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

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!

Friday, September 8, 2017

Things Refusing to Evolve

Advocates of microbes-to-microscopist evolution have a great deal to say about the hows and whys of the appearances of things living today, and of those that went before. However, it is difficult to examine their evidence, because it's mighty scarce. Sure, we get a passel of authoritative assertions of "it evolved that way", but assertions and tall tales are not scientific evidence. What follows are several links illustrating false claims of evolution happening. This will be good for students to examine and see how science and evolution can often be mutually exclusive.

Dinosaurs and other things used to promote evolution are actually hostile witnesses
Original image credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Non-Evolving Dinosaurs

Assertions of "being covered with feathers" without any sign of the things; why some dinosaurs moved fast, but details are expected in the future; a crocodile fossil that dates 170 million Darwin Years old is essentially identical to modern crocodiles; Austrosaurus "might reveal" evolution; and more. Read about the non-evolution of dinosaurs at "The Dinosaurs That Didn’t Evolve". 

Unhelpful Fossils

A fossil nicknamed Bad Boy is bad news for evolution, since it has modern features; an alleged stegomastodon is pretty much the same as modern elephants, except for curved tusks; a passel of fossilized jellyfish found in Death Valley (soft tissues get fossilized quickly, you know) are like modern counterparts; the useless explanation of "convergent evolution", and more. You can read about fossils as hostile witnesses for evolution at "The Fossils that Didn’t Evolve".

Birds Refusing to Evolve

Genetic studies comparing flightless emus to chickens; how songbirds learn their songs is speculation, and nowhere near evidence for evolution; question-begging by assuming evolution and how babysitting co-ops for birds evolved (note how, not if); assuming rapid appearance is evidence for evolution; and more. Read about bad reasoning about the critters at "The Birds that Didn’t Evolve".

Plants and an Evolutionary Just-So Story

Using massive evolutionary presuppositions and their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings©, evolutionists have presented (with the help of their obedient, hysterical lapdog media) what the first flower looked like. My, ain't that purty! Looks a lot like a flower we can find today. All assumptions, but no model or evidence. You can read about this one (and another short piece) at "The Plants That Didn’t Evolve".

Additional Information about Plants Boycotting Darwinism

An alga that "shouldn't" be in North America is alive and well; fern extinction information does not provide origin information, and shows a fern is still a fern; attempting to determine "evolutionary relationship" from fossil leaves 200 million Darwin Years old, where DNA cannot survive that long; false advertising on how calcium-based signaling in plants evolved does not deliver; and more. You can read the conclusion of this series at "More Plants That Didn’t Evolve".

Darwin's drones are seeing what is not there. They also use unfounded, unsustainable presuppositions, make arbitrary assertions, and declare evolution without models or evidence. Many will ridicule presuppositional apologetics from Christians and ignore the fact that they are hardcore presuppositional apologists for materialism. The difference is that we show how their worldview is inconsistent and their logic is flawed. Some of us are not fooled by these indoctrination efforts. The truth is, there was no evolution. The real evidence supports recent creation. Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Human Eye Optimized for Color

One of the stories that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© like to spread is that the human eye is wired incorrectly, or "backward". Their explanations can be summed up with, "Because evolution". Or mayhaps, "Because Clinton Richard Dawkins said so, and doggone it, Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist and misotheist, so he must be right!" However, claims by uninformed people about the backward wiring of the eye must send ophthalmologists into cachinnation.

Human eye not evolved, optimal design to see colors
Credit: Freeimages / melissa ricquier
It has been explained that the human eye was designed by our Creator, and the layout is optimal for embryonic development and beyond. For more about this, see "Eye Design and Evolution" and "Like We Said, Human Eye Design Is Optimal". Now we can add new research that the retina has the optimal design for sharpness of images, and for determining colors.
Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have long claimed that our eyes are wired ‘backwardly’, allegedly something which no intelligent designer would do. That is, the light receptor cells are behind the nerves, which supposedly obstruct the light path.
In reality, in the last few years, researchers have shown that light doesn’t go through the nerves, but is instead funnelled through Müller glial cells.
To read the rest of this short but informative article, click on "Fine tuning of ‘backward’ eye is vital for colour vision". Also, ignorant evolutionists who want to denigrate God are not good sources of information. Just thought I'd point that out.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

New Discovery Confounds Galactic Evolution Ideas

Once again, it is a great time to be a biblical creationist. Workers at the Darwin Ranch get their government funding and commence to collecting observed evidence that refutes their views on evolution, deep time, and (in this case) cosmic evolution.

New Discovery Confounds Galactic Evolution Ideas
Credits: NASA, ESA, S. Toft (University of Copenhagen), M. Postman (STScI), and the CLASH team
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by any party listed above)
A "dead" galaxy was discovered that's supposed to be plenty old. Astronomers were fooled, expecting an elliptical galaxy but finding a spiral with very few blue stars instead. Among other unusual traits, it spins way too fast. Sometimes, I think our Creator is playing pranks on evolutionists, sometimes in biology (the duckbill platypus, for example), or out in the depths of space. Discoveries of this nature are not a problem for biblical creationists.
Key features in a newly discovered distant galaxy produce a puzzle for nature-only origins.

NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope imaged the oddity, named MACS2129-1. Sune Toft, Associate Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen, led a research team that accessed Hubble to investigate this out-of-place galaxy. Toft’s team published details in Nature.

Gravity from an in-between cluster of galaxies effectively magnified (by a factor of 4.6) the light from MACS2129-1. This natural magnification distorted, but enlarged, the galaxy’s image enough to reveal its mixture of unexpected features.
To read the rest, click on "New, Distant 'Dead' Galaxy Perplexes".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Evolutionists and their Imaginary Friends from Space

Townsfolk don't cotton to the hands at the Darwin Ranch because, well, they're kind of unhinged. A saloon keeper remarked, "We all got us some crazy parts in us, but they got theirselfs more'n natural". Aside from believing in impossible things, the owhoots that live in the astrobiology bunkhouse are seeing more imaginary space aliens than usual of late.

Evolutionists seeking aliens are becoming more unhinged in their efforts to deny the Creator
Credit: Pixabay / Pawel86
You see, they want to find life in or from outer space because evolution. That is, materialists know that there is no chance of life forming on Earth, so it had to happen way out there and arrive here, maybe, somehow, scientists think, perhaps. In a series of tremendous leaps of logic, alien life would validate evolution and make our Creator irrelevant. Yeah, they're known for being illogical.

There have been several false alarms of alien signals coming from outer space, and I reckon that if people were less hysterical when doing their space alien detecting, the excitement wouldn't have happened so easily. Then we get someone saying that vinyl cyanide found on Jupiter's moon Titan could be used to make cell membranes, and the joyous science press sent out that idiotic, unscientific information. Gotta be having us some space aliens somehow! One scientist thinks that looking for extraterrestrials is good for science itself, and can unify disparate sciences.

You can read about the above, and a whole passel of good stuff, by clicking on "Etiology of Alien Derangement Syndrome". This space alien nuttiness has, I believe, a simple root: desperation to deny the Creator who made us. He makes the rules, and we must learn what he has to say. Each person's eternity depends on it.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 4, 2017

You Call That a Bird's Nest?

When talking about birds' nests, what comes to mind? Probably the typical thing you can see by looking up in the trees, made of twigs and other things that were liberated for the cause. Then, the expectant mother lays eggs and keeps the eggs warm with body heat until they hatch. We've seen the scenario. This does not fit the malleefowl.

Malleefowl engineers incubates mound defy evolution affirm creation
Leipoa ocellata (malleefowl) image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Peterdownunder (CC BY-SA 3.0)
This chicken-sized bird is found in 'Straya and other neighboring areas. It doesn't quite build a nest. Instead, it builds a mound (that is like a housing project) for the purpose of incubating the eggs. After the construction is completed and it's determined to be in the proper temperature range, Mom lays an egg, and does it again every week or two for six months. Dad keeps the temperature at the right level by making adjustments in the mound. Egg design, knowledge of temperature, maintenance, unique features, and more all indicate the work of the Master Engineer and thwart evolution.
What if your life depended on your parents’ ability to discern a narrow range of temperature without using a thermometer? If you were an unhatched Malleefowl chick, belonging to the family of birds known as incubator birds, then your life would absolutely depend on the ability of your parents to incubate their eggs between 29 to 38 degrees Celsius (average 33 degrees Celsius).

Incubator birds don’t warm their eggs by sitting on them. Instead, they build a sort of “greenhouse.” Although the humble size of a chicken, the industrious Malleefowl take on the engineering task of constructing an impressive mound for the eggs, digging about 3 feet deep and 10 feet wide (approximately 90 by 300 cm) with their large feet. Then they fill the depression with all sorts of organic material—sticks, leaves, bark, grass, sand, and soil.
To read the rest, click on "The Incubator Bird: Nest Engineers"
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!