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

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Thankfulness and - Repurposing?

From 1985-1992, American television had a series called MacGyver, which has become a bit of a cultural icon because of the hero's abilities to use chemistry, physics, and the like (as well as being able to think quickly) to make things happen and get out of difficulties. The series was rebooted in 2016. The idea of using whatever is available and fast thinking is often found in espionage movies and fiction. The concepts of multitasking and repurposing are found in many places, including our daily lives and in biology.

Repurposed printing press part saved Mayflower from disaster, our Creator has multitasking happening in our biology
Replica ship Mayflower II credit: Wikimedia Commons / OldPine
It seems that that some MacGyvers were on the Mayflower as well. The midship beam was cracking, and for it to completely break would have been a death sentence. The resourceful crew cowboyed up and repurposed a part of a printing press' equipment to save the voyage — and a major part of American history. For this, many of us are thankful.

Many of our organs, cells, and parts of our DNA are able to multitask. Some of these extra functions have been known for many years, and others have been discovered more recently. It's easy to think of scientists saying, "Hey, I didn't know it did that, too!"

Our Creator engineered many systems for our survival, and gave us the ability to reason so we can use the resources he has given us, as seen in biomimetics. We should give thanks that he has given us life and engineered it (and us) to live. More importantly, we should be thankful that he has provided us with salvation and eternal life.
Available machinery capable of versatile applications, combined with quick-thinking Pilgrim passengers, solved a life-or-death crisis that the Mayflower’s professional crew hadn’t anticipated. This providential detail is part of the Pilgrims’ progress in America—and thus is something we can appreciate during the Thanksgiving season.

We can also appreciate how God has programmed so much of His great creation with versatile engineering traits, including multitasking features within our own bodies such as our appendix, nose, ears, and hair.
To read the article in its entirety (which is not very lengthy), click on "Mechanical Multitasking on the Mayflower".

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

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Species Confusion and the Created Kinds

Scientists who are involved in biology disagree on the definition of species. Sometimes this happens with individual critters, but the broader use of the term is also disputed. It is the lowest ranking in taxonomy below genus, most often defined as organisms that can mate to produce fertile offspring. Doesn't always work that way, however.

Liger at the Novosibirsk Zoo / Wikimedia Commons / Алексей Шилин
We hear about hybrids, often in the plant kingdom. Animal hybrids usually cannot reproduce, and one of the most famous examples is the mule, from a male donkey and female horse. There are other hybrid animals as well. Darwin's imaginary "Tree of Life" gets its branches all tangled up with species interbreeding, and sometimes, the hybrids can breed with the parents, creating havoc for scientists at the genus level. It may be slightly less surprising when the matings happen in captivity, but they happen in the wild as well.

Materialists like to reject any consideration of the biblical kinds, preferring species (a system that was, ironically, invented by a creationist). No, they prefer to use "their" classification system. I'll allow that the created kinds in Genesis are not sharply defined, but the Bible is not a science textbook, it's a book of history (among other things, of course). When it speaks of science, it is correct. When Scripture does talk about science, it's correct, old son. The kind is broader than the species. Creation science has better options and fits what is observed far better than Darwin's failed Tree of Life. When animals jump species back to genus, that's no problem for the classification of biblical kind. In fact, creationists expect such things.
What do you get . . . when you cross a zebra with a horse? Give up? Why, a zorse, of course! How about crossing a polar bear and a grizzly? If you said “pizzly,” you’re catching on! Do you think I’m joking about these names? Guess again.

These are real examples of separate species that can breed and produce unique hybrid babies. Biologists have known about them for a long time, but until recently they thought hybrids were oddities. They usually observed these mixes in captivity, not in the wild—strange hybrids like the ones above, or wholphins (mix of a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale) and geeps (mix of a goat and a sheep). New, inexpensive techniques of DNA analysis have now enabled scientists to test a variety of wild creatures, and they have discovered that hybridization seems to occur all the time in the wild.
To read the rest or download the free audio, click on "The Great Species Mixup". You may also like to see a creationary view of speciation by clicking on "Evolution, Creation Science, and Speciation". Finally, two half-hour videos: "Speciation- yes, Evolution- no" and "Speciation and the biblical kinds – What’s the connection?"

