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

Friday, May 25, 2018

Looking through a Galaxy Darkly

Nothing to see up there, folks. 

Astronomers have detected a galaxy that does not have "enough" of the imaginary stuff called dark matter to suit them. Dark matter was proposed as one of several rescuing devices for problems with the Big Bang, and although it supposedly composes most of the universe, none has been detected. Secularists have a habit of believing in things that do not exist and calling their blind faith "science".


Astronomers say that a recently discovered galaxy has "almost no dark matter", but dark matter has never been demonstrated to exist
Credits: NASA, ESA, and P. van Dokkum (Yale University)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The existence of dark matter is inferred by gravitational effects, and by ignoring other possible explanations for what is observed. Also, some tinhorns are unwilling to admit that gravity is not fully understood while still making declarations as if they understood both it and unproven dark matter — and all of physics. Dark matter is a controversial concept. A few creationary scientists believe it may exist, and some secular scientists claim that it does not. This discovery raises questions that are important to the creation-evolution controversy.
A team of astronomers recently concluded that a nearby spheroidal galaxy, designated as NGC1052-DF2, contains very little, if any, dark matter. Since Big Bang scientists use dark matter to explain how galaxies formed, this poses a potential problem for naturalistic views.

The galaxy in question, estimated to be about 65 million light-years away, has roughly the same volume as our own Milky Way galaxy, but it’s much dimmer due to a much smaller number of stars. By estimating the speeds of ten nearby objects, the team concluded that this particular galaxy had 400 times less dark matter than expected. In fact, there might not be any dark matter in this galaxy.
To read the rest, click on "Nearby Galaxy Has Almost No Dark Matter". You may also like this 2012 article, "No Nearby Dark Matter".


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

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Modern Science and its Christian Basis

There is a common misconception nowadays that atheism is essential for science, and Christians are somehow automatically eliminated from scientific fields. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© insist that naturalism and atoms-to-atheist evolution are science. Truth is, there are Christians and biblical creationists active in scientific fields.


many of the founders and developers of modern science were Bible believers
Credit: RGBstock / Krzysztof Szkurlatowski
The idea that naturalism is essential for science is based on presuppositions rooted in scientism. This view is self-refuting. For science to operate, conditions need to be reliable and consistent. The biblical creation science worldview consistently furnishes the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, but in atheistic and evolutionary worldviews, science is impossible — they must tacitly admit that their views are flawed, and must stand on our worldview!

"But Cowboy Bob, you creationists are science deniers!"

Not hardly! We deny bad science, and erroneous philosophies that are utilized by secularists. If you study on it, you'll find out that the Bible not only makes science possible, it encourages science. Also, while some folks way back when did some science stuff, but when the sciences were being corralled, the founders and developers very often were Bible believers.
Recently, Professor Mike Klymkowsky of the University of Colorado–Boulder, uploaded a blog titled, ‘Go ahead and “teach the controversy:” it is the best way to defend science.’ In this he laments the unwillingness of some to accept what he claims are “rigorously established scientific conclusions,” one of which, of course, is evolution. This, he believes, is due to the failure to realise that “a foundational principle of science is that the natural world can be explained without calling on supernatural actors”. Also part of the problem, he thinks, is the belief in “the existence of a supernatural entity that cares for people, at least enough to create them”.

Much of the trouble, he argues, has arisen from a failure to teach science properly. However, he says that the solution is only to teach the controversy if “teachers understand the science and its historical context”. Sadly, there can be no doubt that it is Professor Klymkowsky who does not understand these.
To finish reading, click on "Remembering the Christian roots of science". You may also like to see "An Improper Environment for Science".





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

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Evolution Unhelpful in Medical Science

When discussing origins, adherents of universal common ancestor evolution will invariably claim that their belief system is essential to science. They tend to get on the prod when we disagree with the expression, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and get even angrier when we show that it is false


Evolution is actually unimportant, and even harmful, to medical science
Credit: Pixabay / Ernesto Eslava
Medical science does not need evolution. When my ophthalmologist checked my eye for a suspected detached retina (it was fine), evolution was not the guiding principle in his diagnosis and treatment. My MD had me get lab work, and she adjusted my hypertension medication, then checked my A1c level (still under control). Evolution had nothing to do with it.

Evolutionary thinking hinders medical science. Take a look at how "vestigial structures" have been written off because of evolution, only to be demonstrated to have importance after all. Then we have the humiliation of "junk" DNA.

