.

And what a variety of sounds! Other people speaking, Eleana's violin in the symphony orchestra, my wife hears the blue jays demanding their supply of peanuts, varieties of pet sounds, intruders skulking around outside, and so much more. We hear, and discern. Medical science has progressed to the point that some cases of encroaching deafness can be forestalled, such as the famous case of Rush Limbaugh's cochlear implant. A whole heap of research and learning went into understanding some of the complexities of the human hear and the intricacies of hearing. There's a great deal going on, put in place by our Creator, just to hear a pin drop, and it defies evolution. You listening?
I would like to take you through the ear and our ability to hear and interpret sound. As you consider the many mechanisms that work together so that we can hear music and voices and laughter, think about how it all came to be. As you are reading, it is not necessary to understand every part. Just understand how many different mechanisms are necessary in order for us to interpret vibrations as sound and think about the possibility that these mechanisms all could have arisen through a random nondirected process such as evolution.
To read the rest, click on "The Amazing Ear: Evidence for Design". 
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Suzie Sees Sea Snakes Evolving by the Seashore

One day when her sea shell sales booth was not seeing much activity, Suzie decided to do some diving at the Great Barrier Reef. She saw herself a passel of sea snakes, but she didn't pay them no nevermind because most are not aggressive, despite having some extremely powerful venom. Then she noticed the turtle-headed sea snake and alerted scientists.

Great Barrier Reef has sea snakes, which are not examples of "melanism" and evolution
You can't see the turtle-headed sea snake because it's hiding.
Actually, I couldn't find a usable image, so here's one of its habitats, the Great Barrier Reef.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/BIOS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents).
It seems that a version of the contrived non-science of "melanism" is being brought back into the evolutionary icon corral after being discredited in the peppered moths fiasco. Now it's a sea snake that changes color, which is being touted as evolution in action. Katie, wake the neighbors! We got us some bona fide evolution happening! No, not really.

Without serious study, teleological declarations were made that the snakes changed their color to deal with pollution. I reckon that once again, if an evolutionist asserts something, it's settled science. However, there are other questions that may have some bearing on the situation that should be dealt with by these Evo Sith. Emydocephalus annulatus (the critter under discussion) was already known to have a variety of colors. It is an egg eater, and does not have venom like its comrades. There are three species of E. annulatus, all lacking venom, any research on them? (That'll be the day! No actual research was done on this one.) Maybe some studies on the sixty-some other species of sea snake? 

When it comes to promoting evolutionism, real science doesn't seem to matter much. I wonder how Suzie would do as a researcher. I bet she has sense enough to know that sea snakes have genetic abilities given to them by the Master Engineer to help them adapt.
Sea snakes said to turn black due to ‘industrial melanism’—a term from the old peppered moth story. Media go wild.

The phrase ‘Industrial melanism’ is like ringing Pavlov’s bell to reporters, who salivate at the expectation of peppered-moth candy. When Current Biology used the term in a study of sea snakes that underwent a color change off the coasts of industrial areas, reporters drooled at the thought of delicious sea-snake hot dogs in Darwin buns. Out came the Kipling-style Just-So Story headlines:
To read the rest of this article on some all-wet science, click on "Next Evolutionary Icon: Peppered Snakes?"
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Different Birds, Different Eggs

Most people in these parts are most familiar with the shape of chicken eggs, and may have seen (hopefully without touching) wild birds' eggs in nests. Turns out that shells of those chicken eggs I fried up in the skillet are a common shape among birds, but there are several varieties. An ambitious study of bird eggs was undertaken to try and determine a pattern to different egg shapes.


Different shapes of birds' eggs are the product of the Master Designer
Credit: Freeimages / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski
Like with any serious endeavor into observable science, possible answers are obtained but other questions are raised. Unfortunately, the researchers did the typical homage to Darwinism, and unsuccessfully attempted to link bird and dinosaur eggs. What secularists are opposed to admitting is that different birds have different egg shapes for different purposes because they were designed by the Master Engineer.
Just what advantage a particular egg shape offers has long been the subject of scientific speculation. Depending on a scientist’s worldview, this question may be approached either with an eye to understanding why God the Master Designer created eggs with so many variations, or with the goal of explaining why different egg shapes evolved through natural processes.

