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, March 21, 2018

False Evidence for Horse Evolution

Horses have been popular with people for a mighty long time as pack animals, to do the work, scouting, in battle, pleasure riding, cowboy work, and much more. (A bit of trivia: the American Plains Indians had no word for horses at first, since they were unknown on this side of the Atlantic until the Spanish brought them over.) Darwin's disciples have insisted that the evolution of the horse has a strong evidence.

Evidence supports the creation of the horse and not its evolution
Prospecting for Cattle Range, Frederic Remington, 1889
If you study on the displays a spell, you'll realize that this evidence is flimsy and inconsistent; it only exists in textbooks and museum displays, not in reality. The critter presented as the earliest horse, Hyracotherium, was discovered by Richard Owen. He called it that because of its strong resemblance to the rock badger. It was later called the "dawn horse" because: evolution.


The number of toes and ribs changes with each specimen, and loss of features is falsely called evolution. In reality, horses have genetic variability, as is seen today and evidenced in the past. Even the teeth have been used as evidence for evolution, and that is also weak. No, the Creator designed them with variation and adaptability. The "family tree" of horse evolution is incoherent. The "well-attested" icon of horse evolution is another failure, old son.
For the last century or so, this fine animal has been put to a more unfortunate use. Its alleged ancestry has been used as one of the key ‘proofs’ of evolution. It started in 1879 with the American paleontologist O.C. Marsh and the famous evolutionist T.H. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’ Since then, many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe, while all that is left of the other two are ‘vestigial’ splint bones. Some of the diagrams also show trends in tooth changes, with increasing hypsodonty (high-crowned teeth). This is supposed to demonstrate a change from browsing on bushes to grazing on grass.
To read the entire article, ride on over to "The non-evolution of the horse". Also, if you've a mind to read something more recent and more detailed there's a link provided at "Horsing Around with Evolution".

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

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Planarian Puzzles Evolutionists

A planarian is a flatworm, and there are quite a few variations. They tend to be on the small side and can be found in all sorts of watery environments, including moving water such as streams. A few of these are parasitic. Yes, the tapeworm that gets into some people's digestive tracts is a flatworm, but you are not going to get it by wading. Planaria are hermaphrodites (both male and female sex organs). They are not likely to be kept as pets, being rather unattractive among other things.

Evolutionists are puzzled by a planerian because the genome does not fit with their views.
Schmidtea mediterranea image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado
The version for our purpose is the Schmidtea mediterranea, a freshwater palanerian that is not a parasite. What has caused fascination among zoologists is the way planerians can be sliced and diced, and then the parts can grow into full-fledged planeria. Their ability to regenerate is not to be confused with that of Time Lords, which are one at a time and tend to have quirky personalities. But I digress. Regeneration is being studied for possible applications with humans and animals.

Recent sequencing of its unique genome is what caused trouble for the Darwinist timeline. Things are supposed to progress from simple to more advanced, but according to evolutionary views, 452 genes common among living things were missing, which puzzles evolutionists. Many of these were existing in "earlier" life forms, as well as those considered more recent. Such things are not supposed to happen according to Darwin's disciples, but biblical creationists are right at home with the truth: recent creation by the Master Engineer.
The planaria, a type of flatworm, has an amazing capacity to regenerate a new body from just fragments of tissue. Its genome has just been sequenced. The surprising result is a completely unexpected evolutionary conundrum.

Planarians (S. mediterranea) are a type of freshwater flatworm commonly found between about 3 to 15 mm in length. Their size can actually self-adjust within a 50-fold range depending on the amount of available resources.
To read the rest, click on "Planaria Genome Loaded with Design Evidence".

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

Monday, March 19, 2018

Feathered Headbangers Do Not Hurt Themselves

The word headbanger is associated with heavy metal music, supposedly because fans became so excited at concerts, they would literally bang their heads on the stage. These jaspers were known to hurt themselves, too. (Some with a grain of sense would go through the motions and make their long hair fly around, so they had to settle for hearing loss from loud music.) You aren't built to do that, old son. However, there's a critter that is built to bang its head.