"But Cowboy Bob, antibiotic resistance proves evolution, and medicine needs to know it!" That hoary canard of antibiotic resistance and evolution is false




via GIPHY

Despite the vacuous proclamations by owlhoots like Bill Nye, C. Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others, evolution is not essential to science. Such a worldview hinders scientific progress. Sure, some folks are decrying that evolution is not taught enough in medical school. Those are sidewinders trying to justify their phony-baloney jobs. In reality, a creationary worldview is important to medical science, despite the protestations of Darwin's disciples.
Despite the wide acceptance of evolutionary beliefs among mainstream scientists, many physicians—whether they accept evolution or not—find evolutionary claims neither relevant nor useful. And the distinction is not due to a deficit of educational attainment: a medical degree is as much a doctoral degree in science as a PhD in the U.S. (and many other countries). Some claim that physicians would be better doctors if they understood evolution better, but many disagree.
Evolution is not emphasized in most medical schools. Medical educators have a great deal to teach to budding physicians in a short time. The least important topic is evolution. 
To read the rest, click on "Evolution—The Least Important Topic in Medicine", by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, MD. 



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

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Astrobiology Still not a Science

Last I checked, whenever something ends in -ology, it means the study of something. That is, unless someone has redefined the word. There is quite a bit of redefining going on nowadays. So, if you are going to have a study of something, it stands to reason that there should be something to study. Cosmology is not science, and in a very similar way, that thing called astrobiology is not science, either.


Astrobiology is like cosmology in that neither one is a legitimate science
"Cranky Alien" template furnished by Why?Outreach
There are no alien machines to study, nor are there aliens. I'll allow that scientists examine certain chemicals way out there thataway that may be conducive to life, but there is no biology happening. Just speculation and guesswork based on Big Bang assumptions and evolutionary presuppositions. If you study on it a spell, you'll see that they assume that since life evolved here, it must have evolved out there. See how that is supposed to work? They use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™, and then get paid for...doing nothing, actually.


Secularists deny what is obvious and what has been revealed in God's Word: our universe, and life itself, is the product of the Creator. Worse for their worldview, he did this recently.
Number of worlds beyond Earth where life has been discovered: zero. Number of optimistic articles about life in outer space: hundreds per year.
What happens when you take “bio” out of the fake science called Astrobiology? It becomes a pseudoscience. Since there is no “bio” yet found beyond earth, except in the imaginations of storytellers who believe in evolution, maybe that is a more accurate label. Here are some samples of fact-free, evidence-free stories circulating on science news sites.
To read the samples, click on "Astrobiology Still Has No Biology".




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

Monday, May 21, 2018

Melanin Research Supports Creation Model

Fungi serve a purpose in the world by breaking down and essentially recycling dead things, but some types get a bit rambunctious and cause fungus infections. A recent study by researchers who reject standard Darwinian views inadvertently support creation science.

Research in melanin, protein, and Aspergillus fungi thwart Darwinism and inadvertently support creation science.
Aspergillus colonies image credit:
Wikimedia Commons / Adrian J. Hunter (CC BY-SA 3.0) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There are several hundred mold species in the Aspergillus genus. Some are useful in the environment, they can help in the fermentation process for alcohol, and others are used in medicinal products. The research under discussion is about the annoyance factor where they cause fungal infections.

A protein identifies fungal melanin, notifies cells and says, "There's a fungus among us", then they all laugh and go keep the interloper under control. This is an example of engineered adaptability. Darwinists generally believe that evolution and adaptation are caused by external influences, but we have been seeing that adaptations and responses are built in to organisms by the Master Engineer.
Fungal infections can be a pain to eradicate. But new results show why these infections can take an even tighter hold on people or animals that are missing a specific protein. The international research team that discovered this protein, and its importance, named it MelLec. This protein helps fight fungal infections by identifying a specific type of melanin that fungi make. Several aspects of this new discovery fit a creation-based model of creature adaptation.
To read the rest, click on "Protein Discovery Confirms Design".

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

Saturday, May 19, 2018

The Hard Truth on Mudrock

There are several types of sedimentary rock, one of which is mudrock. From there, we have several kinds of mudrock, including mudstone and shale. If you do your own little geology experiment by putting sand and dirt in a jar with water, then shake it up, you can watch the stuff settle. It's more exciting than watching paint dry because you can see how the larger particles settle first, and the finest particles take much longer.

Research and the Genesis Flood indicate mudstone does not need millions of years to form
Wikimedia Commons / Lvklock (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Mudrock can be mighty thick, such as the Marcellus Shale. Uniformitarian geologists will tell you that it took millions of years to form, and watching that mixture you shook up earlier might cause you to agree. Someone might wonder how biblical creationists can insist that the earth is about 6,000 years old when secular geologists are throwing around deep time expressions left and right. Also, mudrocks comprise most of the geological record.

