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

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Geologic Boundary and Evolution Dispute

The hands at the Darwin Ranch tell stories in the bunkhouse, especially about what they call mass extinctions. Their favorite is the story about how a huge rock fell out of the sky, making the Chicxulub crater and making the dinosaurs and a passel of other critters go extinct some 65 million Darwin years ago. Except for the dinosaurs that managed to evolve into birds, and for some other lucky beasts (yes, evolutionists believe in luck) that went on about their business. I reckon mass extinctions are choosy about who gets to be made extinct, huh?

Genetics and geology disagreements over what evolved when at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.
Asteroid And Earth image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Idea go
According to secular geologists and their compromising Churchian allies, there is a boundary between these alleged geological periods, the Cretaceous and the Paleogene. Tempers flare and quarreling occurs in the bunkhouse after guzzling pulque, since not all evolutionists believe that birds evolved into dinosaurs. More importantly, there is disagreement between genetic results and geology for what evolved when. I've got news for you, pilgrims, nothing evolved in the goo-to-geologist fashion, because life was created. Recently, too. That's why biblical creation science Genesis Flood models fit the observed data far better than the contrivances of secularists.
Evolution’s speculative story is filled with fanciful tales explaining natural phenomena that are actually best explained by the Bible’s narrative of history. Huge graveyards of fossilized plants and animals are found the world over in water-deposited sandstone, limestone, and shale rocks. Clearly, this is evidence of the global catastrophic deluge recorded in Genesis. To counter this, evolutionists concoct stories based on multiple extinction events to explain changes in the fossils found in strata.
To read the rest, click on "Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary Shenanigans".
Question Evolution Day

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

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Oldest Fossil Microbes?

Remember the big deal in 1996 when it was announced that life was discovered on Mars? Sure you do. It was microbes. Remember how scientists later decided that it was not life after all? Sure you do. No, wait. Bad news for Darwin seldom gets a mention from the secular lapdog media. Well, it seems like people would learn from their mistakes. That'll be the day! They're saddling up and riding for the Darwin brand again.

Supposedly fossilized microbes were dated at 3.465 million years, but many problems exist
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
A scientist announced finding fossilized microbes that were dated at 3.465 million years. Kind of precise, don't you think? I'm suspicious. This same scientist resorted to "stasis" as an explanation for allegedly ancient microbes that showed no signs of evolving.


via GIPHY

Here, he has to demonstrate that the only explanation for what was found was that it is life, and not something else in nature mimicking live. You savvy? Only the life explanation is allowed. Even if he was right, that he had actual fossils, they were microbes, and very old, then he runs into other very serious problems based on evolutionary dogma. Of course, evolutionists can change their stories when facts intrude and narratives conflict. Biblical creationists cannot change the truth. We don't have to, because the truth of creation and a young earth is on our side from the get-go.
Are these fossils 3.465 billion years old? Are they even fossils? Serious questions need to be asked when the news gets excited about world records for oldest life on Earth.
Dr William Schopf has made a career out of looking for the oldest microfossils on Earth. We saw him making other evolutionists worry about extreme stasis that must have been true for some of his fossils, given the dates (6/30/15). Earlier that year, he mumbled and fumbled about the need to explain the lack of evolution in his fossils. He decided that if organisms stay the same, evolution is true, or if they evolve quickly, then evolution is true—a retreat into the Stuff Happens Law. Last year, he reported remains of proteins from Precambrian rocks in the Gunflint Chert in Canada. Now, he is reporting the world’s oldest microfossils at 3.465 billion years old from the Apex Chert in Australia (Science Daily). Apparently Darwin Years, constructed as they are out of silly putty, can be specified to four significant figures.
To read the rest, click on "Evaluating Claims of Oldest Fossil Microbes".

Question Evolution Day

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

Monday, January 15, 2018

Dinosaur Proteins and More Rescuing Devices

The hands at the Darwin Ranch (over yonder by Deception Pass) are busy cranking the Rescuing Devices Generator™, as we saw in "Biochemicals and Evolutionary Rescuing Devices". This time, we are going to be a bit more specific and focus on excuses made by evolutionist owlhoots regarding dinosaur proteins and soft tissues.


Advocates of deep time find dinosaur soft tissues abhorrent and try in vain to make excuses for them
Credit: Pixabay / TechPhotoGal
Evolutionists and deep time advocates fight tooth and nail to find ways out of the inconvenient truths that dinosaur soft tissues represent. Namely, that the earth is not zillions of years old, that dinosaurs could not have been extinct for 65 million years or so because proteins and tissues cannot exist that long, and the best explanation for what is found is the global Genesis Flood. No wonder they get on the prod! 

Professing Christian Dr. Fazale Rana has a deep time ax to grind because his arch compromiser employer Hugh Ross runs the weird "progressive creation" organisation called Reasons to Believe. They disbelieve that Genesis means what it says, preferring a mix of Scripture and atheistic interpretations of science. Like other evolutionists who try to dance around the fragments and tissues issue, Rana makes assertions without significant experimental support. He also uses irrelevant and outdated material in his attempt to reject recent creation. 
Fragments of various animal proteins have been found in several different dinosaur fossils. Results of experimental decay studies clearly indicate that even small fragments of these proteins will not survive for millions of years. Critical challenges to this experimental evidence fail to adequately address known protein biochemistry. Instead, the persistence of these proteins continues to present a significant conflict with the assigned ages of dinosaur fossils.
To read the rest, click on "Are Dinosaur Proteins Virtually Immortal?" Also, for some additional material, a series of lengthy articles (still in progress) answering Rana can be found beginning with "Dinosaur Blood and the Real Age of the Earth". 


Question Evolution Day

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

Saturday, January 13, 2018

The Panda's Thumb and More Materialistic Theological Arguments

Recently, I linked to a post about how materialists use theological arguments, as seen here. Essentially, they claim that since they think God would not create something in a certain way, he did not do the creating, therefore, evolution. A few days later, I came across the article featured below and learned an expensive word for that approach: dysteleological. I wrote about teleology a spell back, (short form: teleology is design in nature for specific purposes) about how some owlhoots are denying their own purposeless evolutionary beliefs and giving their false god the ability to do design work. So, you can see the first part, dys, as in dystopia, dysfunctional, dyslexic, and so on, then put it all together.


The panda's "thumb" is used to uphold evolution and reject the Creator, but this is dreadful reasoning
Credit and link to full-sized picture: RGBStock / Adrian van Leen
Proponents of atoms-to-animals evolution have used the dysteleological argument about the panda's "thumb". Yes, it has an appendage on the wrist that has a superficial resemblance to a thumb. Referring to it as a thumb, however, is misleading. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that the "thumb" is an example of bad design, so therefore (again), evolution. Not hardly! This is essentially circular reasoning and other fallacies based on arbitrary assertions. (Not surprisingly, an anti-creationist website is named after the panda's alleged thumb. I reckon that folks who use bad reasoning have to stick together.) A panda does not need a human-like thumb, and what it was created to have, works just fine, thanks.
The panda’s ‘odd’ forelimb arrangement has an enlarged wristbone ‘digit’ commonly called the panda’s ‘thumb’. Evolutionists have argued that this arrangement is bad design, and so the panda would not have been created but must have evolved. However, their argument is based on five premises, four of which are shown to be false. One false premise is sufficient to destroy an argument. The evidence of design and therefore for a designer is incontrovertible, so the evolutionist is ‘without excuse’.
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article (which was written while Gould was still alive), click on the long title, "The panda thumbs its nose at the dysteleological arguments of the atheist Stephen Jay Gould". Two short videos are below. One is where ridiculous homage is given to Papa Darwin (blessed be!) and using a dysteleological argument, all opinion and speculation, no science. Note the argument from incomplete information and omission of pertinent facts. The second video is a warning not to get careless around a cute wild animal.




Question Evolution Day

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

Friday, January 12, 2018

Epigenetics and Engineered Adaptation

Sometimes, it gets rather difficult posting about genetics — especially epigenetics. Once again, the more we learn, the more we realize that there is still much more to learn. Like genetics, the study of epigenetics has been friendly to biblical creationists and hostile to Darwinists.

Chaffinch image credit: Freeimages / Jack Kemp
Evolutionists refer to variations as "evolution" as they are wont to do, which is an effort at equivocation. That is, it's a bait 'n' switch to make people accept goo-to-gibbon evolution by inaccurately calling small changes "evolution", but they are nothing of the kind. 