The woodpecker is another evidence against evolution and supporting special creation.
The Great Black Woodpecker, Akseli Gallen-Kallela, 1893
Ever heard a woodpecker pecking wood? They may be drumming to communicate, but they use their engineered bird parts to get food. The beak is extra strong, so is the skull, and it has a special sticky tongue to snag the snack that is trying to escape. Before the term irreducible complexity was termed, I was presenting the concept years ago when I discussed the woodpecker in creation science lectures. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

So, why don't they get brain damage like some rock music fans? New research attempts to pay homage to Papa Darwin, but it shows even more evidence that woodpeckers were specially created to do their thing. Another thing they do is refute evolution.
Any one of these adaptations would challenge Darwinian evolution, but all of them together in head-banging bird?
How do you protect your head against 1,400 G’s when your life’s work requires you to bang your head repeatedly to find food in wood? Woodpeckers don’t die of concussions. Surely they must suffer some brain injury, don’t they?
At Live Science, Mindy Waisberger reports on examination of brain tissue in woodpeckers. Three scientists, publishing their results in PLoS One, found the presence of tau protein in the tissue. Since that is often associated with brain injury in humans, they initially thought this shows that woodpeckers do suffer from the repeated pounding to the head. Another possibility, though, is that the tau protein cushions the birds’ brains.
To read the rest, click on "Woodpeckers Have Multiple Protections Against Brain Injury".

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

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Butterfly and Flower Evolution Problems

If you have a mind to, check some of the last few posts. There is an unintended theme of sorts regarding how evidence in astronomy, geology, and biology work against the timelines and belief systems of secular scientists. They try to tame those wild stallions and bring them into the corral by coming up with all sorts of rescuing devices.

Butterfiles existed before flowering plants supposedly evolved, evolutionists are busy making rescuing devices
Credit: Freeimages / luis rock
Here is another series of reports regarding butterflies, moths, and flowers. The fluttering insects were found to have existed many millions of Darwin years before flowering plants were supposed to have evolved. But butterflies live off the nectar of flowers. Also, they have that very long strawlike mouth thing (proboscis) that is specialized, but would be pretty much superfluous until flowering plants got around to evolving. I reckon believing in universal common ancestor evolution is akin to believing in leprechauns, since both require believing despite logic and evidence, not because of them.

Rescuing devices were proposed, but as we saw before, they only raised other questions and did not help the situation much. What really happened is that plants and insects were created within a short time of each other just a few thousand years ago. No excuse-making needed when you deal with the truth.
New fossil evidence puts the squeeze on Darwinians, making butterflies appear suddenly, with complex mouth parts, before there were any flowers to pollinate. Time to rescue the theory again.

Keeping the evolutionary story consistent is like having to modify a play with the characters constantly making their entry earlier than they were supposed to. We’ve seen that numerous times. The latest is about butterflies (Lepidopterans), the darlings of the insect world. Reporters are scrambling to keep the crown on King Charles (Darwin) in the aftermath of fossil butterfly scales found in Jurassic rock they claim is 70 million Darwin Years older than the evolution script says they were supposed to appear on stage. This means they appeared already as modern-looking butterflies 200 million Darwin Years ago.
To read the rest, click on "Butterfly Evolution Pushed 70 Million Years Before Flowers".

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

Friday, March 16, 2018

The Genesis Flood Boundary Discussions

When reading creation science publications, you are likely to see the expression "Flood model" in geology. (Regular readers have seen it here.) The way I figure it, this is a sort of general expression because there are actually several models of the Genesis Flood processes, but most are in agreement over the main points.

Genesis Flood geology has models, hypotheses, disagreements and discussion
Credit: RGBstock / Aureliy Movila
Geologists of the biblical creation persuasion agree that the Genesis Flood actually happened, and it happened a few thousand years ago. Their models are far more effective at describing what is observed in geomorphology and other areas than secular uniformitarian dogma. Flood geologists have their hypotheses and models. However, when scientists do science stuff, they disagree on details. Was there a post-Flood boundary? If so, where? How does it compare to other boundaries? Why do secular scientists shy away from the unique continental shelf and slope?

Models are run up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes them. There is disagreement, and serious dialog is requested from several geological disciplines. Some hope to reach a consensus so they don't have all those models floating around.
An integral part of any comprehensive Flood model is discerning the distinction between Flood processes and post-Flood catastrophism in the rock record. The characteristics of the continental shelf, slope, and rise suggest that the location of the boundary was reasonably synchronous on a global scale. However, there is no consensus among Flood geologists on where the post-Flood boundary should be placed. The geological column concept provides a useful framework of discourse for examining different approaches to the post-Flood boundary among creationists. There are three main schools of thought: (1) the Precambrian/Paleozoic Boundary Model, (2) the K/T Boundary Model, and (3) the Late Cenozoic Boundary Model. Each one makes different assumptions and has specific issues that need addressing. Multiple criteria spanning several fields of study need to be used to examine this issue since just one can be equivocal.
To read the rest of this rather specialized article, click on "The Cenozoic, Flood processes, and post-Flood catastrophism—problems and parameters".