Ornithology textbooks contain many scholarly pronouncements on the subject. For instance, some suggest that pointy eggs are less likely to roll off high ledges, or that certain shapes allow more eggs to be crammed together in a nest, or that high calcium consumers can spare the minerals to build more shell.
You won't have to shell out any money to read the full article. Just click on "Why 'Egg-Shaped' Varies So Much".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Supernovas and Heavy Elements

There are currently somewhere around 118 elements in the periodic table, although some of them are synthesized and a few have unknown properties. If you dismiss those, there are still quite a few "established' elements. Secular scientists believe the heavier elements were made by supernovas, making life possible. Carl Sagan said that "we are made of star stuff", and tinhorn Lawrence Krauss blasphemed, "Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today". Does the story about exploding stars causing heavier elements (and life itself) hold up under science, or have secularists saddled up the wrong horse again?

Heavier elements were not formed in supernovas, despite beliefs of secular scientists
Credit: NASA/ESA/HEIC and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Astronomical observations of distant supernova remnants only show small amounts of some heavier elements. Cosmologists speculate from their assumptions that, despite any evidence, supernovas formed the heavier elements. In reality, they really do not know how those elements were formed. Furthermore, most of the radiometric dating methods secularists use to supposedly calculate the age of the earth are based on elements that they admit have dubious origins. Recent creation is the more logical conclusion than the unscientific secular narrative.
Have you ever wondered where all of Earth’s chemical elements came from? There is such a diversity of elements in the crust—ranging from the hydrogen atom with a single proton orbited by an electron to the uranium atom with 92 protons orbited by 92 electrons—that it is a formidable task for science to explain where they originated and how they came to be located in our solar system.
The traditional model holds that the light elements (those with 28 protons or less) are produced by fusion reactions within stars such as our sun. Indeed, observations of the sun’s photosphere and chromosphere confirm the existence of oxygen, carbon, magnesium, calcium, silicon, and iron.
To finish reading, click on "Did Heavy Elements Come from Supernovas?"
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 18, 2017

Drag of an Ammonite Fossil

This some something that doesn't come up in cowboy parlance none too often: a new record for a fossil drag mark was found. (Say that during a poker game, you'll probably get told to make yourself scarce, pronto.) This particular one is exciting to paleontologists, though. And, believe it or not, of no small interest to biblical creationists.

Ammonite fossil drag mark evidence Genesis Flood
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo (CC BY-SA 4.0)
The critter that got his unfortunate self fossilized is an ammonite, similar to the one pictured. Don't bakers make pastries something like that? Ammonite fossils are fairly common, but this one shows a substantial drag mark. Despite the protestations of many old-earth advocates, fossilization does not happen slowly, it happens rapidly. Especially when the drag mark would have been worn away by the conditions at the time. Rapid fossilization begins with rapid burial. The Genesis Flood presents the necessary conditions, but uniformitarian geologists don't cotton to that because it means the world is young, not billions of Darwin years old. That's a real drag for secularists.
A remarkable drag mark, 8.5 m (28 ft) long, has been located in the renowned Solnhofen Limestone deposit, Germany. The drag mark belongs to an ammonite, Subplanites rueppellianus, which was located embedded in the limestone at the end of this trace fossil. Ammonites are extinct squid-like creatures with a characteristic spiral chambered shell.
You can read the rest of this short article and see the illustrations therein by clicking on "Longest recorded fossil drag mark".
   
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Marvels of Migration

When we hear about migration in the animal kingdom, many of us think of birds. They do some impressive feats, often covering huge distances. But birds are not the only critters that take a notion to get out of Dodge. Monarch butterflies head down Mexico way, which is fascinating. Salmon, wildebeests, caribou, and others have annual migrations as well.