We are told that evolution takes a very long time to occur, so scientists are surprised at "rapid evolution", which is another example of equivocation. In fact, no evolution happened. (Of course, there is the mostly ignored punctuated equilibrium concept of Eldridge and Gould, related to the hopeful monsters idea of Goldschmidt, where nothing happened for a long time, then bam! Something different popped into existence. Evidence, please?) 

Epigenetics switches kick in when environmental changes are detected and an organism's offspring is better equipped to adapt. Speciation has a component in epigenetics as well. This internal mechanism is in direct opposition to Darwin's view of externalism, and is strong evidence of the Master Engineer's handiwork.
The engineered elegance of flexible designs is that they allow a part to change form without breaking as it absorbs a stress and then returns to its standard shape when the stress passes. Biologically, our genes code for certain traits, and when a gene changes, a lasting alteration to the trait happens. That’s called a genetic change. But, epigenetic mechanisms enable the trait expressed by a gene to be flexibly and adaptively altered without permanently changing the gene. So, when the stress is gone, the original trait of the gene usually returns. Design analysis gives insight into how the intrinsic flexibility of epigenetics integrates into an organism’s overall adaptability.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Epigenetics—Engineered Phenotypic 'Flexing'".
Question Evolution Day

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

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Secularists Forced to Admit Saturn's Rings are Young

Deep time proponents have a terrible time dealing with facts that do not fit their fundamentally flawed worldview, especially when it comes to celestial objects. One problem is the presence of oxygen in a comet's atmosphere, but never mind about that now. (Some may think that the interstellar asteroid ╩╗Oumuamua is devastating to biblical creation science, but it is actually rather unimpressive.) Secularists circle the wagons of excuses to protect their views, but they only end up looking foolish when denying the evidence in front of them.


Secular scientists have to admit rings of Saturn are young
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Many objects in our own solar system don't "act their age" according to secular views, and even contradict prevailing views of the solar system's cosmic evolution. The battle raged for years over Saturn's rings. Evidence would indicate that they cannot be ancient, so atheistic magic would be used to conjure up rescuing devices. That cycle would be repeated. Now, they have to admit that the rings are young. If they faced the fact that the universe was created recently, they would not have to go through all that hokum. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
There’s no stretching the truth any more. Cassini data have led all the ringmasters to the conclusion that the rings of Saturn are not billions of years old.
For over 15 years, Creation-Evolution Headlines has reported the tug-of-war between planetary scientists on the age of Saturn’s rings. Indications that the rings are much younger than Saturn’s assumed age (4.5 billion years) go back to the Voyager missions. Several lines of evidence pointed to youth, but planetary scientists tugged back at the evidence, inventing ways to keep the rings billions of years old. Now, they have given up. Reality won the match: the rings are young!
To read the rest, click on "It’s Official: Saturn’s Rings Are Young". For a related article, see "Secular Scientists Dumbfounded by Saturn's Young Rings".




Question Evolution Day

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

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Fantastic Flying Feathered Friends

For millennia, humans have wondered how birds can fly, and if we can do the same thing. Maybe glue some feathers onto a couple of planks, attach them to your arms, and flap like a maniac. Simple, right? Nope. It was not until fairly recently that scientists learned (with the help of sophisticated photography) that birds do not simply flap their wings up and down. Instead, there is some complicated activity going on. The study of flight has also contributed to biomimetics.

Birds like the swift were designed to fly, they did not evolve
Maybe it is called a swift because it is.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dr. Raju Kasambe (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Some tinhorns assume that since some scientists think that dinosaurs evolved into birds, all scientists think the same way. That'll be the day! Perhaps those who reject the idea of dinosaur-to-bird evolution realize that there are many intricate features that need to be in place, and that the propaganda of that notion leaves out inconvenient facts. Something else occurred to me: which kind of bird? Our flying chirpie friends have different needs, and therefore were given different designs by the Master Engineer. 

A basic examination of flight biology shows specified, irreducible complexity that should cause any thinking person to reject evolution in a hurry. But they cling to Darwin despite the truth, not because of it.
After thousands of years of dreaming and failed attempts, people finally figured out how to stay airborne just over a century ago. Airplanes now fill the skies across the globe, but not with the grace of birds. Fixed-wing jumbo jets must lumber down two-mile-long runways for takeoff, while others circle in the air waiting their turn to ease down for a landing. (Woe to the traveler who’s stuck in the air when snow shuts that runway down!) Meanwhile, thousands of air traffic controllers must keep constant watch to prevent crashes. At the same time, a bevy of support crews bustle about to keep the planes clean, fueled, repaired, and upgraded.

This technology is amazing, but how far we are from flying like birds! Take another look at the birds outside: a hawk soaring effortlessly far overhead, turning with a flick of its wing; or a flock of roosting sparrows that takes flight in unison; or a joyous songbird flitting through thick trees without a care in the world about damaging its wings.
To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "The Miracle of Flight".


Question Evolution Day

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

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

The Scientific Fact of Phlogiston

Imagine some cowboys at the campfire on the trail:

"I see you got that fire built up pretty high. Ain't that a tad much for heatin' up beans?"

"Normally, yep. But I'm making coffee, it's gonna be a long night".

"Well, hope that firewood's loaded up with phlogiston."

"What's phlogiston?"

"The stuff that makes things burn. If it don't have no phlogiston, it won't burn. Johann Becher explained combustion back in 1667. You really should do some science reading now and then."

Too bad the dude doing the explaining didn't read further, or something more up to date. While phlogiston was the dominant scientific theory for a spell, Lavosier became skeptical and determined that it was oxygen, not phlogiston (the dark matter of the 16th century?) that caused burning.

The concensus science view was that burning involved phlogiston
RGBStock / Krzysztof Szkurlatowski
Unlike Darwinism, phlogiston theory had some explanatory merit. Like Darwinism, the idea of phlogiston became the consensus view and did not exit the stage gracefully; adherents resisted contrary evidence. Eventually, it became a footnote in history. The big difference between the concepts of phlogiston and fish-to-firefighter evolution is that evolution is upheld because of spiritual motivations (an excuse to deny the Creator), and phlogiston apparently had no basis in spiritual rebellion.
During the 18th century, scientists understood fire and combustion to be the result of a mysterious substance called phlogiston. Although this theory had great explanatory power and was widely accepted among scientists for approximately 100 years, it nevertheless fell eventually (and its fall, once it occurred, happened very quickly). Phlogiston teaches us that just because a theory is widely accepted among scientists, is believed to explain all the evidence, and reigns supreme for a long time, does not mean that it is true. Indeed, phlogiston was in many ways a stronger theory than is evolution today; however, since evolution allows mankind to shake his fist at his Creator, it is not subjected to the same standard of proof as other, more empirical theories such as phlogiston.
To read the rest of this hot subject, click on "Fire in the air". For curiosity's sake, you may want to see my own article from 2010, "A Faulty Scientific Theory".


Question Evolution Day

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

Monday, January 8, 2018

Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales

One of the strangest Just-So Stories told by Darwin's true believers is that of whale evolution. It was bad enough telling us that rain washed minerals from primordial rocks, life originated, then evolved in the sea, moved to land, and here we are. It becomes more absurd when some critter took the notion that life on land isn't such fun after all and went back to evolving for sea life. That is where whales and their relatives came from. Not hardly! You get tales of whale evolution, but they have no actual scientific or logical basis.


Secularists cannot provide a plausible scientific model for whale evolution
Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry
I'll allow that I oversimplified the evolution story, but we've got things to do, and you get their version of it easily enough. For example, you can go to the museum of Darwinist indoctrination — I mean, natural history — and see the exhibits. Of course, they won't tell you about fraudulent exhibits (see "Faking the Fossil Whales"), nor the duplicity of atheopaths in protecting evolutionism from scrutiny and their admirers (see "Faking the Fossil Whales — Revisited"). The airbrushed version of whale evolution leaves out a prairie schooner full of very important considerations, which if included, might cause people to question evolution and realize that life was created by the Master Engineer. Secularists can't allow that, no siree!


 
via GIPHY

I have a couple of items by Brett Miller for your consideration. First:
How would you identify a whale as a whale? Evolutionists think that a small land dwelling creature called pakicetus was a whale. The question is, what is it about the pakicetus that makes them call it a whale? If you saw a pakicetus in a line up with a blue whale, a humpback whale and a dolphin you’d laugh at how simple it was to dismiss it from the group. But Evolutionists insist that it’s a whale.
To read the rest (be sure to come back for the next item), click on "Walking the Whale".

Second, and even more startling:
While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science.
No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could be attributed to genetic malfunction rather than genetic innovation. For instance: hind legs and pelvis withering away or the esophagus and trachea failing to join together in the embryo stage, or in skull development, or fin development being a mutated outgrowth of blood vessels. The critical timing of these changes to make them work together was not addressed. Most evolutionists must therefore believe by faith, that through fortunate mutations, they arose when they were needed. But whales are not malfunctioning land mammals. How could the biological process of mutation account for the innovative features in whales?
I hope you take the time to read the rest of this thought-provoking article. Just click on "Whales Evolved Not". 



 

>

Question Evolution Day

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

Saturday, January 6, 2018

The Resolution Evolution Failure

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

So, how are those New Year's resolutions working out for you? Early in the year, many people have already failed on some. I disremember where I read it, but one piece of advice was to avoid giving yourself a thorough remake, and just pick a few. Add more later if you have a mind to. Even so, the question remains: why do resolutions fail?


Monkey encampment, maybe they are discussing the failure of New Year's resolutions?
A Monkey Encampment, David Teniers the Younger, 1633
Dr. Albert Mohler brought this to our attention on The Briefing, so I got the bit between my teeth and ran with it. Seems that you can blame it on vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution. We can't stick to resolutions or be decisive because we've evolved that way so we can act quickly for survival. Sounds a bit Lamarckian to me. (He's the guy that said giraffes evolved long necks to reach leaves in trees for food.) It also seems live a pitiful rescuing device to excuse perceived flaws in behavior.

Evolutionists use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ to keep the narrative going, even when they have no evidence to support their tall tales. Darwinism is pliable... flexible... malleable... other words ending in -able and -ible that mean it can be molded to fit whatever the storyteller wants. (To see some examples on how evolutionists force their beliefs onto fossils, follow the link to the main article at  "Evolutionists Making Things Up to Explain Everything — and Nothing".) Some folks think that evolution is just a biological theory for scientists to argue about. They often go haywire when we point out that evolutionism is a worldview, not just a topic for isolated academic and scientific pursuits.

It spills over into our daily lives, and is used to "explain" nearly everything. People are aggressive? Because evolution. They are sexually promiscuous? Because evolution. They eat too quickly? Because evolution. Yada yada yada. Just keep your eyes peeled and see that evolution is a convenient explanation for many things, some of them contradictory. Because evolution is used to "explain" so many things, it is actually worthless.

I kind of rode off the trail there, didn't I?

Not being able to keep resolutions, or to commit to decisions, is not based on Darwin's failed fantasy and atheistic ideas. Instead, the problem is the depravity of humans because of sin. We rebelled against our Creator back in Eden, and have been doing it ever since. We don't need will power, we need to be reborn and become new creations (John 3:3, 2 Cor. 5:17, John 8:36, Psalm 14:1, Eph. 2:8-9).

To read what got me all het up on the subject and Dr. Mohler's excellent insights, you can read the transcript, listen online, or download the MP3. (The part I'm emphasizing is about midway through the episode, but the whole thing is interesting.) Just click on "The Briefing, Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018".




Question Evolution Day

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

Friday, January 5, 2018

Biochemicals and Evolutionary Rescuing Devices

When evidence does not fit dogmas of fundamentalist evolutionism, the hands at the Darwin Ranch either ignore the problems, or head down into the cellar and fire up the Rescuing Devices Generator™. When smothered in jargon and spoken with authority, fact-denying excuses are accepted by the faithful. We have three more examples of rescuing devices used by evolutionists.


Fossil turtle pigments were found in defiance of evolutionary time
Credit: Pixabay / skeeze
When it comes to soft tissues and biochemicals, those kinds of things cannot exist for millions of Darwin years, but they are found in fossils more and more frequently. Original oil in a fossilized bird gland existing for such a long time? No plausible explanation. Pigments in a turtle fossil, with no evidence of evolution? Make confident assertions that have no basis in science. Fossil pigments that are identifiable? Claim "contamination", and impugn the intelligence and integrity of many other scientists who have made similar findings. No, earth is not ancient, Darwin was wrong. If they discarded their Darwin spectacles and saw reality, they would observe that in the framework that biblical creationists propose, the evidence is not so startling, and there is no need for absurd rescuing devices.
Dozens of technical reports show original biochemistry within the bodies of long-buried fossils, and the reports just keep coming. Three new reports give occasion to reconsider the age assignments for all these fossils. After all, none of them comes with a death-date label. But the biochemicals they harbor resemble timers that should have elapsed long ago unless these fossils were deposited thousands of years ago, not millions.
To read the rest, click on "Ancient Animal Biochemicals Again".


Question Evolution Day

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

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Evolutionists Making Things Up to Explain Everything — and Nothing

Plesiosaur and other fossils are used to explain evolution, but no evidence is given
Many evolutionary scientists have become so entrenched in their paradigm, they become fanatical in their efforts to use Darwinism as an explanation for practically everything. Their observations are filtered through their Darwin spectacles, and they "see" things that do not actually exist. They use circular reasoning to prove evolution by assuming it despite lack of evidence.

An example of the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ is when respond to reports of UFOs defying the laws of physics, such as sudden turns that would destroy any occupants, biological or mechanical. "Well, they're aliens, so they can do that". Such question-begging is based on the assumption that the UFO is of extraterrestrial origin in the first place, as well as the assumption that other life forms can survive such a thing. Evidence, please? Also, UFO enthusiasts (and other people who are just plain interested) should see Alien Intrusion.

When examining fossils, there is a big difference between what is observed and the story that is conjured. Evolution is malleable, shaped to fit whatever is needed for the narrative. Such an all-purpose "theory" that is used to explain practically everything is rendered worthless by its clutter. Indeed, lack of evolution is even used as evidence to support evolution!

A plesiosaur was discovered to be "older" than expected, so evolutionary storytelling is used to call it a "masterpiece of evolution". (Animism for evolution again, as well as teleology; evolution does not design anything, nor does it have a purpose.) The story about giant tortoises was conveniently changed. Likewise, a very large penguin fossil was attributed to evolution. 

Of course, it was all through speculation and assertion (and again, circular reasoning) to conjure up evolutionary stories. Evolution's True Believers™ listen to such stories with awe and admiration, thinking scientists are so much more intelligent than regular folks. Then they troll the web with unsubstantiated stories so they can slap leather with biblical creationists. Sorry, old son, you're shooting blanks. Lots of empty prattle to get that grant money, but denying the Creator is folly that will never be justified.

To read about the items mentioned above and more, then to see how Dr. Coppedge puts it all together, click on "Unusual Fossils Twisted to Support Darwinism".



Question Evolution Day

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

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Animal Dispersal by Raft

Two things that get anti-creationists on the prod is when biblical creationists know more about aspects of fish-to-photographer evolution than its proponents. Added to that is when observable evidence supports creationary models far better than it supports evolutionary conjectures. In this instance, we have been ridiculed for suggesting an aspect of biogeograpy: that one way animals were dispersed is by using rafts. Evolutionists are often stymied by similar creatures living in widely separated areas, and often have to invoke the miracle of "convergent evolution" instead of presenting real science.

Animals may have dispersed after the Genesis Flood using rafts, these sea lions seem ready to go
Credit: Freeimages / Martyn E. Jones
Don't go to disunderstanding me, I'm not saying they rented rafts like the ones used to shoot the rapids on the Colorado River or something. After all, most critters cannot carry charge cards. What I'm talking about is using whatever is available (and I suspicion it's often by accident) and going with the flow. Ever see sea lions making themselves at home on boulders, docks — and rafts? Animals can be opportunists.

Creationists have said that one way animals dispersed after the global Genesis Flood is by using makeshift rafts. Small pieces of debris are not likely to get very far, but large amounts, including trees, were available after the Flood. In addition, the world was still settling down, and there was a great deal of residual tectonic activity. A dramatic example of rafting animals was observed after the March 2011earthquake and tsunami in Japan. It is not much of a stretch to extrapolate from the "small" tsunami and simpler creatures to the far more intense global catastrophic Flood.
Following the earthquake, a 125-foot tall tsunami decimated the Japanese coastline, killing 18,000 people, melting down three nuclear reactors, and washing 5 million tons of debris out to sea, including fishing boats, docks, buoys, and various pieces of wood and plastic. This debris was caught by ocean currents and slowly transported 4,000 miles to coastlines on the other side of the world, including Hawaii and the Pacific coast of North America.
. . .

This tsunami debris didn’t come alone. Thousands of tiny voyagers survived the long passage at sea by riding on plastics. Marine biologists, working with local and state officials as well as citizen scientists, catalogued and bagged 600 pieces of tsunami debris and, with them, at least 289 living species (biologists suspect there are likely more that escaped their notice).
To read the rest, click on "Hundreds of Species Voyage Across the Pacific After Japanese Tsunami".


Question Evolution Day

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

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Creation Science Rocks the Amadeus Basin

The three main divisions of rocks are igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary. While the first two supposedly dominate the earth's crust, sedimentary rocks are the most common kind found on or near the surface. The name is a giveaway, because they were formed by (you guessed it) sediment. (Fossils are found in these as well.) Long age dogmas are used to indoctrinate the young, insisting that such rocks take a huge amount of time to form despite contrary evidence. Case in point: the Heavitree Quartzite that is deposited in the Amadeus Basin in Australia.


 Lake Amadeus, Northern Territory, Australia November 1994 image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
You see, secular geologists are in lockstep with proponents of minerals-to-man evolutionism, since Darwin requires long ages and said geologists are happy to oblige. Also, they are unwilling or unable to consider anything other than uniformitarianism (present geologic activity has been mostly the same for huge amounts of time). Instead of dropping their preconceptions, they still cling to them and say that what they observe is "not well understood". Secularists reject catastrophism out of hand, especially when the huge amounts of water necessary to make the depositions they observe are examples of the Genesis Flood. Creationary scientists have workable models and better explanations for geological observations (which infuriates anti-creationists). Brace yourselves for some compelling geology. Here is just the first paragraph:
A detailed study of the sedimentary structure and geographical extent of a prominent and widespread sandstone unit in central Australia reveals evidence of high energy depositional processes. The sheet-like nature of the Heavitree Quartzite indicates that an abundant supply of sediment was deposited and distributed in a high-energy, shelf-like environment. The extent of the sedimentary formation indicates that the depositional process represented a cataclysm of continental scale. Abundant sediment supply was transported to the flat, shallow depositional basin by wide flowing rivers. The sediments were laid down rapidly throughout the basin by high-energy water flows associated with the shallow marine environment of the basin, and by rapid changes in relative sea level. In the early stages of deposition strong reversing tidal currents played a major role in dispersal, but as water depths increased unidirectional currents became dominant. These findings from sedimentological analysis are indicative of the types of depositional environments expected during the early phase of Noah’s Flood.
That geology rocks! To read the rest, click on "The Sedimentary Heavitree Quartzite, Central Australia, was deposited early in Noah’s Flood".


Question Evolution Day

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

Monday, January 1, 2018

Unexpected Flying Critters

As you can tell, I have my unregistered assault keyboard in working order and ready to begin 2018. Today, however, the subject matter will be light reading, and we will commence to doing heavier stuff later. So, let's get things off the ground by talking about things that get off the ground.


Wallace's flying frog is among several creatures that were designed to glide
Wallace's flying frog image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rushenb (CC BY-SA 4.0)
What are you likely to think of when someone asks about a critter that doesn't have wings but still manages to fly? Class? Anyone?

"Flying squirrel!"

I suspicion that it's the most common response since there are different species that are kind of widespread. Like its cousin the colugo, it doesn't actually fly, but glides. There are several animals that can be seen getting some distance by abandoning ground travel. There are flying frogs, geckos (probably to sell flight insurance), and even snakes.



via GIPHY

Yes, really. Several things get in the air. For example, Wallace's flying frog was named after Alfred Russel Wallace. (He's the same guy that came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection in a fever dream, but Charles Darwin got published first. We don't hear much about him because he was a sort of heretic because he believed in a form of intelligent design.) Interesting that it's in the family of Rhacophoridae, sometimes called tree or moss frogs. Only a few of them glide.

Evolutionists have no plausible explanation for the varieties of creatures that have the intricate specified designs needed for such travel. The sensible conclusion is that these were designed by the Master Engineer. We can expect to see creation deniers become intellectually honest when pigs fly without the assistance of catapults.
Mammals, reptiles, and even amphibians can actually glide through the atmosphere. God’s inventive engineering has equipped these unexpected animals for aerial travel. The fantastic designs of more familiar flyers like falcons and fruit bats should not fail to inspire, but each newfound aeronautical wonder in the living world offers a fresh example of God’s creativity.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "When Frogs Fly".
Question Evolution Day

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

Labels