Research was done (presumably by researchers, hence the name). They found that in fast-moving water, particles of mud would stick together and deposit much more rapidly. As we have seen on this site (as well as many other creationary sites), the Genesis Flood had a lot of water moving very quickly. The research supports the Flood account.
Geoscientists used a special kind of instrument called a racetrack flume at Indiana University in Bloomington. A normal flume looks like a very long, narrow glass aquarium. Researchers dump sediments in one end and release water to surge over those sediments. The geoscientists then watch to see how the water deposits the sediments downflow. Normally a flume is very long and straight, but a racetrack flume goes in a circle. So when the water is released, it flows around and around in a large circle and accelerates as it goes. As a result, the water flows much faster than in a long, straight flume.
To read the entire article or download the MP3 version, click on "Mudrocks in Minutes".



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

Friday, May 18, 2018

Evosplaining Diatoms is Bad for Science

Not too long ago, we saw that little things matter. Specifically, a large number of tiny crustaceans like brine shrimp and krill are thought to stir up and help refresh the oceans. Diatoms are very small aquatic algae that can only be seen under a microscope, but our lives depend on them. It was recently discovered that the homes they build for themselves help protect their DNA.

biologists evosplain diatoms and give us non-science
Credit: CSIRO (CC BY 3.0) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Even though the paper had eight biologists, all we received was evosplaining. This included assertions, teleology ("evolutionary cause"), and other non-science. These owlhoots lack candor as well as an understanding of their own worldview.



An actual, demonstrable model or rational explanation of how it evolved? Not hardly! Credit to the Master Engineer for his design skills? That'll be the day! What these owlhoots did was actually add further damage to the credibility of the secular science industry.
Some of the most beautiful, elegant, and vital organisms on earth demand a better explanation than ‘stuff happens over and over.’
Your life depends on tiny glass architectures that were not even visible until the invention of the microscope, except in vast numbers in certain geological formations. These creatures are microscopic algae called diatoms. There are 100,000 species of diatoms, says an open-access paper in Nature Scientific Advances, distinguished by the exquisite glass ‘houses’ they build. The eight authors of this paper now have demonstrated that the glass structures called frustules, that fit together like two sides of a pill box, actually protect the cells’ DNA from damage by ultraviolet light.
To finish reading and learning, click on "Diatoms: A Case Study in Darwinian Explanation".

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

Thursday, May 17, 2018

At Home in your Eye

When I asked Rusty Swingset (the ramrod at the Darwin Ranch) if he wanted his own home, he told me that he had an eye on a place. It turns out that certain tiny critters have their home on your eye — literally. Researchers were surprised by this development because tears have an antibacterial enzyme, and these bacteria are immune to it.


bacteria on your eyes coordinate with your immune system
Credit: Unsplash / Victor Freitas
We have beneficial bacteria in and on various places, and they coordinate with our immune systems to fight the bad guys. There is also a community of good bacteria living on your eye. (And not just us, but the eyes of animals, it seems.) Researchers wonder how this happened, and determined that here, too, bacteria work with the immune system.


Our Creator made bacteria that are not eliminated by the antibacterial enzyme, and are also beneficial. Such a complex, symbiotic relationship defies evolutionary explanations, but just ask Rusty, he'll find something in the excuse mill.
Researchers have discovered unique microbial communities on and in our skin, mouth, gut, and airways. This collection of viruses, bacteria, and fungi is called the microbiome. The human immune system’s amazing regulation of our microbiome demonstrates a high level of design in which the systems of two independent entities work together in a seamless operation. For example, not only do bacteria in the gut modify the human body’s immune response, but researchers found a gene that functions to maintain the balance of immunological elements regulating specific microbes.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "The Designed Interface of the Eye's Microbiome".



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

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Filling in the Blanks

Suppose I came home after my work day was done, and I see that a package is on the table. Oh, good! The creation science videos I ordered arrived. But my wife does not get home from her job until later, so how did the package get on the table? The delivery service either leaves things outside the door or leaves an "undeliverable" note. I see that since it's a warm day, her coat is draped over a chair. My conclusion is that she stopped by for something, brought in the package, and left her coat. Later, I find out that's what happened. Some of this is based on previous experience and knowledge of my wife's methods.


Our minds are designed to make sense of our surroundings and circumstances
Credit: Pixabay / Tumisu
We are designed to have our minds fill in the missing puzzle pieces so we can function. This happens from knowledge and experience, and trying to make sense of our surroundings and circumstances. (Of course, we can mislead ourselves with pareidolia, such as seeing a lady on Mars, but that can involve wishful thinking and disregarding science.) Also, forgetting why you went into a room is not necessarily a "senior moment" or lack of paying attention.
God designed our minds to make quick assumptions about what’s going on around us, without consciously studying it. By “filling in” information ahead of time, based on previous experiences and what we expect, our brains don’t have to constantly process every changing detail in our surroundings. This allows us to respond to important changes speedily and accurately.
To read the rest or download the audio version, click on "The Human Brain—Fill in the Blanks".