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

Thursday, March 15, 2018

More Lithium-Rich Stars Confound Secular Cosmologists

Big Bang cosmology has an expected sequence of events, but the cosmos is not cooperating with the stories. We have already seen that lithium, the lightest metal, is only expected to appear in certain stars. Instead, it gets secular cosmologists on the prod because it keeps showing up where it is not supposed to be.

The wrong stars contain lithium, according to Big Bang cosmologists
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The existence of lithium is detected through spectroscopic analysis. (Kids, if you're looking for a career in science, consider spectroscopy, since it is used in many areas.) More stars have been detected to be rich in lithium, and as usual, the cosmic evolution excuse mill has been working overtime.


Unfortunately for secularists, the speculations used to possibly solve the problem raise more questions. The biggest problem is their insistence on cosmic evolution instead of admitting that the universe was created recently. Then they wouldn't have these conundrums.
In a recent paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of Chinese and Japanese astronomers reported on high-lithium concentrations in 12 newly discovered low-mass, metal-poor, main-sequence, and red giant stars in the Milky Way halo. All of the stars have larger than expected excesses of lithium (Li), and one star has more than 100 times higher Li abundance than the normally expected values, which is the largest excess in such metal-poor stars known to date. The Li content was determined using spectroscopic analysis, and standard abundance analysis was carried out using local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and checked against nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) model stellar photospheres.
To keep reading, click on "Lithium-Rich Stars Confound Astronomers".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Human-Chimp Hybrids?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Barash wants human-chimpanzee hybrids, which rejects the value of human life and pushes ethical standards
Secular psychologist David P. Barash decided that it is time to make human-chimpanzee hybrids, which would cross a significant number of ethical and moral guidelines. Psychology is not exactly a biological science, but the secular science industry as a whole, including psychology, is firmly entrenched in materialistic worldviews with evolution as the cornerstone. To push the boundaries and tamper with embryos and genetics is consistent with their fundamentally flawed paradigms.

Not too long ago, scientists were lamenting that they were constrained against extending the lives of human embryos in a dish (evolutionary thinking supports abortion), wanting to keep them alive a bit longer. The chimera experimentation through CRISPR is increasing (see "Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview" for more about this). Believing the false science that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to that of humans, that molecules-to-monkey evolution is a fact, a materialistic worldview — these add up to contempt for human life.

Biblical creationists know that, although there are similarities in biology between humans and animals, we were created separately by the Master Engineer in his image — we are not just another type of animal. Secularists want to be in complete control of science and ethics. They have their own criteria for morality and value, and we are already seeing that the boundaries are being moved.

The inspiration for this article came from Dr. James R. White's March 13, 2018 episode of The Dividing Line. He did a good part of my work for me in the first few minutes. I would like to suggest that you keep going for a bit more, as he discusses:
. . . a video from Jordan Peterson and interacting with the concepts of suffering and human purpose in his lectures.  Dr. Peterson has been great in exposing the fundamental flaws and simple irrationality of many of the left’s pet projects today, and we can be very thankful for that, but we cannot use that as an excuse to not point out that the best a Jungian evolutionary worldview can produce (consistently) is a form of Pelagianism, a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” moralism that lacks the key ingredients provided by full gospel proclamation.
Normally, I am reluctant to embed longer videos (I'm not asking you to watch the whole thing unless you have a mind to), but it shouldn't slow the site down too much. Hope you can spare some time. Also, the audio can be downloaded here.

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

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Science Needs Critical Thinking

The ability to think logically is indispensable in daily life. People can do it without even being aware that it is happening, often with extreme rapidity. Although logical thinking is often synonymous with critical thinking, to think critically requires the ability or discipline to examine all aspects of a situation or conundrum to reach a conclusion. This often necessitates putting aside emotional involvement, personal preferences, biases, and so on. Unfortunately, scientists are surprisingly unskilled in critical thinking.

Scientists are not being trained to think critically
Credit: Pixabay / Noupload
I have encountered people online who are scientists, but display lamentable logic. One owlhoot in particular claimed to be a scientist, but I lacked belief that this was true because of the biases displayed and terrible reasoning skills. It seems that universities these days are more interested in getting payment and awarding certificates because someone passed the tests instead of actually learning how to reason.