Credit: Pixabay / skeeze
Scientists have long pondered how living things can make long-distance trips repeatedly and successfully, and some answers have been found. Navigation aids such as the magnetic field of Earth, the sun, stars, and more. In addition, they have internal timepieces that tell them it's time to go. But...why? Darwinists can't give a decent answer to that one, and probably mumble the nonsensical "convergent evolution" non-science. Creationists say that they were designed by the Master Engineer to migrate and populate — which fits both science and Scripture.
What’s so special about dragonflies on the Maldives? Dragonflies normally hover around freshwater, which they need to reproduce. But these tropical islands are built on coral reefs, so they lack freshwater at the surface. The insects shouldn’t be there. They should be on the mainland, where breeding pools are abundant.

As Anderson studied this strange phenomenon, he learned that millions of this type of dragonfly come to this unfriendly environment every year—wave after wave—around October. Then, just as quickly, they leave.
To read the entire article or download the MP3 by my favorite reader, click on "Journey Home—Astonishing Animal Migrations".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 15, 2017

The Human Brain Testifies of Creation

As science and technology develop, our appreciation of the intricate, specified complexities of the Master Engineer's work become increasingly apparent. Naturally, Darwin's disciples want to give homage to their false god of evolution, but they're just not using their heads.

The human brain was designed by the Master Engineer, not by evolution
Credit: yodiyim at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The human brain has been compared to a computer. While that analogy works to some extent, it is vastly understated, as the brain is more like a quantum computer than a digital computer. If we were able to build a computer as complex as the brain, it would be huge and require a tremendous amount of power. We're doing fine with something much smaller that requires ten watts of power — that comes from inside. Even a single synapse has amazing abilities. Don't let Darwin's fan club try to fool you: our brains are far too complex, integrated, efficient, and more to be the product of evolution. The intelligent conclusion is that it was made to do what it does so well.
The human brain, and any animal brain for that matter, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief” and “a world we had never imagined.” Why do discoveries about the brain evoke such startling statements from secular scientists? The main reason is that random, purposeless evolution and its imaginary processes are entirely unable to account for the brain’s seemingly infinite complexity. This article will highlight some of what researchers have discovered about this amazing organ and hopefully inspire the same awe in you and direct the glory to our infinitely powerful Creator who engineered it all.
I hope you don't mind, you need to read the rest by clicking on "The Human Brain Is 'Beyond Belief'".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Margaret Sanger and the Evil Fruits of Darwinism

Some people tell us that Darwinism is just a biological theory, and try to give the impression that it is something that just scientists and academicians examine. Not hardly! Evolutionary thinking has many facets, affecting society at many levels, many of which people may not realize have a Darwinian basis.


Margaret Sanger, 1922, credit: Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress
Many know that she was the founder of the for-profit abortion mill called Planned Parenthood (not much of a surprise, since she was a lousy mother to her own children), but there is more to her than is known to the general public. To use the medical term, she was really messed up. Sanger was into "free love" (there's a word for women like that, but I shouldn't use it here), racial purity, elimination of the unfit, and more. The sanitized image of Maggie is presented, and she's a hero to many — unfortunately, even to some professing Christians.

Social Darwinism gave rise to eugenics, and Sanger used that "science" as a way to justify abortion. The "unfit" needed to be eliminated, whether through sterilization, abortion, or other ways. Who is unfit? It's up to people who think like her to decide, but you can be sure that they won't believe that man is special and created in God's image.
Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes’. One major result of her lifelong work was to support the sexual revolution that has radically changed our society.
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist". This is being posted on her birthday. I think she won't have any trouble lighting the birthday candles where she is, if you know what I mean.

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

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Paleoanthropology and the Science of Error

Paleoanthropologists are frequently wrong about human evolution
Meteorologists can be wrong frequently, but they still have their jobs. Looks like the same kind of thing happens in evolutionary sciences. We hear conjectures about how the cosmos evolved, "junk" DNA, the ridiculous walking fish concept — they keep turning out to be very, very, wrong. Usually, the weather forecasters are shown to be wrong in short order (except the global climate change apocalypse prophets, whose errors are shown later). Bad science sometimes takes a mighty long time to be discovered, and the public doesn't hear about those things so much. Not a lot of money in refuting evolution and affirming creation, you know.