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

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Razor Clams Teach Digging Methods

Suzie's sister Sarah was selling seashells by the seashore (Suzie lives in Australia), and I saw some odd clams. Well, they were new to me. I asked what kind they were. "Those are razor clam shells", Sarah said shyly. I saw where they get their name, and when they are sticking up out of the sand, stepping on them could be an unpleasant experience.

Razor clams inspired researchers in biomimetics to learn how the clams were able to dig so efficiently
Credit: NOAA / Northwest Fisheries Science Center (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
People dig clams (see what I did there?) because they're good eatin'. Just have to watch for algal blooms that affect shellfish so you don't get poisoning from okadaic acid or domoic acid. Don't be ignoring the warning signs, old son.


via GIPHY

Anyway, people have to dig clams because clams dig themselves into the wet sand. See how that works? Scientists tried to figure out how they managed to reach certain depths, but were unable to replicate the clam's ability. Further research was in order. The Master Engineer designed the clams, and gave us minds to learn from nature and apply things to our own lives; scientists are using biomimetics to try and duplicate the clam's efficient digging procedure.
Standing firmly upright in the shallows, the sharp shell of the appropriately-named razor clam can be a menace to unwary people wading barefoot or swimming at low tide. But the razor clam has attracted the interest of engineers wondering how it manages to dig itself into the seabed so effectively.

The thing is, engineers thought that it shouldn’t be able to do this. The insertion forces needed to embed jetty pylons and anchoring devices into the sand or mud of the sea floor are huge and costly, because the deeper you go, the harder it gets to penetrate any further.
No, I'm not keeping the rest of this article to myself, I'm not that shellfish. To finish reading, click on "Razor clam — Impossibly good at digging".



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

Monday, May 14, 2018

Geological Theories have their Faults

As theories in uniformitarian geology receive more data and scrutiny, many need serious revision or must be abandoned. In some of the instances below, the changes unintentionally  support the Genesis Flood models of creationists, and some thwart climate change models.

Catskill Mountains near Rondout Reservoir
Catskill Mountains near Rondout Reservoir photo by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Glaciers in what is now the Gobi Desert were determined to have actually shrunk during the Ice Age. Cold air is not the only factor necessary to form glaciers or to have an ice age. In fact, secular geologists are hard pressed to present a plausible model for any ice age, let alone, the several that they assume occurred in Earth's history. The Genesis Flood models provide necessary and sufficient conditions to explain the Ice Age, however.

Geologists assumed that only tsunamis are able to move huge boulders, but eyewitness accounts showed that storms are capable of such action. How about a big storm, like the Genesis Flood? That is the best explanation for the movement of quartzite boulders, and the boulders moved in Ireland in a recent comparatively small storm are an indication.

Traces of extinct lakes are found, but puzzle geologists because lake systems existed in both colder and warmer climates. The Pleistocene was considered a means of working with global climate change, but a recent study is showing that this idea is not so hot.

You can read about these, and one more, in greater detail by clicking on "Geology: A Science Where Theories Undergo Subduction".




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

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Artificial Intelligence and Evolving Morality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People have had a fear of machines for a long time, especially since the Industrial Revolution. The term Luddite has been applied to people who loathe technology, but the original protesters were okey-dokey with machinery per se, and instead protested unfair labor practices by destroying certain contraptions. In simpler terms, laborers have had a fear of being replaced by machines for many years.


There is an effort to program artificial intelligence to determine and arbitrate societal standards
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Suspicion of machines naturally extended to robots. While science fiction media often portray robots with humanoid appearances (let's face it, many people don't cotton to dealing with a metal "person"), it depends on the application; robots used for police bomb disposal generally do not look all that human.

Some robots can be considered mobile computers if they are sophisticated enough. The history of science fiction is replete with tales of computers having artificial intelligence, and even becoming self-aware. I disremember when and the title, but I read a story about a space ship that had a computer integrated into all aspects (no, not the HAL 9000 or the ship's computer on various series of Star Trek, it predated those, I think). The computer/spaceship decided that it was God, instantly teleported them to the destination, and declared that the crew could "worShip me". In David Gerrold's When HARLIE was One, the computer became increasing self-aware, and proposed an extension called the Graphic Omnicient Device to "free mankind from making erroneous decisions about anything".

Artificial intelligence is based on the programming a computer receives. This programming comes from humans (so far). The Terminator stories are driven by Skynet, which has modified its own programming to eliminate humanity so it could achieve its purpose.

Computers like HARLIE, HAL, and Skynet are not yet possible, but where would they get their ideas? Should be obvious. Although much of science fiction is for entertainment purposes, authors also write cautionary tales — based on their own worldviews, of course.



Since many people have erroneous faith in atheistic scientism and what "scientists say", we may very well be accepting of AI morality programming based on atheistic materialism and evolutionary foundations. There will be no room for God the Creator and biblical morality in this worldview, and a push for AI to establish the standard for morality has alarming implications. God is the source of true morality, not evolution, and information must come from a mind.