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

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Ancient Algae Amazes Evolutionists

Living things seem mighty recalcitrant when it comes to supporting evolutionary conjectures, including those things termed living fossils. Those are things that were thought to be extinct, then found alive and essentially unchanged after millions of alleged years. A green alga, a seaweed, is not quite a living fossil because it was thought to be extinct in North America but still living in other parts of the world. Well, it's been found in North America after all, and it's unchanged.

Dinosaur-era algae supposedly extinct in North America for long ages has been discovered, and it is unchanged

In cases like this, wait for Darwin's Drones to bring out the usual boilerplate excuses: it didn't have to evolve, stasis, and things like that. This child doesn't fall for those tricks, because a lot of environmental things happen in a year, and evolutionary mythology breaks down if they think we're going to accept such "explanations". Aside from the anticipated excuses, there are several important facts that evolutionists overlook, including how critters and plants did not evolve, they were created to survive — and adapt when necessary.
Botanists recently discovered Lychnothamnus barbatus, a large form of green algae known from European and Asian freshwater lakes, in North America. Before this discovery, the only hints of this particular water plant in the Americas came from their fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Argentina.1 If this type of algae’s fossils were deposited tens of millions of years ago, then how has it avoided evolutionary tinkering ever since? How could it remain unchanged for over “65 million years?”
To chew on the rest (won't take long, it's not a huge article), click on "Dinosaur Algae Alive and Well Today". For a related article, read "Seaweed Clogs Evolutionary Propellers".

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

Monday, November 20, 2017

Evolutionists Get a Kick Out of Footprints

Scientists and other people with training and experience can learn a great deal from footprints. Many people can see the different between a bird and a human for instance, but may have difficulty between those of a large dog and a bear. That could be a problem in the wilderness. Barefoot human impressions are very distinct, and a trained observer can learn a great deal about whoever made them. The fossilized human footprints discovered in Crete are somewhat indistinct, but cause some problems for common ancestor evolution.

Fossilized footprints discovered in Crete are causing difficulties for human evolution timelines
Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart
The "our ancestors came out of Africa" mythology is threatened because of the dates evolutionists assigned to the footprints. Also, despite looking like someone is tromping through the mud and not sure of his or her footing, it is obvious that they were not made by anything other than a human. Some secularists do not want to believe the evidence because it threatens their death cult. Creationists do not have problems with having to readjust dates and rewrite theories because of facts, because the facts fit in nicely with the creationary record and models.
Evolutionists are faced with a controversy with the discovery of ‘human-like’ fossil footprints allegedly made 5.7 million years ago at Trachilos on the Mediterranean island of Crete.

Why a controversy? Because according to the evolutionary scenario at that time our human ancestors were only found in Africa, had ape-like feet but didn’t walk upright until much later in history; about 3.6 million years ago.
To continue reading, take an electronic leap over to "Cretan footprints stomp on human evolution". Also, another report can be seen at "Evolutionists Tripping Over Human Tracks on Crete".

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

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Cosmic Alchemy and Stellar Gold?

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy.

The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger
Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciency stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious.

We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the universe, and subsequent cosmology on the formation of the stars, and ultimately, you and me. The ideas may look good to materialistic mathematicians, but it is not science. There is nothing testable, repeatable, observable, and all those other things required of a valid scientific theory. Stars exploding, metals forming, neutron stars making gold, a bunch of unknowns, life evolving — quite a few tricks to train in that pony, old son. Best to believe what God's Word says and leave behind the silly antics.
On October 16, 2017, two press conferences generated much interest when they announced the detection of two neutron stars merging. What particularly caught the public's attention was the claim that this event produced perhaps 10 times the earth’s mass in gold. How much of this story is established fact and what parts are conjectures? And what does this mean? Let me sort through this.
To read the rest and get a good science lesson, click on "Spinning Stardust into Gold".

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

Friday, November 17, 2017

Evolutionists Reach Faulty Conclusions about Extinction

When materialistic scientists argue from their evolutionary and deep time presuppositions, facts tend to get a mite scrambled. Speculations about things they think happened millions of Darwin years ago get added to the mix. When hearing, viewing, or reading about speculations that have no actual science behind them, it become difficult to stifle laughter.

Credit: Freeimages / Aron Hess
Geologically thinking, we have rock layers with fossils in them. Secular assumptions smuggle in long age presumptions (uniformitarianism), so the fossilized creatures appear that they were spread out over many years, and that there were several "great extinctions". However, secular scientists speculating about the distant past are not in agreement about how many extinctions happened. Worse for them, their conjectures fail to address observed evidence, but biblical creationists' models of the Genesis Flood have no difficulty giving rational explanations. Must grate on them that the evidence supports creation and the Bible instead of their guesses.
Secular geologists hypothesize five major mass extinctions in Earth history and maintain the most catastrophic of these happened nearly 252 million years ago. This Permian extinction, or Great Dying, supposedly resulted in the loss of 70 percent of land species and 95 percent of marine species. What really happened?

Creationists believe the fossil record formed just thousands of years ago as a result of the devastating Genesis Flood. But since those who hold the secular worldview must go to extremes to avoid anything biblical—any explanation but a worldwide flood—these efforts often result in some entertaining extinction stories such as, “A single gene transfer event may have caused the Great Dying.”
I know you're greatly dying to read the rest. To do so, click on "World's Most Catastrophic Extinction".

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

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Some Spiders Can Fly

Some folks do not cotton to spiders, even getting the heebie-jeebies at the tiniest of them. I can understand being skittish with a spider that looks like if you tried to strike it with a tennis racket, it would take it away and strike you instead. Yep, that's alarming. Anyway, some might say, "I'm sure glad spiders can't fly!" Sorry, Sally, but some do fly — in a way. Those shimmering threads are not from UFOs, so Auntie Madge doesn't need to call the Air Force (Project Blue Book has been closed for a long time, anyway), nor are they "chemtrails" Just spiders doing ballooning stuff.

Spider ballooning is another example of the Creator's engineering design abilities
Ballooning spiderlings image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Little Grove Farms / (CC BY 3.0)
Each of a huge number of spiders can shoot out some gossamer and ride the high winds. They don't all have happy landings, though. The survivors, though, hit the ground like special forces leaving their parachutes behind. How do they do this? Sure, the wind is an important part. But another important part involves electrostatic charges! Yet another dumb conundrum for evolutionists to use words like "maybe", "perhaps", "scientists think", and then call it science. Gotta have that homage to Darwin, blessed be. No, the obvious explanation is that they were engineered by their Creator to do this aerial dispersal. After all, spiders defy evolution in other ways, including in the fossil record.
It could be a scene from a Hollywood horror movie—millions of spiders descending from the sky on to a ship being tossed about on the ocean miles from land. While Hollywood would make them huge, man-eating spiders (and the crew would have to battle to survive the infestation), the real event isn’t scary. Instead, it is incredibly fascinating. It even happened to Charles Darwin on board HMS Beagle, about 100 km (60 miles) off the coast of Argentina in 1832. And it was Darwin’s observations of the spiders’ action that caused a modern-day scientist to consider the possibility that arachnids harness electrostatic energy to ‘balloon’ from point to point. Who hasn’t been ‘zapped’ by static electricity?

University of Hawaii physics professor Peter Gorham challenged existing aerodynamic theories to make the case for electrostatic flight in ballooning spiders by looking at the physics of such actions.
To read the rest, click on "Charged-up spiders on the move". Also, a short video of the spider trails is below.

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

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Excessively Presumptive Cosmologists

In any field of science, there has to be some degree of presumption. Scientists have to presume the uniformity of nature and its laws (although secularists refuse to admit that God, who created everything, upholds the universe by his power). When getting further into evolution-related fields, more presumptions are made based on naturalistic presuppositions. This is clearly seen in cosmology — which is not even science, but a philosophy.

Credit: NASA / ESA (modified)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Cosmic owlhoots Krauss and Scherrer wrote a paper that may not have been entirely serious, saying that cosmologists in the future may not have the necessary information to make the correct conclusions about the universe that today's scientists have made. What, nobody keeps or refers to records? The authors got the bit in their teeth and galloped off with the presumption that they are correct in the first place in the here and now. (Reminds me of the tinhorns who sequenced the human genome years ago, did it sloppily, then asserted that the DNA they didn't find a use for in their current, limited knowledge was "junk". Then they were proved way, way wrong.) Further pursuits and assertions reveal that the Big Bang assumptions of the authors have a seriously flawed epistemology (study of knowledge). Scientists today need a passel of humility, as their arrogance is getting in the way of doing useful science.
Lawrence Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer surprised the cosmology world in 2007 when they published an essay titled “The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.” The paper showed that, assuming the truth of the current big bang model, in the far future (hundreds of billions of years from now) many evidences for the big bang itself will be gone, preventing future cosmologists from even being able to detect evidence for it.

In these papers, it is noted that, assuming the big bang model is true, at some point in the future, galaxies will be far enough away from each other as to not be seen. Within a galaxy, the operation of physics is relatively static. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will not be able to witness some of the more dynamic effects of expansion, which were critical in the development of big bang cosmology.
To read the rest, click on "What Krauss and Scherrer’s 'End of Cosmology' Scenario Means for the Epistemology of Modern-Day Cosmology". 

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

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Evolution is Quickly Failing

Gotta admit, I keep wanting to swipe the title, "Everything You Know is Wrong" and apply it to evolution because, frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), the evolutionary storyline keeps changing. Even more so in recent years, and the changes favor special creation and show the etiolated nature of Darwinism.

Image by Why?Outreach
Evolutionary scientists are finding more and more evidence that their cherished beliefs are turning to ashes in their hands. New discoveries change the age of the alleged human-chimp ancestry split, changing the age of lineages and causing more problems. Ardipithecus ramidus discoveries are changing the "savannah hypothesis". "Lucy" the ape fell out of human lineage stories long ago, except in the minds of the churlish faithful, and Lucy is being bothered even further.

If they would step back and see that their naturalistic worldviews do not contain the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, they might get tired of being wrong and realize that yes, there is a Creator. To read about the items mentioned above and more, click on "Everything Scientists Assumed About Human Evolution Needs a Major Rethink".

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

Monday, November 13, 2017

Puzzling Dart Frog Poison

There are small critters in Central and South America have been given the name "poison dart frogs". Most have bright colors, but if you find yourself near them, resist the urge to pick them up. They are toxic, some are dangerously so. These attractive but dangerous amphibians were given their name because some species were used by natives in the area to poison the darts for hunting and such.

Poison dart frogs puzzle evolutionists
Dendrobates tinctorius credit: Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (CC BY-SA 2.5)
So, they're dangerous to touch, and the poison some secrete can be used to make lethal weapons. This raises some interesting questions: How does the poison work? How can they survive their own poison? What came first, the poison or the resistance? The first question involves biology and chemistry, but the other two are stumpers for evolutionists, because both the poison and the resistance must be operational at the same time, or nothing makes sense, nothing works — evolutionists have no plausible model beyond "maybe", "perhaps", "it could be", "scientists think", and so on. That' ain't a plausible model, Hoss. No, the poison dart frogs were engineered by their Creator.
Found in Central and South America, the poison dart frog uses its skin toxin for defense and its bright colors as a warning. Each tiny amphibian holds enough toxin in its skin to kill 10 people.1 Its popular name came from native hunters who very carefully dipped the tips of their hunting darts in the frog’s poison. A new study revealed how the frogs survive their own poison, and the answer points to God.
To read the rest, click on "Why Don't Poison Dart Frogs Poison Themselves?" You may also be interested in the short video below.

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

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Evolutionists Censoring Biological Truth

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence. Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods. When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore!

CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition
Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains of evidence for evolution" that are actually untrue. Some of their "facts" are based on faulty and incomplete research, stories that were popular in science news and in textbooks that have been rejected, and so on. Biblical creationists attempt to present information that they did not know or possibly have not carefully examined. We hope that they will question evolution, and eventually come to know the Creator in a personal way. The article featured below emphasizes biological truth; evolutionists think that genetic research is friendly to their paradigm, but that is the opposite of the truth.
DNA is a supernaturally created and designed medium containing living information. Overlapping parts of the same nucleotide sequence along the DNA code are used to produce completely different protein molecules. Studies have shown that DNA nucleotide sequences can produce different proteins if read forward versus being decoded from the same area backward. “This is similar to a book in which the same sentences can be read in completely different languages, read forward or backwards, and give different yet completely clear meanings.”1 As we begin to understand the complexity of the DNA code, or even the simplest living cell, it is simply impossible for random chance processes, i.e., mutations, to achieve such level of complexity.
To finish reading, click on "Censored Biology".

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

Friday, November 10, 2017

Darwin Spectacles and Irrational Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Proponents of vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution tend to overreach when they assemble facts, or things they believe are facts. It is illogical to extrapolate or over-generalize that if something is true in one place or thing, it is true in all similar places or things. In reality, we only know so much from what we observe, then we have to build on it to attain further knowledge.

Credit: Pixabay / ghcassel
Let's suppose that we had concrete, irrefutable evidence that an organism developed from simple to more complex, a textbook example of Darwinism. Okay, you got one. Evolutionists would put on their Darwin spectacles and see the world through their limited vision. However, evolutionary evidence of one thing, one time, one place would not prove that anything else evolved. Any other critter's evolution would have to be demonstrated, not assumed because of what was observed in something else.

We've seen many times how evolutionists get themselves (and especially the lapdog science press) all worked up as if some alleged evolution proved all of Darwinian evolution. Not hardly. Secularists can get themselves into a lather and make unwarranted implications that some "evidence" of evolution means that the Creator does not exist.

Here's another instance of Darwin spectacles interfere with clear thinking. There is considerable disagreement regarding feathered dinosaurs. Think I even heard one creationary scientist say that he believes that some dinosaurs had feathers (all creationists are not in lockstep, neither are all evolutionists), but he was working from the same weak evidence that secularists use and reaching a conclusion from insufficient data. Even so, let's give you another one: a dinosaur fossil was found and its feathered status was irrefutable. What would that prove? That one particular critter had feathers. It would not be evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds — there are too many other steps involved that evolutionists cannot explain.

We can play "Let's Suppose" a bit more. This time, life was found outside of Earth. Some fungi, a few plants, and then a critter hopped up to the space probe and said, "Meep", clear as day. Darwinists would be ecstatic, put on those special spectacles and "see" that since life evolved out yonder, then it must have happened here, too. Nope. Although evolutionists tend to reject or ignore inconvenient data and alternative explanations, it still doesn't mean that such life evolved, or that it was not created. Materialists reject creation out of hand because of their limited worldview and rebellion against God.

I'm pointing out in this simple article that people can extrapolate beyond the observed data and reach conclusions that are unjustified or just plain wrong. Creationists frequently point out where Darwin's disciples reach erroneous conclusions and ignore pertinent data. This site alone has a passel of examples, as well as the sites that are referenced. Don't be strung along by scientists and their air of authority. We have minds, and our Creator wants us to use them, as logic comes from the mind of God. Evolutionists have minds, but their thinking is fuzzy.

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

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Bird Fossils Peck Away at Deep Time Beliefs

The flap over well-preserved tissues and bones in fossils continues. Not only are more and more being found in dinosaur remains, but they are found in other fossils as well. According to materialists' dating methods, these fossils are alleged to be millions of years old, so soft tissues and such simply cannot last for such long periods of time. Unfortunately, secularists are so locked into their mindset, they have to deal from the bottom of the deck in hopes that they get a winning hand. That'll be the day! The truth is, what they continually discover debunks long ages and evolution, and supports recent the Genesis Flood and recent creation.

Credit: Pixabay / suju
Two creationary organizations released articles about sensational bird fossil discoveries, and I thought they were both reports on the same thing. Nope, didn't happen. So I'm giving you a twofer in this post. The first involves finding a gland that secretes oil that birds use for preening and such, and is essentially identical to that of modern birds. Evolutionists are frantically spinning their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings© in hopes that they can explain away the facts.
The Messel Pit has yielded some of the best-preserved fossils in the world. Even in the context of previous amazing finds at the site, this discovery struck the scientists by surprise. Gerald Mayr, ornithologist for the institute, remarked,”The discovery is one of the most astonishing examples of soft part preservation in animals. It is extremely rare for something like this to be preserved for such a long time.” It’s astonishing because paleontologists know that “The organic materials that the soft parts consist of usually decompose within decades, or even just a few years.” And yet the lipids analyzed from the sample have kept their chemical composition for 48 million Darwin Years. How?
To read the entire article, click on "Fossil Bird Oil Stuns Scientists". Don't forget to come back for the next installment. 

Welcome back for the second exciting report! It's exciting for biblical creationists, anyway. This time, paleontologists found bird bones that shouldn't be there. That is, the bones should have permineralized. Not only do the bones exist in good condition, but they are intricate and modern — like in the chirpers we have today. To make matters worse, the fossil is 40 million Darwin years out of place. Oh, boy.
Recently, Chinese researchers described their discovery of the “earliest” bird fossil with fused pelvic bones, just like modern birds. Also like modern birds, this fossil appears to be made of original bone, not mineralized bone (which would be rock). Could any process preserve actual bones for 120 million years?
To read the rest, click on "Stunning Bird Fossil Has Bone Tissue". I would say that evolution is for the birds, but even they are testifying against that flight of fancy.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Communication in Killer Whales

It would be easy to think that those black and white whales (often called orcas) act in a manner similar to their appearance. That is, pretty much the same. They are actually distinct, and their groups (clans or pods) are different from one another.

Orcas (killer whales) have unique communication abilities within their groups
Credit: Holly Fearnbach / Alaska Fisheries Science Center / NOAA Fisheries Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Let's reign in for a moment and clear up a couple of things. First, they are more closely related to dolphins than whales. Second, despite a silly movie from 1977, orcas are not known to have eaten humans. Third, don't let the cute and cuddly critters doing tricks at sea amusements fool you; they are killers because these sidewinders of the sea are devious. Orcas are also fierce, eating things larger than humans, and smaller, and whatever is convenient. A large part of their hunting prowess comes from their communication abilities, and that one group cannot understand another group's sounds. Yep, they have their own lingo because they were built that way. Orca communication is yet another item that can be explained by special creation, but leaves evolutionists are at a loss.
The captain of the fishing vessel Oracle knew he was in trouble when he sighted orcas on the horizon. He was right. In a coordinated attack, dozens of the huge mammals made off with 12,000 pounds of halibut on his lines and cost him 4,000 gallons of fuel trying to save the rest of his day’s catch from the interlopers. They even seemed to be teaching their young how to get a free meal. On another day, 50 orcas followed his boat for 65 miles and then loitered for 18 hours after he shut the engines down. After waiting two days, he had to abandon that fishing trip altogether.
To read the rest (or download the audio by my favorite reader), click on "Killer Communicators".

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

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Creation Science and Flood Models

One of the common false accusations against Christians and biblical creationists is that we use "GodDidIt" as our primary argument for creation, the Genesis Flood, and so on. Not hardly! Anyone serious about learning what creationists actually believe and teach can check out the major creation science ministries (several of which are frequently linked on this site). A seeker will learn that while we believe that God "did it", creationary scientists want to know how God commenced to doing certain things.
Creation science models of the Genesis Flood are proposed, debated, abandoned, better models are propsed
Credit: Pixabay / PIRO4D
Like their secular counterparts, scientists who believe the Bible have hypotheses and models to try and explain the historical science of their views. Also like their counterparts, creationists are not in lockstep and have disagreements about various models. Further, secular scientists have their materialistic presuppositions upon which they base their models, and creationary scientists hold to the inerrant Word of God for their presuppositions; everyone has a final starting point.

Some folks consider their models to be sacred writ and don't cotton to having their views challenged. That is wrong, especially since no model is perfect having strengths and weaknesses, and some data fit more than one model. Several creationary proposals have been discarded over the years and rejected with further scientific analyses, and some are being reconsidered. There are models regarding the Genesis Flood that are strong, and better explain scientific evidence than deep time uniformitarian conjectures.
... where the Bible is genuinely silent, we are free to use science to help build models to help elucidate the clear teachings of Scripture. But these models are just man-made—they must never be given the same authority as Scripture. In any case, science is always changing, so being married to a model today will probably result in being widowed tomorrow. Worse, if the Bible is too tied up with a model later discarded, many will think that the Bible itself was refuted (cf. the church’s adoption of Aristotelian cosmology v Galileo).
Model-building should be an example of the ministerial use of science.

In contrast, the magisterial use of science, practised by all compromisers on Genesis, overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science). With these principles, some popular ideas can be examined.
To read the entire article, click on "Flood models and biblical realism".

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

Monday, November 6, 2017

Trilobites Still Troubling Evolutionists

Something that gets the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod is when someone mentions the "Cambrian Explosion". The Cambrian layers were supposedly formed hundreds of millions of evolutionary years ago, but there's a passel of fully formed creatures, mostly invertebrates. Evolutionists admit that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for them, and make weak attempts to explain it away.

Some of the cant from anti-creationists is simply dismissive, such as, "The Cambrian? You mean that era which contained nothing but small marine organisms?" If such a remark is serious, it indicates a lack of knowledge of fossils and also the Darwinian mythology that the user espouses. (I reckon that those folks feel compelled to contradict creationists, even when it means contradicting evolutionists as well.) Paleontologists and other fossil hunters expect to see marine organisms, since those comprise the overwhelming majority of all fossils. (Interestingly, there are comparatively few fossils found in layers of the Grand Canyon.) Again, those found in the Cambrian layers are fully formed, not looking like they're in the process of evolving into something else.

Fossils, including the marine kind, are found on all continents. Many are preserved exceptionally well. Some Cambrian fossils have been found in higher layers (oopsie!), which further troubles Darwinists. These facts add support to the global Genesis Flood and creation science flood models, and are not friendly to evolutionary, deep time assumptions.

Trilobites support the Genesis Flood and creation.
Credit: Pixabay / tatlin
One of the icons of evolution should not be used: the trilobite. With advancements in technology, scientists have learned through their fossils (a fact that amazes me) about advanced optics of the critters. You'd think evolutionists would quit while they're behind, but hope springs eternal. Newer finds show that they had unique digestive tracts, and require revision in evolutionary ideas.
Trilobites were fascinating invertebrates that inhabited pre-Flood ocean bottoms. They were fossilized when “primitive” life supposedly was just getting started, but the complexity of these animals is unparalleled. New trilobite anatomical discoveries contradict previous evolutionary beliefs about their digestive systems.

According to evolution theory, trilobites appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago in a period called the Early Cambrian. There are about 56 families of these extinct creatures. Not only did they come in a wide variety of sizes, they also had three kinds of extremely complex eyes.
To read the rest, click on "Trilobites Can't Stomach Darwinism". Also for your consideration, "Trilobites Take a Bite out of Evolutionary Theory". Plus this short video:

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

Saturday, November 4, 2017

A Comparison of Evolution and Creation Science

Proponents of atoms-to-astronomer evolution often tell the world that there are "mountains of evidence" for their interpretations of scientific evidence. Those of us who believe in biblical creation science know that those mountains are molehills, and the evidence not only refutes evolution, but supports creation.

Government indoctrination centers (also called "schools") and other sources of information saddle people with the idea that we are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and the like. Live has no meaning, there is no ultimate justice, and when you die, you're worm food. This materialistic worldview actively rejects the Creator, who gives us meaning, there is ultimate justice and Judgment. Logic and science are impossible in a materialistic worldview, and only the biblical worldview makes sense of life, and makes logic, science, love, and other intangible aspects of our daily lives possible. Taking an honest look at the facts shows us that the evolutionary view is intellectually bankrupt, and the evidence supports special creation.
One of the key issues in the creation-evolution debate is the origin of humans, Homo sapiens.
What we think about the origin of our own species has a dramatic impact on our morality and worldview because it answers the questions of who and what we are and why we exist. The secular and biblical views of our origins are diametrically opposed and must come to totally different conclusions about our place in the universe. Secular scientists tell us that the evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor with primates is “overwhelming.” But just how good is that evidence? The Bible teaches we were made in God’s image and designed to have fellowship with Him both now and forever. Recent results in the field of genetics have been remarkably in accord with the biblical model for human origins and inimical to evolutionary scenarios. Here we will compare the biblical and secular models for human origins and discuss recent science that supports the biblical view and/or discredits the evolutionary view. Specifically, we will discuss “junk DNA” as “evidence” for common ancestry, the real percent similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes, the alleged historical fusion of two primate chromosomes that “prove” humans share common ancestry with primates, genetic evidence that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred and were hence the same species, and genetic evidence that is consistent with Adam and Eve as well as Noah and his family.
To read the rest, click this link: "On the Origin of Humans".

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

Friday, November 3, 2017

Evolutionists Still Mystified by Giraffe Neck

Way back when, I lived in small a Michigan town on the shore of the lake that shares that state's name. There was a park on the shore, informally known as "G Park", short for "Giraffe Park", because teenagers would go there for a long necking session. You know, making lip lock.

"Does this have anything to do with creation and evolution, Cowboy Bob?"

Not really.

So anyway, as many of y'all know, evolution wasn't created by Charles Darwin. Lamarck suggested that physical changes were inherited by offspring. Darwin rejected this, but he backtracked and included some of Lamarck's concepts in his later writings. One of the rejected ideas of Lamarck was that giraffes developed long necks by stretching to eat leaves on trees. That idea was justifiably dismissed.

Evolutionists cannot explain the giraffe's neck. It was obviously engineered by our Creator.
Credit: Freeimages / Leslie van Veenhuyzen
However, evolutionists still cannot lasso an explanation for the giraffe's neck. Some are dancing in the dark with Lamarck, and even toying with the idea that they evolved it for the purpose of regulating their temperatures (yes, they use teleology). This conveniently ignores the fact that giraffes are engineered by our Creator to have those long necks in several important ways. By the way, they also seem to forget that the okapi, a forest dweller that is related to the giraffe. It has a much shorter neck.
Evolutionary storytelling about giraffes’ long necks goes back before Darwin, but all the tales have one thing in common: they don’t work. Doesn’t matter. Evolution marches on.

Nature's Editorial [September 12, 2017] should have been a supreme embarrassment. But when only evolutionary explanations are tolerated, those in power have no fear of shame. They can toss out various ‘narratives’ and ‘scenarios’ with alacrity, never needing to submit any of them to serious testing or debate. This editorial is a case in point: “Giraffes could have evolved long necks to keep cool,” the headline reads. “Another explanation offered for one of animal kingdom’s most distinctive features.”
To reach for the rest of the article, click on "Necking in the Dark: Evolutionists Clueless about Giraffes".

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

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Grand Canyon Gets Old Earth Misinterpretations

This post is going to be a mite different, because the linked article is a book review. Normally, I don't cotton to putting book reviews in these here posts, but this review contains some very useful information.

I reckon that it could be successfully argued that old earth Christians, theistic evolutionists, Deists, and atheists all have a low view of the Bible. Some of them are more extreme, rejecting it altogether, and others say they believe the Bible but compromise and make excuses for plain readings that they dislike.

Grand Canyon, Maxfield Parrish, 1902
In this case, some professing Christians have saddled up uniformitarian, atheistic interpretations of facts pertaining to the Grand Canyon. (Why some who call themselves Christians insist on embracing deep time, we can only speculate.) The authors of a book on the Grand Canyon have used bad arguments to claim that it is much older than biblical creationists believe it to be. They used outdated science arguments that creationists have already addressed long ago. (Mayhaps Bill Nye was a consultant. He used arguments that creationists covered long before in the debate he lost to Ken Ham.) There are also some theological considerations to which the authors need to give some serious thought. They really need to learn the truth about recent creation and the Genesis Flood.
I began this well-illustrated and much-hyped book expecting to be stimulated and challenged. Instead, I must confess a certain annoyance with its extraordinary superficiality. . .
Most, if not all, of the arguments dusted off in this book have long been answered in these classics. And the rest are answered in more recent creationist works. Towards the latter part of this review, I examine some other geologic topics, but need to strongly stress the fact that it would require a full-length book to address all the fallacies of this pro-uniformitarian compromising evangelical missive.
To read the rest, click on "The Grand Canyon in the thralls of shallow, doctrinaire uniformitarianism".

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

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Further Discussion of Engineered Adaptability and Evolution

This enlightening series by Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza continues. Previously, we saw that Charles Darwin focused on external influences and claimed that those are responsible for vertical evolution. I'll allow that he did not know what we know today, as Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) had not fully developed his studies in genetics. 

Credit: Pixabay / Gerhard Bögner
A study of the Great Chinese Famine had some excellent work, but was incomplete, failing to identify a causal mechanism. Likewise, scientists cling to the consensus of externalism as the means of change in organisms. Instead, they need to be examining the way the Creator has engineered them to adapt to changes.
Imagine the challenges facing an engineer who’s been tasked with designing a fully automated, unmanned spacecraft that needs to travel to a planet and safely return. . . . Every capability the autonomous vessel has, including the ability to relate to external conditions, will be due to its own features…and nothing else. . . . If the design fails, then the engineer will correct the design—not the external conditions—for the next generation of spacecraft. The precise, objective reality of engineering causality can be demanding.
To read the rest (and see why the spaceship analogy is apt), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Causality Studies Unmask Evolutionary Externalism". Other articles in the series are linked at the end, just above the references.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!