Paleoanthropology is one of the worst sciences for accuracy. Like the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, their "rulings" are frequently overturned. Look at the timeline in our alleged evolutionary history. Them critters get themselves thrown out of the family tree, reclassified as fully human, fully ape, blatant fraud, outrageous stupidity, and so on. Yet they keep getting paychecks. Read about the Neanderthal Man follies, the evolutionary science industry, and why paleoanthropologists will continue to be wrong because of their fatally-flawed foundation by clicking on "Paleoanthropology: The Science of Being Always Wrong".

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

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Salty Seas and the Young Earth

Proponents of "deep time" primarily rely on radiometric dating as their primary evidence for an old earth, conveniently neglecting fundamental assumptions that must be made in those processes. In addition, the fact that different radiometric dating methods give wildly varying results, and the result that is the best fit for the prevailing view is selected. Darwin needs long periods of time, so they give them to him. (If you torture the evidence long enough, it'll confess to anything.) Since it's easier for evolutionists to deal from the bottom of the deck using radiometric dating, they conveniently ignore the many physical evidences for a young earth — here are just a few.


Lake Eyre salt frustrates deep time proponents by indicating a young earth
Salt farm image credit: tuelekza / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Ever notice that oceans have salt, so it needs to be purified before you can happily drink it? Of course you have! (Careful with the word, though. Salt to you and me, the stuff that preserves our jerky snacks when riding the trail, means something a mite different to scientists.) The salt content of the oceans, even using the assumptions and methods of secular scientists, yield upper age limits that are still far below what they want to see. The old, salty Lake Eyre is one of these, and makes scientists wonder where the salt has gone. Not really that difficult, really. Earth was created recently, but those owlhoots deny the truth.
In 1984, scientists measured the amount of salt accumulated in Australia’s largest salt lake—Lake Eyre in South Australia. They found that it would have taken about 73,000 years to accumulate, assuming a flood occurred every 50 years.

However, the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1991 stated that “almost all its area is covered on average once in 8 years.” This reduces the time period for accumulation to only 12,000 years.
To read the rest of this very short article, click on "World's oldest salt lake only a few thousand years old". For additional information, I recommend reading a somewhat longer article, "Salty seas".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 11, 2017

Externalist and Internalist Evolution vs Engineered Adaptability

There are two primary views in evolutionary thinking: internal, where internal properties of organisms allow them to adapt to their environments, and external, the prevailing view where the environmental environment is the agency of change. Darwin was postulating the latter. This externalism fits with the trend of pagan anthropomorphizing of nature and evolution as intelligent agencies, capable of making decisions to guide evolution.


Darwin emphasized external forces to change and organism, engineered adaptability shows this to be in error
Credit: Pixabay / mafnoor
Externalism has stifled science, and even evolutionary ideas, by ignoring how organisms are designed by their Creator to adapt. Even when presented with obvious evidence, such as epigenetic switches, externalists refuse to consider the evidence, and give praise to evolution and nature. Engineered adaptability shows that organisms are designed to self-adapt to many changing conditions.
Does Darwin deserve all the homage he gets? After all, the idea of evolution didn’t originate with him. Others before him recognized that less “fit” animals die, and his book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, wasn’t groundbreaking either.

Yet, Darwin was a profound forerunner in a vital area of biological inquiry. He pioneered a way to conceptualize nature as the creative agent of change for organisms. Stephen Jay Gould’s The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is likely unmatched in chronicling the history of evolutionary intellectual discourse. He lauds Darwin’s trailblazing approach:
To read the rest (it's rather long and "heady", be prepared), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Adaptability via Nature or Design? What Evolutionists Say".
   
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 9, 2017

The Fish God of Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

If you ever find yourself riding near Deception Pass, try to visit the Darwin Ranch for the worship service. Not much of a spectacle, but it's an educational experience. They bring out their idol of Dagon, have devotional readings from Clinton Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Charles Darwin, and others. They don't do hymns, though [1].