I've had atheists tell me that I (and other biblical creationists) deserve all the ridicule we get. Why? Because atheism. Their "morality" is irrational and arbitrary, and since they detest our worldview, it is morally acceptable in their minds to ridicule and even persecute us. Imagine them programming artificial intelligence to determine societal standards!

Let's keep the advanced programming out of police and military bomb-disposal robots, shall we? The robot could very well be destroyed by a bomb. For that matter, there was a case of a robot used to use a bomb and kill a sniper suspect. In either circumstance, it would be mighty difficult if the robot signaled, "I'm afraid I can't do that". Questions of ethics and morality remain with the operators. For now.

Ironically, those who have a materialistic worldview are attempting to create consciousness. Only God can do that, old son. Even so, the questions raised can make for a passel of thinking and discussion. Who is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, what is the standard, according to what worldview? Is this version of morality completely and correctly implemented? What about conflicts in programming and concepts? I lack belief that fallen humans are capable of implementing all the important factors.

This article was inspired by an episode of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler. (An earlier Briefing report inspired a recent article, "Children, Evolution, and Robots".) Now I would like to direct you to two segments. The first one is "Why Artificial Intelligence is incapable of driving us toward a better system of morality", and the second, "Conscious machines, cruelty, and conventional morality: Confronting the ethics of HBO’s ‘Westworld’". I find them rather startling. You can listen online, download the MP3, or read the transcript at the Wednesday, May 2, 2018, episode of The Briefing.

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

Friday, May 11, 2018

The Origin of Life is a Faith Question

In a previous installment, we looked at how astronomers working on the first light of the so-called cosmic dawn. They used a number of assumptions as well as observational evidence to plug into their model; cosmology itself is not real science. Likewise, when folks commence to saddling up and riding the trail of the origin of life question, there are many presuppositions that are not actually scientific.


We can apply scientific ideas, but ultimately, the question of OoL is faith-based
Credit: Pixabay / Roy Buri
Just as no human was there to see the origin of the universe and take notes, no human observed the origin of life — both are historical events. We can attempt to put scientific methods to the process, but we want to know the origin of life, the possibilities are very limited. Indeed, abiogenesis has many insurmountable problems.There are only a few possibilities to consider involving the origin of life.. Secularists use materialistic presuppositions that are based on faith and apply evolutionary ideas. Likewise, biblical creationists presuppose the existence of the Creator who told us what went on in his written Word.
The Origin of Life: What Are the Possibilities?
The origin of life has been debated for a long time. Basically, there are four possible explanations for the existence of life on earth:
  1. Life on earth arose spontaneously.
  2. Life on earth has always existed.
  3. Life on earth came about through a supernatural act of creation by an intelligent Being.
  4. Life was seeded from space.
The Application of Science to the Question
Science is supposed to be about things that are observable. That is, science can probe only things that we can detect with our five senses. Science also must be repeatable. This means that when an experiment or observation is repeated, we get the same results. These restrictions on science have led to what we call the scientific method, the general rules that we follow in doing science. The scientific investigation of the origin of life presents us with at least two problems. First, since life began before people were around, we hardly can observe the process. Second, since the origin of life appears to have been a unique event, we hardly can repeat it.
To finish reading, click on "Is the Origin of Life a Scientific Question?





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

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Elephant Genome Study Supports Creation Science

While biblical creationists recognize the established (and not so established) categories such as species, genera, family, and so forth, they also study biblical kinds. Secularists get on the prod about this, preferring their own classification system as "right", but the definition of species is in dispute. Part of the problem there is speciation, hybridization, and interbreeding. Also, the biblical kind is a larger classification than species, more closely fitting with the family level.

Elephant genome study further hurts Darwinism, supports creation science
Credit: RGBstock / Sias van Schalkwyk
A very extensive genome study was conducted among living elephants, and since remains of American mastodon were more than happy to provide samples, those were included as well. The results were startling in several ways. For one thing, Darwin's "tree of life" should have been chopped down and composted long ago, and the study results support that notion. Hybridization and breeding between these big critters was found as well, challenging speciation concepts. Meanwhile, biblical creationists who study baraminology (biblical kinds) see that this supports creation science. Elephants are not the only cause for concern among Darwin's faithful, either. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
A new study of elephants, mammoths and mastodons show they were all interfertile or capable of hybridization.

Our present world is impoverished of elephants, or “elephantids” as scientists dub the family. Mammoths and mastodons roamed throughout America and Asia, evidenced by the massive fossil beds, where millions of mammoth bones can be found in permafrost. Some in the frozen tundra from Alaska to Siberia still retain soft tissue, organs and hair. These days, the two remaining species of elephants are primarily restricted to Africa and India.

How different are the extant types of elephants from the extinct types, such as mammoths and mastodons? With genomics, scientists can begin to answer the question.
To read the rest, click on "Elephants and Mammoths Were All One Kind". You can also listen to the song sung by John Elefante of Mastedon. If he sounds familiar, maybe it was from when he was a lead singer for the group Kansas.




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

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Convergent Traits Best Explained by Engineered Adaptability

We have been examining a number of posts on the subject of engineered adaptability, which is a concept for setting up a framework of design. Instead of accepting the erroneous but persistent view of Darwin and his followers that changes are based on external influences, engineered adaptability is about how organisms adapt from the inside. That is, the Master Engineer built the ability to adapt into organisms. Darwin need not apply.


Similarity of traits in organisms is often evosplained with the rescuing device of "convergent evolution"
Vieja cichlid image credit: Unsplash / The Cofish Store
The hands at the Darwin Ranch (take Folly Road up yonder to Deception Pass, but the Winkie Guards are likely to turn you back) are being more unscientific than usual of late. They are appealing to various forms of mysticism en lieu de observational and testable science. One of these is the secular miracle of convergent evolution, which is a rescuing device that has no actual substance.



Many critters have similar traits that evolutionists cannot successfully evosplain, so they appeal to convergence. Meanwhile the Institute for Creation Research is doing what the last word in their name indicates. In this case, they are developing a continuous environmental tracking model that "explain independent, rapid, and repeatable expression of similar traits".
Diverse creatures have repeatedly been observed rapidly and independently converging on the same traits needed to solve similar environmental challenges. How extensive is this phenomenon? Harvard biologist Jonathan Losos said in 2017, “In recent years, scientists have identified convergence in almost any type of trait you might imagine.” Such widespread repeatable—indeed, predictable—expression of similar traits should make researchers question whether this outcome is due to chance.
To read the rest (and learn about the CET model), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Designed Mechanisms Best Explain Convergent Traits".





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

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Light from "First Stars" Supposedly Detected

Some secular astronomers are excited about light from the "first stars" in the universe that they supposedly detected. The research took several years, and they put a great deal of work into it. This was based on the presumption that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, and this light was to have been emitted at the "cosmic dawn" several hundred years after the event. It is indeed unfortunate, since secularists know that their cosmology is useless.


Some secular astronomers put a great deal of time, money, and effort into trying to detect the supposed "first light" after the Big Bang
"Old" stars, Hubble image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The astronomers took many precautions, and wanted to make sure they were not getting readings from Earth or from the galaxy. Unfortunately, the results had a "dip" that was different than predicted, the results include the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and several unwarranted assumptions were made. Good science does not involve making pronouncements that require further evidence like they did in this case — models are dependent on the information provided. Once again, we see a great deal of time, money, and fallacious science used to deny the Creator.
“Astronomers detect light from the Universe’s first stars” is the headline of a Nature news article, which appeared 28 February 2018. It relates to observations made by a team of astronomers led by Judd Bowman of Arizona State University in Tempe. The team published their results in Nature the same week. According to Bowman,
This is the first time we’ve seen any signal from this early in the Universe, aside from the afterglow of the Big Bang.
They used a small radio-telescope situated in the Western Australian desert, far away from human settlement to minimize interference from radio signals generated by human technology.
To read the rest, click on "Has light from the first stars after the big bang been detected?"




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

Monday, May 7, 2018

"Genesis: Paradise Lost" Video Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The idea of making Genesis: Paradise Lost dates back ten years. It began in 2007 when Eric Hovind of Creation Today had a discussion with Ralph Strean, who would later become the director and a producer. They wanted to reach younger people with the truth of the gospel and its foundation in creation. After years of writing, CGI work, filming, and fund raisers, the project was completed and released in cinemas for one-night showings on November 13, 16, and December 11, 2017. Now it is available for the rest of us. This is the first part of a proposed trilogy, and is focused on the opening chapter of Genesis.


The movie Genesis: Paradise Lost i takes a unique approach to presenting the truth of Genesis
Image courtesy of Creation Today
"Did you say fundraisers, Cowboy Bob?"

Yes, yes I did. After all, they don't have a $200-400 million USD budget like secular film studios have.The internet and its surly kid brother (social media) are conducive to many activities, including this kind. Several sites are established for these purposes. (For that matter, Dr. G. Charles Jackson, who is a speaker in this movie, has one going for a project called Quantum, which is a biblical creation science alternative to evolutionary propaganda.) Crowdfunding for all sorts of things is becoming increasingly popular.

The final title of Genesis: Paradise Lost was decided late in the process. If you've noticed, the web site is Genesis Movie, which I believe was the original title, and then it was going to be called Genesis 3D to emphasize the graphics. However, most people would not be able to see it in 3D outside of select cinemas. People can still watch it in that format if they have a Blu-ray 3D player, get the Blu-ray 3D disc, and have a current-model television. I watched it a standard format.

Making the movie in 3D was a major part of getting people interested in watching it. After all, CGI is dominant in the film industry nowadays because that's what people want. The production crew went to great lengths in making scenes of the creation and the early earth visually appealing. They also wanted to stay true to the Bible. Since there are not many details given in the Bible, some artistic license was necessary, but constrained by not violating scriptural principles.

Genesis: Paradise Lost is not just a special effects fest. Not hardly! There are several reasons that this movie takes a unique approach to presenting the truth of Genesis. We begin viewing a map of sorts, and Voddie Baucham begins his narration. (Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, and others are good, but I wouldn't trade Voddie for either.) The view zooms in on Eden while we hear Pastor Baucham saying, "...until we go back to the beginning". At this point, we're seeing the CGI early earth and some brief credits.

Then, we are in Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum to listen to some of the dozen or so speakers, including scientists, educators, theologians, and so on. This happens very quickly, in a sentence or two (sometimes they cut to another speaker who continues the same thought). Then we are returned to the graphics and narration.

It is interesting that a newer approach was taken in speaking parts: not looking at the camera. Different angles are used, but I didn't notice anyone talking to the camera. I have seen this used with increasing frequency, though not as extensively as it was here. I thought this approach added something to the film.

Each narration and CGI segment covers a section of Genesis 1, then we are returned to the discussions. While there is science and theology, we are not overwhelmed with technical lingo. We are given the creationary interpretation of scientific evidence, and shown how Darwinian interpretations do not withstand scrutiny. 

Yes, we hear about dinosaurs, and get some excellent graphics involving them. Atheists and other evolutionists object to this concept, unwilling to set aside their materialistic presuppositions and tolerate creationists making presentations from the biblical perspective. The Bible describes dinosaurs, and they were made on Day Six. Some of us are not going to compromise the plain reading of Scripture in favor of atheistic interpretations of science.

Biblical kinds and natural selection are discussed, and how there is no observable science for Darwinian evolution. Natural selection is a limiting factor for what is already in existence, not a cause for vertical change into something else. After all, God did not say, "Go ye and change into something else", but instead, see Genesis 1:24-25.

Our alleged evolutionary ancestors such as Lucy the extinct ape are discussed in a bit more detail. As regular readers of this site have seen, Neanderthals are demonstrated to be fully human. When examined, the human evolution timeline and evidence is absurd even on the surface. I thought Dr. G. Charles Jackson had an excellent remark about the lack of speaking ability of monkeys: "They have the hardware, they just don't have the software drivers to actually talk".

When we reach the segment on the creation of man, I found the graphics startling. (Elsewhere, the CGI of birds in flight seemed a bit odd to me.) Getting on to the other animals and Earth before sin, the graphics were very impressive again.

The last few minutes of Genesis: Paradise Lost tells us why it all matters. Genesis tells us about creation, sin, and the promise of the Redeemer. The Fall was a real event with real people, and it affected us all. The gospel message is clearly presented. I'll offer a speculation: mockers will not see this film or others like it because they hate the gospel, and their worldview is threatened by the truth. They are likely to go haywire, calling us all "liars" and seeking succor from evolutionary excuse mills. I'll allow that a few may be intellectually honest enough to consider the content, however.

Although I did not mention all of the subjects that were discussed, such as paleontology, geology, radiometric dating, and others, I do recommend this movie. (My omissions were not from dissatisfaction, but in the interests of time, because this article is getting a mite long.)

There are several ways to order or view it. As I mentioned, there's the 3D option that requires specific equipment. Not everyone is into that — some people cannot watch 3D for any length of time. (I took the 2D option and still had a good viewing experience.) You can also get it on 2D DVD and Blu-Ray. I took another option that was just introduced: I bought my copy at Christian Cinema (you can also rent it from them). I hope you'll get a copy, which can be obtained from the movie site, Creation Today, Answers in Genesis, and probably others. Also, the site has several resources available, including a free discussion guide. Watching the video with that on hand should get you thinking, old son.

Someone may be watching and shout, 'Prove it!" after every claim that a creationary scientist or theologian makes, but Genesis: Paradise Lost was not made to prove every point. Yes, evidence was presented, but not footnotes. For honest seekers of the truth, there are several creation science ministries to seek out that will provide scientific and theological evidence. The science is on our side, and in evolution is unfounded.





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

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Spider Webs and Biomimetics

Do you like the feeling of taking a stroll and being surprised by a spider web in your face or on your arms? Me neither. Be glad that the strands are so small, because if they were about the diameter of a garden hose, they would not only stop you and the horse you rode in on, but some commercial jets as well!


Spider silk is proportionally one of the strongest things in the world
Credit: Unsplash / RĂºben Marques
On television shows and movies, you may have seen someone get shot but the vest stops the bullet. When realism is intact, the recipient is often knocked down and injured. Again in proportion, if spider web strands were larger and could be used in this way, they would be stronger than man-made fibers for bullet-stopping power.


via GIPHY

Scientists have been puzzled by spider webs, including how they get stronger after being stressed, and that these clever arachnids have different kinds of webbing for different purposes. The study of creatures and such in nature for use in human applications is called biomimetics or biomimicry. Our Creator has given us many things to consider, but naturalists wrongly give Darwin the credit for the things we try to imitate. Spiders have given scientists a great deal to think about, and they still have a long way to go.
Spider silk owes its amazing strength and elasticity to its ‘complexity that makes synthetic fibres seem crude.’ Man-made fibres are usually just simple strands of material, but a silk fibre has a core surrounded by concentric layers of nanofibrils (tiny threads). Some layers contain nanofibrils aligned parallel to the axis, while other layers contain nanofibrils coiling like a spiral staircase. The coiled ones allow the silk to be stretched, because they simply straighten up rather than break.

The nanofibrils themselves are very complicated, containing tiny protein crystals in an amorphous (shapeless) matrix of tangled protein chains. These nanocrystals contain electrical charges that stop the chains from slipping, so providing strength, while the amorphous material is rubbery and allows the fibre to stretch.

To read the entire article, click on "God’s webspinners give chemists free lessons".



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

Friday, May 4, 2018

Denisovans Further Thwart Human Evolution


Those mysterious Denisovans did not leave us much to examine,  not so much as a weblog post. With advances in science and technology, however, their DNA has been examined. The DNA of other people groups has been examined, and Denisovan material has been found in Tibet, Papua New Guinea, and other places. Quite the travelers! Like their cousins the Neanderthals, Denisovans were fully human.


via GIPHY

Denisovans throw a monkey wrench into human evolution speculations because of not only their travels, but because the secular timeline has significant overlap. Try as they might, Darwin's faithful cannot evosplain away the facts that affirm recent creation and refute long-ages and evolution.
Denisovans are ancient humans represented by various teeth and a finger bone found in a Siberian cave. Their claim to fame is largely based on the DNA extracted from these few fragments of human remains. According to evolutionists, they are more closely related to Neanderthals than modern humans. But their DNA is essentially human, and people all over the world today carry many of the same gene variants found in Denisovans.
To read the rest, click on "Denisovan DNA Shown to Be Human...Again".
 

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

Thursday, May 3, 2018

Little Things Producing Big Changes in the World

Small things by themselves may be unnoticeable, but the aggregation can be important. If one honeybee died, it is not likely that anyone would notice. However, if they all died, the world would notice. I'll allow that the analogy is flawed, but I reckon you get my point.


A study indicates that krill and brine shrimp stir up the oceans and spread nutrients
Antarctic krill image credit: NOAA NMFS SWFSC Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) Program
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Just last week, I was talking with Rusty Swingset, the foreman of the Darwin Ranch. (They rode into town for supplies, and I happened to be there.) He was saying that little things like brine shrimp and krill do not have much biological turbulence to affect ocean life. He admitted that the oceans need mixing so that living things could get nutrients and such. Then he had to go back to Deception Pass and I was left to do some woolgathering.

Just after this, I learned that research indicates that those brine shrimp and krill (possibly others as well) are probably doing quite a bit at stirring the oceans. Of course, the author of an article gave misguided credit to Darwin (blessed be!) by referring to the effects of earthworms. Non-Sequitur City, as his reference had nothing to do with the issue of oceans.

In a similar bit of research, it was learned that microbes and such are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Has anyone notified the global climate change alarmists like Bill Nye the Pseudosciences Guy? (If so, let him know about the study that reveals, "It's not as bad as we thought". Just like climate changes skeptics have been saying for years.) Nye probably has enough sense to not set himself on fire in protest like this guy in New York.

It occurred to me that since the rate of oxidation from these microbes increases erosion, it may have a negative effect for proponents of deep time. Let's see what happens.

The Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© invariably gives the explanation that "it evolved that way", whatever "it" is. Instead of that non-science, how about starting in the opposite direction? The Master Engineer put things where they are for a purpose. The little things are adding up to benefit our lives on Earth.
If minerals, gases and nutrients had to mix by diffusion, the process would be very slow. Wind and currents could help somewhat. Now, Houghton et al., publishing in Nature, have added a lively solution that is potentially big and reliable: tiny planktonic crustaceans provide a world-wide benefit by mixing the waters for the creatures of the sea. They swim down at night tens of meters, then come back up in the daytime. This diurnal activity could have a profound influence on the ocean environment, causing ocean mixing three times more powerful than diffusion alone.
. . .
A new paper in Science Magazine by Hemingway et al., though, says that microbes “eat rocks” and release a lot of that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
To read the entire article, click on "Tiny Life Benefits the Whole World".



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

Labels