As we have seen, evolutionary scientists make pronouncements based on conjectures and limited datasets. Important information is omitted or brushed aside for the sake of establishing spurious "evidence" for geological deep time as well as cosmic or biological evolution. Creationary organizations want to encourage people how to think, while secularists tell people what to think. Evolutionists are more concerned with riding the profit trail instead of considering all the facts. When the logical conclusion is that the Creator was involved, that is anathema to them, and their presuppositions interfere with rational thought. Darwinism degrades humanity through bad logic. Evolution's true believers believe this stuff because they are also untrained to think critically. Why do you think logic is largely untaught in schools? Only the biblical creation view has the evidence and coherence to explain humanity.
A trainer of graduate students at a prestigious university wants to put the Ph back in PhD.
Can scientists be good at detail work but dumb at logic? Gundula Bosch thinks so. She directs the R3 Graduate Science Initiative at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. In Nature, she says she’s on a campaign to “Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists.” She explains an alarming trend in graduate schools that betrays the historic purpose of a top-level education:
 To read the rest, click on "Scientists Not Always Trained to Be Critical Thinkers".

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

Monday, March 12, 2018

Petrified Forests at Yellowstone Invalidate Long Ages

We know that for Darwin's speculations to have anything resembling plausibility, they require Mucho Grande amounts of time. Like evolutionists will finagle ways to convince people that they are right, often dealing from the bottom of the deck and finding other ways to cheat (or at least obfuscate), their pals in geology will also find ways to make Earth appear older than it was from the time of creation. One way to do this is to deny the Genesis Flood, which is a far better explanation of landforms and such than uniformitarianism (present processes are the key to the past). Views of origins and geology are forensic, attempting to reconstruct what happened way back when.

Petrified forests do not refute the Genesis Flood. Instead, they testify of it.
Tall petrified tree trunks credit: US National Park Service / William W Dunmire, 1966
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
A story told to discredit the Genesis Flood is about how petrified trees, including the petrified forests at Yellowstone National Park, formed over long periods of time. (They don't tell us if woodpeckers are confused by these things.) However, the stories are just that: stories. The jaspers who tell those ignore inconvenient facts, and their icon of refutation is refuted by actual science. Petrification, like fossilization, requires the proper conditions, not great amounts of time. Indeed, the petrified forests at Yellowstone are examples of catastrophe. Namely, the same Flood that secularist storytellers try to reject. The following article includes a verified prediction by a creationary geologist.
Yellowstone National Park, the oldest national park in the United States, spans parts of three states: Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. It is famous for its geothermal activity, including 10,000 hot springs and 200 geysers, including ‘Old Faithful.’ There are also mountains, including one of black obsidian (volcanic glass), cooled and hardened basalt lava flows, deep valleys and canyons, rivers, lakes, forests, petrified wood (wood turned into rock), and wildlife.
Petrified forests?
In some places in Yellowstone Park, erosion of a hillside reveals layers of upright petrified trees. At Specimen Ridge, there are said to be 27 layers, while Specimen Creek contains about 50. This means that the Specimen Creek formation is especially huge—its total vertical height is 1,000 meters (3,400 feet). This raises the question: how did the petrified tree layers form?
To learn the rest of the hard facts, click on "The Yellowstone petrified forests — Evidence of catastrophe".

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

Saturday, March 10, 2018

A Proposed Creation Science Model on Plants and their Pollinators

Like their secular counterparts, creationary scientists have hypotheses, theories, models, and so on. We have seen several times that everyone has an ultimate starting point. Materialists reject the Creator and rely on naturalistic presuppositions, while those who believe in biblical creation science start with the truth of the Bible and build from there.

What happened with plants and their pollinators after the Genesis Flood?
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Suriya Kankliang
Contrary to common claims of anti-creationist tinhorns, biblical creationists do not cease investigation by declaring, "GodDidIt". While we do believe that God did things, we want to know how he made things, the structures he engineered, the refutation of evolution and affirmation of special creation, and more. Creationary scientists are fully credentialed; they did not get their degrees from Billy Joe's Bible Church Academy and Bait Shop.


Scientists who believe in the Genesis Flood have many questions to address. In this example, what happened before and after the Flood regarding plants and their pollinators? (While we often think of bees pollinating flowers, other critters get involved in that process as well.) Further, the Master Engineer equipped organisms to adapt and change — yes, creationists do believe accept speciation, but do not believe that is evidence of fish-to-florist evolution. Dr. Gordon Wilson has proposed a model, freely stating that models come and go, but the Word of God is held fast.
Insect pollinators were created after plants (Day Three) on Day Five or Six (probably both). I think it is reasonable to assume that plant kinds (off the Ark) and insect kinds (those without aquatic larval stages likely on the Ark) that survived the Flood were more generalized anatomically, physiologically, and behaviorally. Because both plants and insects had the divinely designed genetic and epigenetic potential to form highly specialized plant-pollinator relationships, many did so to minimize competition and niche overlap during ecological succession in the centuries after the Flood.

Nevertheless there are always niche opportunities available for generalists that excel in changing or disturbed habitats. Our creationist models seeking to answer these and other interesting questions should remain in an open hand while attempting to be faithful to Scripture and the scientific evidence.
To read the rest, click on "The Creation of Plants, Pollinators, and their Post-Flood Adaptations".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 9, 2018

The Peppered Moth and Evolutionary Fake News

On the plus side, Darwin bots can get away with bad science, dishonesty, and outright fraud for decades. However, the down side is that the embarrassing truth is often discovered. Those of us who appreciate truth in science (and science reporting) do not cotton to being deceived for the sake of getting us to believe in evolution.

Peppered moth evolution was never real, and has been further shown to be fake news
Light and dark varieties of peppered moths
Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (link to top is here, link to bottom is here)
One of the oldest "proofs" of evolution is the peppered moth. Essentially, the dark version supposedly alighted on soot-covered trees in England and were left alone while the light version was victuals for birds. The population of the lighter critters decreased. "Aha! Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" Actually, no. Most of the story was fake news.

Actually, it may have been an example of natural selection (a concept that creationists also accept), but they were still moths. Nothing changed into something else. I get to cognating that people are very gullible when it comes to what "scientists say", whether real ones or failed television comedians. Basic observation should tell practically anyone that there were no significant changes. Asking questions about research to back the assertions would have been helpful, whether street waif or scientist, and anyone in between.

On a similar note, Dr. James White says that we must "demythologize scholarship". Just because someone has a bunch of letters after their name does not mean you cannot challenge their presuppositional errors.  

A more recent genetic study confirms that there was no evolution. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Moths were created to be moths, and not to turn into something completely different.
Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs. New genetic research validates those criticisms.
The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.
That story helped rescue Darwin's conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.
To read the rest of this rather short article, click on "Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving".

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

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Astronomical Anomalies Support Creation

Years ago, Carl Sagan, the high priest of secular cosmology, gave the melancholy pronouncement that the cosmos is all there is. He also indicated that Earth and our solar system are nothing special. Although Sagan was using the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ and giving his religious opinion instead of science, he was also using some of the information available at the time. We know a wagon train-load more now.

The universe is not the product of billions of years of cosmic evolution, but was created recently.
Credit: NASA / Jenny Mottar
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Materialistic cosmology and cosmogony are unable to come up with convincing explanations for the origin of the universe, our solar system, and even moons around our planets. Observable data do not fit their computer models. In fact, there are instances of objects out yonder that seem to have uncooperative attitudes.

Planets orbiting other stars seem to be spread out evenly, but on our own spread, planets are less tidy. The planets also have tremendous variations in size. Of course, rescuing devices are ordered from the excuse mill. Then we have the problem of dust clouds that do not form planets.

In worse news (for secularists), planetary formation conjectures are hostile to the formation of the earth's core: it should not even exist! A proposed rescuing device needs rescuing itself. Perhaps they could make a better case for Pellucidar, since they like storytelling and all.

A simple fact that infuriates proponents of deep time is how, using the rate of lunar recession (no, not financial, the moon is receding from the earth at a known rate), the solar system cannot be as old as materialists claim. There is also the Faint Young Sun Paradox, a no-win situation for evolution, where the sun would have to be colder if the solar system was old, so life could not have evolved. Scientists are working on a model to try to solve both problems at once.

Evidence strongly indicates a young, recently-created universe that is not the product of cosmic evolution through billions of years. I reckon I've given you enough teasers. You can read about the above items and more in these two articles:

Our Solar System Appears Odd to Astronomers

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

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The Gift of Music

Something that drastically separates us from animals is music. Sure, some folks say that birds sing, whales have songs, and so on, but they do not compose symphonies or write songs with melodies, choruses, harmonies, and so forth. Nor do they form bands and go on tour: "Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome The Macaques!" (and the crowd goes wild). Someone made a comment on my post, "Music is Not for Beasts", that pets get excited by music. Yes, many animals respond to it, but do not create it.

Music is a gift of our Creator, and not a product of evolution
Credit: RGBstock / Billy Frank Alexander
Music affects our emotions, leading us to melancholy, euphoria, and all sorts of things. It is especially strong in "bonding" between people, and stimulating memories. I've had some songs that I thought were powerful, but when I read the lyrics later on, I realized that the only thing the song had going for it was the music itself; "Tarot Woman" by Rainbow is musically exciting, but lyrically dreadful. (I often like a song that builds in intensity.)


A good tune can also provide a vehicle for messages that motivate and inspire. People are thrilled with anthems, whether for social causes, long live rock and roll, spiritual matters, and practically anything else. I have long lamented how professing Christians fill their minds with songs that have ungodly lyrics, then wonder why their spiritual lives are in a shambles. On a similar note (heh!), people conditions themselves by repeatedly listening to material that promotes disrespect toward and violence for women, rejection of authority, crying about oppression (often by sidewinders who are laughing all the way to the bank because they are getting rich from their "oppressors" who buy their material), and more. I challenge people to take a kind of musical fast and listen to music with positive lyrics, or even no lyrics at all. See what your outlook is after thirty days. Christians, try listening to some biblically solid material instead of secular rebellion and sensuality songs or lyrically shallow "praise" songs.

 Although the Bible is not explicit on this, music helps illustrate that we have souls. Music resonates with our feelings, since we were designed to be emotional beings. Indeed, look at Scripture and see all the references to music, singers, musicians, instruments, and the like. God even commands music at times. It is a great way to express praise (as long as it's not the trendy, mindless repetition nowadays). There is no way that music can be the product of mindless evolution with its self-contradictory teleology and utilitarian ideas. Music is a wonderful gift from our Creator. Music can also be just plain fun.
Scientists recently discovered that our brains are made for music—that a deep musical appreciation is a foundational aspect of being human.1 Why do we have this special relationship with music, yet apes and other large-brained ‘higher’ animals don’t make, or even desire, music as we do? Like speaking and writing in grammatical language, music is a peculiar and distinctive trait of human beings only. Where did this mysterious habit and liking of ours come from?
A new study
The scientists found that people with advanced dementia can suddenly and markedly improve in cognition when music they love is played back to them. Even when much of the brain is gone, music can wake it up, sometimes with truly ‘magical’ and inexplicable results. The sufferers ‘come back’ for that moment. The scientists who made this finding described music as like an emotional proto-language—for instance how a mother and father talk with their baby. The results were in many cases so astounding that the researchers themselves were readily swept up in the powerful emotions expressed.
I hope you'll read the rest of the article. Just click on "Music: A crucial gift".

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

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Extra Functions in DNA Defy Evolution

There have been amazing discoveries in the genome in the fast few years, including epigenetics, the refutations of "junk" DNA and of human-chimpanzee DNA similarities, the long non-coding RNA, and much more. Naturally, Darwin bots try to spin defeat into victory, and you can be certain that the excuse mill will come up with "explanations" to deal with new information about hidden codes.

Hidden codes have been discovered in DNA, perhaps they were behind this door
Credit: Pixabay / Ingo Jakubke
No, not the kind of hidden codes such as biblical numerology or end-times date-setting, or seeing a cross in the protein laminin. These codes are scientific, not esoteric. Scientists did not know that the letters in DNA can form "words" with more than one use. They had to commence to searching.


Proteins need to fold, and they have to do it in just the right way, and some pause all activity until the folding is completed. Also, there are codons that regulate the way that DNA is copied into RNA. There is much more, and it is further evidence that belief in microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is absurd. The evidence also gives additional support that we were created by the Master Engineer.
Scientists are now discovering that our DNA really does have hidden codes that have a practical function and purpose in our cells. It’s like discovering a coded message that means one thing when you read it in English, but if you pull out every third letter, it means something completely different in French. How complicated is that!

Children in public schools are bombarded with claims that random processes can explain the messages encoded in DNA, and this creates doubt in the Bible’s claims about the Creator. So we need to keep up with amazing new discoveries like “messages within messages.” They confirm that DNA could never assemble haphazardly by evolution and confirm instead the label “Designer Required.”
To read the article (Dr. Purdom explains these concepts well for us reg'lar folk) or download the audio version by my favorite reader, click on "DNA's Hidden Codes".  


By the way, the author is one of the people that challenged Bill Nye to a public debate, which he dodged and preferred to ridicule Ken Ham.

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

Monday, March 5, 2018

No More Room for Doubt — Neanderthals were Fully Human

Creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that Neanderthal people were fully human, and the evidence from paleoanthropologists and others continues to affirm this fact. Evidence for the humanity of Neanderthals, including the inner ear, interbreeding (sharing DNA) with modern humans, facial differences between us and them are minor, home organization, heating water, and advanced art techniques help make the conclusion of the humanity quite solid (see "Losing Face to Neanderthals" for more, including links). 

Wonder how Neanderthals would have worked with modern pain supplies?
Credit: Freeimages / kelly suzuki
Of course, facts will not stop some uneducated anti-creationists from digging up irrelevant and outdated links from Wikipedia and other unreliable sources, and from arguing with secular scientists who have reached the same conclusion. Since their phantasmagorical death cult needs ever scrap of tendential "evidence", some folks will never admit that this battle is over.



The possibility that they were in Spain was met with hesitation, and cave paintings over thataway were compared with those in France and found to be older according to secular dating methods.


Now their art (which shows cognition greater than Darwinists want to believe) is getting well established. They were not the product of evolution, but were created in the image of God. I wonder what those artists would have done with modern paint supplies and canvases?
They were strong, skilled hunters, with large brains. They interbred with ‘modern humans.’ But they have always been disparaged because they left no art. Till now.
At CEH, we are not surprised that Neanderthals made art, because they were fully human in our view. Some forms of art, like simple flutes and seashell jewelry, had been known, but all the famous cave paintings had always been attributed to so-called ‘modern humans’ who began leaving artwork in caves about 45,000 Darwin Years ago. Now, Science Magazine is reporting cave drawings 20,000 years earlier (or more) in Spain that could not have been made by modern humans because, according to the consensus evolutionary story, modern humans had not yet migrated into Europe. In the same issue of Science, Andrew Sugden summarizes the discovery:
To read the rest, click on "Neanderthal Art Found: Last Barrier to Full Human Status Falls".

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

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Skunks in the Works

A long, long, time ago in a small town far, far away (northern Michigan), I was spending a weekend alone at my grandmother's old house. There was a wooded area behind the place. Being alone and getting bored, I took an evening stroll. Motion near the base of a shed caught my attention. I moved closer and realized that the black and white kitties were actually skunks — mom and the young 'uns. They were facing away from me, with their tails up. I knew enough to take the warning, and backed away.

Credit: Pixabay / Torli Roberts
Skunks are ubiquitous in the continental United States, (not to be confused with Skunk Works) and some species have a wide range in North America. Some folks call them polecats, but that is a misnomer, since the European polecat is related to the weasel, and the skunk has a more distant relation. They don't even send each other Christmas cards. European polecats and skunks both manage to make a stink.

Although they burrow, skunks are opportunists, and can live in hollow logs, under your front porch, in the shed, on anti-creationist forums, and other places. This can make for startling encounters if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are actually rather intelligent, and some people have them as pets. It would be fun to be taking the skunk for a walk down the street, but it's illegal to own one here in the state of New York, as it is in many states.


People may be disgusted by the malodorous critters, but they actually provide a service by eating vermin that cause disease. They have excellent night vision, an excellent sense of smell, and that well-developed defense system. Skunks have many features showing that they were designed by the Master Engineer.
Mephitis mephitis means, appropriately enough, ‘a noxious exhalation from the ground’. This skunk is known for its two broad stripes on the back, meeting at the head, and a white stripe down the centre of the face. I’ve also seen versions that are almost all white or all black. Their claws are not retractable and make great tools for digging. It’s just as well because our Creator has made them a ground creature. The Eastern Spotted skunk, Spilogale putorius, has irregular stripes and elongated spots on the sides. It is also faster, more agile and more of a tree climber. Both live in dens, either found abandoned or dug themselves on well-drained sites. The spotted skunk, being the more social, has been found with 12 individuals in one winter den.
To read the entire article, click on "Lasting impressions". You can also listen to a typical skunk sound in the very short video below.

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

Friday, March 2, 2018

Metals Necessary for Life

When one hears the word metal, it can mean different things to different people. For some, it is a music style. Others want to stake a claim up in the hills and dig out gold or silver. Metals are important for adornment, manufacturing, and so forth. But you knew all that. Metals are also vitally important for life — just ask a chemist, medical doctor, or biologist.

Our Creator designed metals and their chemistry is essential for life.
Credit: Pixabay / Herney Gómez
We hear about certain things that are important, and are puzzled to see vitamin supplements containing things like copper and magnesium. Sure, we know that calcium is important, and that is, chemically, a metal. Iron? Another metal we've heard about that is important, but the stuff we dig up and smelt for building is different than the iron within us. There are several metals we may not have even considered, but make it possible for cells to accept certain nutrients. They are helping us and we didn't even know it! They were designed to work, and have to be in the proper proportions. Also, we cannot get too little or too much of something, or our health is affected. Our creator designed metals to function in different ways, from manufacturing to biology, and some work in both areas.
In this article we’ll look briefly at some of the many metals that permit life and make the earth habitable. When we think of metals, we typically think of hard, often-shiny elements like gold, silver, or chromium. Most of the metals we’ll see here are in groups 1A and 2A of the Periodic Table, the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals, respectively. These metals are shiny, soft and malleable, and have low melting points. They are fairly reactive and hence are never found in a pure state, but only in combination with other elements.
To read the rest, click on "God’s Gift of Metals: Crafted for Life".

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

Thursday, March 1, 2018

No Chance for Naturalistic Origin of Life

Although I tend to shy away from probability arguments about evolution and the origin of life (naturalists cling to that one zillionth of a chance), they do serve a purpose. In this case, the probability of life arising all by itself from minerals through time, chance, and random processes is essentially nonexistent. Someone who says it is impossible is not lying or uninformed, but those who distance themselves and say that "the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution" are lying or uninformed.

For life to arise by itself is essentially impossible. Evolutionists tell almost plausible stories, but they leave out important details.
Credit: Freeimages / Nate Brelsford
Darwinists tell some interesting stories about conditions on "primordial" Earth way back when, and how molecules formed amino acids, cells, and other microscopic things, eventually up to humans. The stories almost seem plausible, and colorful graphics help, but evolutionists leave out important information, and even resort to dishonesty to keep their failed evolutionary religion afloat, and to deny the work of the Creator. 

Presentations make the stories look like established facts, but leave out the fact that secular scientists are not in agreement about many aspects of the origin of life. Let's take a more in-depth look at the steps involved and see the foolishness of the materialistic origin of life scenarios.
The hypothetical naturalistic origin of life and its most basic biomolecules from non-living matter is called abiogenesis. This paradigm lies at the very foundation of biological evolution, but the immensity of its naturalistic improbability is often brushed aside by evolutionists, who prefer to focus on other facets of evolution that seem less daunting.
While virtually all of the evolutionary story lacks empirical support, its greatest impediment is the fundamental problem of how life first arose. Ultimately, life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in a system in which each molecule is dependent on the other two to both exist and function in the cell.
To finish reading, click on "The Impossibility of Life's Evolutionary Beginnings".

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

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Desperately Seeking Evolutionary Fish Legs

Darwinism is based on faith and wishful thinking, not science
Many people are familiar with the fish outline emblem that many Christians have on their autos, shirts, sites, and so forth. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have their versions as well, used to mock Christians. The most common of these is the fish with legs (some have "Darwin" stylistically imposed in them). This implies, "I don't believe in God the Creator, I believe in science!" They promote their views religiously.

There are some problems with the "Darwin fish" idea. Most notably, it began before there was anything to present as evidence for the mythology that life began in the sea, a fish flopped onto land, developed legs, and began evolving into the many critters we have today, as well as humans. They believe in the walking fish thing despite lack of evidence. That's not science, Skippy, that's blind faith.

Here we go again. I have to take us on a side trail for a few moments, so just ride along for a spell. There is often a problem with definitions. Regular readers know that I emphasize the fallacy of equivocation, the bait 'n' switch trick that atheists and evolutionists pull. If you have your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring©, you'll see that when variations in organisms are observed, they are falsely called "evolution" (which is used to imply that Darwin was right). So, we have to nail down which definition of evolution is being employed.

Reminds me of the joke about the Buddhist that bought a newspaper. He asked the vendor, "Where's my change?", and the vendor reminded him that change comes from within. Ambiguity on the definition of change, you see.

Similarly, we are told that fish can walk. Tiktaalik was used as an example as a transitional form, rejected, but a few die-hards tried to bring it back. Interestingly, some owlhoots didn't get the memo, and try to tell creationists that it is still valid. Not hardly! But remember, definitions matter. What do they mean by walk? It is an extremely complicated and profoundly engineered process, even in humans. Flopping from one pond to another can hardly be considered "walking", old son. Also, legs themselves are quite detailed, and bumps or protrusions are not legs except in the imaginations of fundamentalist evolutionists.

Okay, we're back to the main trail. Darwin lived in the land of wishful thinking, because he knew that evidence was lacking or even in opposition to his speculations. Even today, the faithful grasp at straws and play weasel word games, but Darwin still fails big time. Again, that stuff is blind faith, not science. The evidence supports special creation, not the false god of evolutionism.
The Darwin Fish scientific method: Draw a fish. Draw legs on it to mock Christians who use it as a symbol. Then furiously hunt for evidence that a fish with feet existed.

Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales. The belief came prior to any evidence for fish with feet, because Darwin complained about the lack of transitional forms in his Origin of Species. He knew that most species appear abruptly in the rocks, and that his needed transitional forms were not found: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” he said (Origin 6th ed., p. 280). He did not, therefore, even speculate about how fish evolved into land creatures, although he hoped that transitional fossils would turn up some day.
To read the rest, click on "The Evolution of the Darwin Fish". Also, you may want to see "The False Evolutionary Icon of Walking Fish".

Source for the main part of the image at the top was found at Openclipart, then modified.

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