Philistine fish god Dagon links to evolution
Bas relief of Dagon as a half-man, half-fish god
Satire aside, we have seen that Darwin did not create evolution all by his lonesome [2] and evolution is, in reality, an ancient pagan religion [3]. I agree with the remark that essentially says Darwin took an old belief system and gussied it up in a lab coat. Indeed, evolutionism is pantheistic, and even includes elements of animism [4]. When Paul was debating the Greek philosophers in Acts 17:16-32, they were pagan evolutionists. Pagan evolutionism did not originate with the Greeks, however. Their worldview can be seen in ancient Hindu beliefs [3].

Hang on, don't get thrown out of the saddle now, let's see how this develops.

Darwinists have an inordinate affection for things related to the sea. One of their religious icons is the walking fish concept where fish decided to evolve, so they flopped onto land, grew lungs, legs, and whatnot, and eventually became other land animals. (See a link and an excellent image on Fazebook, which takes a moment to load [5]). Some evolved critters got fed up, turned back to the sea, and devolved into whales and things. It seems that every time a fish spends a few moments on land or has bumps, it's evidence of evolution. That'll be the day! Yes, people call that unfounded speculation "science", and carp at biblical creationists for being "science deniers". That ain't science at all, old son, and we don't deny real science, just your evolutionary interpretations. Savvy?

Now, let's join up the pagan religion aspect with the fish icon.

An ancient false god known as Dagon was worshiped by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and other people. It has an obscure (and disputed) history [6] [7]. As the figure evolved over time, it became the half-man, half-fish god of the Philistines [8] [9] (and was even the subject of a short story by H.P. Lovecraft [10]). Most of us first learn about Dagon in Judges 16:23. It's appropriate for me to refer to John Gill's commentary on the fish god:
. . .in later times their god was called Marnas, which signifies the lord of men, but now Dagon; who also had a temple at Ashdod, another of the five principalities of the Philistines, (1 Samuel 5:2) and seems to have been at this time their common and chief deity: according to Jarchi in the place referred to, it was in the form of a fish, for "dag" in Hebrew signifies a fish; and Kimchi on the same place says, that from its navel upwards it was in the form of a man, and from thence downwards in the form of a fish; and Diodorus Siculus relates that Derceto, a goddess of Ashkelon, another of the five principalities of Palestine, its face was human, and the other part of its body resembled a fish; and the same Lucian says of the Syrian goddess; and Cicero testifies, that the Syrians worshipped a fish, and Porphyry says they will not eat any; and Gaza being a maritime city, a sea port, this might be their sea god in this form: but Ben Gersom in the above place says, it was in the form of a man; and Sanchoniatho making mention of Dagan, a brother of Saturn, Philo Byblius, who translated his history into Greek, interprets it by Siton, which signifies corn, deriving it from Dagan, which so signifies; as if this deity presided over corn, as Ceres in other nations, and Jupiter Frumentarius, or Aratrius; yea, he says he invented corn and the plough; however this be, the Philistine princes met together to sacrifice to him, not a common offering, but a great sacrifice. It is very probable that this was a public festival of the Philistines, as Josephus says, an anniversary one; and perhaps was held in a more grand manner on the present occasion. . . [11]
A somewhat humorous situation occurred in 1 Samuel 5:1-12 and 1 Samuel 6:1-21 when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant and brought to Dagon's temple. God didn't cotton to that. Dagan fell down, and they set it up again. The next day, Dagon was on the ground again, and parts of it were broken off, leaving only the "flat of him" (modern translations say "trunk" or "torso"). Reference [8] has a section where a medieval rabbi was speculating that 1 Samuel 5:4 means, "Only the form of a fish was left".

Evolutionists tacitly have a pagan religion and worship the fish as a god. This is in keeping with their denial of the true God of the Bible, our Creator and Redeemer. No, there is no legitimate way to reconcile evolution with the Bible [12]. Instead of trying to deny the truth and authority of God's Word, people need to humble themselves and repent. Then they can deal with the truth and be set free of their sin.
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels