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

Monday, July 16, 2018

The Construction of Respiration

Ever get awakened by a child crying and say to yourself, "That kid's got a healthy set of lungs"? They are still growing, too. My father could make himself heard from quite a distance, and I inherited that — which paid off when I preached in a big old church that did not have a working amplifier.

Our respiratory system is another example of the Master Engineer's intricate work.
Image from Clker clipart
While lungs are extremely important, they are not the only part of our respiratory system. Indeed, the specified irreducible complexity of the Master Engineer's work confounds the hands at the Darwin Ranch. Ain't no way all the parts can come together through random processes and chance and still have all those intricate functions.

With few exceptions, respiration begins with the nose —

"Snot locker, Cowboy Bob!"

Well, let's sniff around with that aspect. We breathe in our air, exhale carbon dioxide (which plants love and return the favor by making oxygen), and keep cells working through our blood supply. However, there are impurities that need to be removed. Some of that gets caught in the nose (or expelled through sneezing), and our parts of our respiratory system get involved in cleaning things up.

There are many fascinating aspects of our intricate respiratory system. Our Creator has given us many comparisons where he uses terms about air, breath, and so on in Scripture. While secularists may claim that EvolutionDidIt, such a claim can be dismissed by thinking people.
The respiratory system has many distinctive design features, which show forth the providence of God. Breathing also illustrates our human vulnerability and complete dependence upon God. One easy experiment to show this is to try to hold our breath. For most of us, air hunger becomes painful well within a minute, and we would die in just a few more minutes if completely deprived of air. So, our breathing apparatus is one of our most vital systems—absolutely necessary to sustain us from moment to moment. How does it work?
To read the entire article, click on "The breath of life". 

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Bishop Bell and the Dinosaur

An annoyance for proponents of fish-to-fish warden evolutionists and other deep time enthusiasts are accounts of dragons in history. Remember, the word dinosaur had not been invented yet. The Bible also describes some critters that are only known to paleontology nowadays. After all, the Bible is a reliable history book.

A tomb in Carlisle Cathedral has what appears to be dinosaurs, like Spinophorosaurus, etched into the brass
Spinophorosaurus image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura (CC BY 3.0)
If you get a notion to head to England, then go north, you can find Carlisle Cathedral. (If you reach Lockerbie, you've passed it.) Why? Well, it's ancient, construction was begun in 1122. But for our purposes, there's the easily overlooked tomb of Bishop Richard Bell — it's under a rug in the floor. Etched in the brass are several critters, including some dinosaur-looking beasties. Long necks that look like they're dancing at a hootenanny, or maybe it's a bit of rasslin'. (I'm bringing that last one up because giraffes fight each other with their necks sometimes.) The creatures have spikes or clubs on their tales, which is something unknown on sauropods until 1989. The bishop was buried in 1496. 

While Darwin devotees will hand-wave this as something fanciful, it is very interesting to Bible believers. We don't know what lived in England at that time, but indications are that various dinosaurs migrated after the Genesis Flood to many areas. We do know, from Scripture and scientific evidence, that not only was life created, but the earth is far younger than secularists want to believe.
Within Bishop Bell’s tomb decorations, we saw true-to-form carvings of normal animals like an eel, a dog, a fish, and a bird. Others were trickier to identify, but none of them looked childish or fanciful. I took a closer look at the two dinosaur look-alikes. The palm of my hand could cover the whole design. It shows two long-tailed creatures with legs that go straight down like dinosaurs’ legs did, rather than angling to the side like those of modern crocodiles. Their long necks intertwine in a reptilian wrestling match. If I were trying to etch two sauropod dinosaurs in brass, I would carve something just like this.
To read the entire article, click on "Did Medieval Artists See Real Dinosaurs?"

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

Friday, July 13, 2018

Brain Plasticity and Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is a look behind the scenes of The Question Evolution Project. I do not post any old thing for the sake of posting, and I seek useful information to feature or add to my original articles. Several articles and such have been rejected for one reason or another in my screening process (guess that's the best name I can give it). A few were what I considered harmful, or were produced by people who have false biblical teachings. If I must feature something from a doubtful or even bad source, there will be a clear disclaimer or warning. For the post part, I give primary consideration to sources that I can trust.

Once in a while, someone wants us to add a horse to our corral by requesting a link to their sites. There was a very strange one a spell back, somebody wanted me to give a link to a fashion site and he thought we would be a good match, and offered me some kind of perks. (Should I become The Fashion Cowboy?) I ignored the letter. He wrote again, and I asked him if he had read the content on this site, since we have nothing in common. No further response.

Our Creator designed our brains to have plasticity, which is amazing and Darwin-defying
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
The latest venture involved an article on brain plasticity. I'm thinking that my correspondent was searching for keywords and found this site. I was conflicted because yes, it seemed legitimate, and had the ring of truth. Also, I had encountered some of this information before.

What was presented was a summary of material credited to the Huffington Post. This is a leftist publication, so that raised my suspicions. It gave a passel of supporting links, and I was pleasantly surprised that there was actual research mostly untainted with homage to the Bearded Buddha (Darwin), and I found nothing objectionable (such as atheistic evolutionism). The article sent to me continued with ten helpful hints summarized from a book by Dr. Michael Merzenich.

I could summarize the article as "make your brain better" self-help material similar to other things that we find on the web and shared on social media. Although it was strictly secular in outlook, I did not find anything wrong with it.

Interlude: a cool graphic.


There are some things that bothered me a mite. First, the email was supposedly from the author, but that site does not list any authors for their "improve your life" posts anywhere that I could find. 

Second, I checked the first of the uncredited images, and it can be found on a book cover, an article at Psychology Today, other places on the web, and especially at Shutterstock, where you pay to use the image and they want credit. People grab images all the time for their own projects, often without thinking that they could be doing something wrong.

Third, the site is in the business of selling supplements, most of which I am unfamiliar and cannot pronounce. While the blog material may be just fine, I do not want to be considered to be endorsing their products — which may also be just fine.

People liken the brain to computers, but that comparison is quite lacking. In the matter of brain plasticity, there was a link to an article in my post, "Evolving the Brain's Evolving". Our Creator engineered the brain to adapt and develop, and the neural pathways have multiple functions and make adjustments, such as the way memory is processed. To give universal common ancestor evolution credit for the amazing engineering and specified complexity of the human brain is fatuous. But no, Darwinoids prefer to exclude our Creator from receiving proper credit.

All this may feel like a tease, and you're chomping at the bit to see what in the world I'm talking about. So, knowing that I am not endorsing the site contents or merchandise, but the article sent to me looks very interesting, although godless, here it is: "Using Brain Plasticity to Supercharge Your Brain".

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

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Mechanisms of Memory

Sometimes we are frustrated when we forget some things, but if you study on it, we are bombarded with many details, large and small, throughout each day. We can be preoccupied with tasks at hand and hurriedly set our keys in a different place than usual, but paying attention and being mindful can be helpful. On the other hand, things we had forgotten for decades can suddenly come to mind by a subtle prompt. We also have direct prompts, such as setting email reminders in my calendar for my doctor appointment or to schedule a post for a certain day.

our brain sorts out the important things for us to remember.
Credit: Pixabay / Pezibear
Our senses can trigger memories. So do strong emotions. We make memory books with photographs, letters, and other physical objects and can reminisce about the events surrounding them. Certain fragrances can bring back people and places. Music can prompt thoughts about occasions, good or bad. Yet, we forget where we left those keys a few minutes ago. Several times, I have struggled to remember where I left something, only to have it come to mind in a quiet moment — the subconscious often keeps working on it.

The mind accesses the brain with various physical functions so we can process information. Although likened to computers, the resemblance is superficial, and the brain is far more efficient. The brain processes information and memories all the way down to the cellular level. Our Creator masterfully designed this part of our lives as well as many others, and it is irrational to believe that these things evolved through Darwinian means.
“Where’d I park my car?”

Our inability to remember details can be annoying. Yet if we understand how our brain works—why it forgets some things and remembers others—we can gain a whole new appreciation for this marvel.

Many people mistakenly believe that the brain permanently stores all the information it encounters, but we just can’t always access it. In fact, we forget many things, which appear to be gone forever. And that’s a good thing!
To keep reading, click on "What Memories Are Made Of". I suggest you do it now so you don't forget. Oh, and I forgot to add that you can download the audio version if you've a mind to.

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Bad Science and Extraterrestrial Life

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch must have been ingesting peyote buttons again, since they were presenting some bizarre stuff lately — more so than usual. Since they cannot have discussions with their invisible friends from outer space, evolutionists are commencing to deal from the bottom of the deck again (they're not too spaced out to do that) and being irrational as well as deceitful in their pseudoscience. If the rumor is true, they could have stayed out of trouble by riding into town for a free Slurpee. Since that didn't happen, I have a couple of articles for your consideration.

Wishful thinking for life on Enceladus and elsewhere is making materialsts crazier.
Enceladus image credit: NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents. Not by a long shot.)
These tinhorns are getting our tax money to speculate on non-science such as astrobiology, promoting wishful thinking as scientific hypotheses, evolutionary presuppositions, circular reasoning, and so on. We are paying them to indoctrinate us in their materialistic religion. The secular media is obediently parroting (and possibly inflating) reports by scientists that "organic molecules" exist out yonder. Big deal. Those things are common here and in space, but they do not produce life. Organic chemicals exist on Enceladus, they exist in enchiladas, and they exist in the emissions from my automobile. None of those harbor or produce life, you savvy?

I reckon that some of the maybeness that is being reported is also downright dishonest. Jets and oceans, okay. Life exists without evidence, not okay. Okay? Scientists are assuming evolution and long ages, even though Enceladus and other moons present evidence of a young solar system. That really gets them on the prod!
Is water alive? Are organic molecules alive? No; they’re dead. Someone needs to bring some sense into reporting about life in outer space.

Here are the facts: some organic molecules have been found in the geysers erupting from the south pole of Enceladus, Saturn’s little Iowa-size moon. Is that a big deal? No; organic molecules are very common in the universe. You can find them in meteorites, comets, and interstellar clouds. “Organic” means anything that contains carbon. Your DNA is organic, but so is tailpipe soot. The category “organic” contains a vast number of molecules, all of which are dead. Even DNA is dead outside a cell; it will just sit there and decay, like it rapidly does in fossils. Life, in fact, consists of countless zillions of dead molecules. Only when they are organized into systems that function to metabolize, grow and reproduce do we consider the system a living thing.
To read more about that moon and other news in the area, jet over to "Breaking News! Enceladus Is Dead!" Don't forget to come back for the next section!

Materialists are committed to denying the Creator and finding evidence of evolution practically anywhere. The dealing from the bottom of the deck continues by building their stories on assumptions. People who use critical thinking skills will holler, "Whoa! First, prove that something is living out there, Zeke!"
  • Wackiness continues with the idea, "What if we meet space aliens, and it's necessary to kill them off?" Sure, buddy, collect your paycheck of my tax dollars, there's a good fellow. 
  • Another suggests, "Get every man jack to decode alien signals as a group effort". As long as there's no group hug involved. I don't cotton to group hugs.
  • "Maybe climate change killed them off." Maybe they didn't listen to pseudoscience scares and Nye lies like globalists on Earth, and they're doing right well.
  • "It's been discovered that life is way more common in the multiverse". Pics and papers, or it didn't happen. Just kidding, we know that no research happened.
  • NASA is slurping down the tax dollars in more of what David Coppedge calls Bio-Astrology.
Things are getting really wacky at our expense, both financially and intellectually. 
Week after week, month after month, year after year, evolutionists speculate about imaginary friends they have never seen.

Perhaps our headline appears uncharitable to eminent scientists and reporters. Our response is to just show you what they are saying and let you decide.
To finish this post and read the information at the possibly uncharitable headline, click on "What Is It About Space Aliens that Makes Evolutionists Go Nuts?"

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

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Correcting the Secular Story of Stone Mountain

Way down south in Dixie in these here United States, there is a lump just outside Atlanta. Looks like a rock was dropped there, and it has the uninspiring name of Stone Mountain. Because it is. It is not huge in comparison to other mountains, but a popular attraction. It has a huge but controversial carving of Confederate heroes that is easily seen.

The Genesis Flood is a better explanation for the origin of Stone Mountain, Georgia, than erroneous uniformitarian views.
A view of the Walk Up Mountain Trail, near the top of Stone Mountain
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / DXR
The part that is of interest to us is the formation of Stone Mountain. Uniformitarian geologists have the view that granite takes a mighty long time to form, but that was based on philosophy, and has been refuted by evidence and real science. The mountain used to be magma way down yonder below the surface of the earth, then it was moved to the surface during the Genesis Flood. This happened quickly, and is yet another piece of evidence for a young earth.
Stone Mountain, which is about 8 km (5 miles) around its base, is part of a huge pluton—a gigantic granite body. When you stand on top, it is hard to imagine that the mountain was once many kilometres beneath the earth’s surface. Also, it is hard to imagine that the mountain was a subterranean ‘ocean’ of red-hot molten rock more than 600°C (1100°F) in temperature. The magma originated when movements in the earth’s crust partly melted rocks much deeper down. Movements bent and folded the whole countryside, pushing up the Appalachian Mountains, and squeezing the magma up through the crust, to pool near the surface.
To read the rest of the hard truth, click on "Stone Mountain, Georgia (USA) — An underground ocean of molten magma".

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

Monday, July 9, 2018

What Good are Jellyfish?

There are several creatures that we wonder why God made them. You cannot saddle them up, eat them, keep them as pets, and many seem to be more harm than good. But if you study up on them, you can find that they are indeed a part of the ecosystem in ways we did not know before. If more researchers took the view that each organism was created for a purpose instead of taking an evolutionary approach (research was tainted by evolutionary thinking in a turtle sex selection study, for example), I suspicion that more answers would be found more rapidly.

People may be surprised to learn that jellyfish do serve a purpose in the ecosystem.
Credit: NSF / Henry Kaiser
One such critter is the jellyfish, some of which have deadly stings. (They have no nervous system or brains, but their very basic nerves in the tentacles are their sensors.) When people are aware of jellies, they are wise to get away. (I read that some people eat them, but didn't cotton to doing the research.) Sure, they look nice, but do they serve a purpose besides that. I'll allow that jellyfish are mighty difficult to study (can't rightly tag them for tracking), but some research has yielded surprises.
If you needed a perfect ocean villain, you’d be hard-pressed to find something more difficult to track and capture than the jellyfish. The most well-known types are essentially bags of water with stinging tentacles. They eat constantly, they reproduce in overwhelming blooms that choke the seas, they turn a morning swim into a painful, goopy experience, and they don’t seem to contribute much to the balance of ocean life.

At least, that’s how researchers used to view them.

You see, the problem with studying an organism with the consistency of slime is catching it and tracking it. With fish, you can just drop a net in the water and scoop them up. You can tag sharks and track where they roam. Larger, boney animals show up in the stomachs of other marine life, if you care to look (and lots of scientists do).
To read the whole article, click on "Terrors or Treasures?" Bonus fun fact: a group of jellyfish is called a smack.

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

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Hijacking Science and Reason for Evolution

Watch for bad logic and tricks if you have to discuss things with angry atheists and evolutionists.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while, an anti-creationist will reluctantly admit that a biblical creationist has some scientific knowledge, but will say something along the lines of, "I presume he is still a YEC for strong religious reasons". Not hardly! Atheists, evolutionists, and other anti-creationists have often exhibited incredulity that some folks reject evolution because of scientific reasons.

If you head on over to Intelligent Design sites, you'll learn that there are Darwin doubters from various religions and from no religion at all. No, people reject evolution for both scientific and biblical reasons.

Evolutionary owlhoots get even more unfriendly-like when they are informed that scientific evidence is a triple threat: it refutes evolutionism, supports biblical creation science (including the Genesis Flood and recent creation) — and affirms what the Bible says. This is happening because origins is not an evidence issue, it is a spiritual problem: they believe in minerals-to-mycologist evolution by faith in materialistic presuppositions imposed on evidence. They are in rebellion against our Creator.

If origins could be settled by evidence, then Darwin the failed theologian, Lyell the lawyer, Horner the degree-less paleontologist, Spencer the uneducated, and all the other "luminaries" of long ages and evolution would have been laughed out of work before they saddled up for their rides. People get degrees promoting evolution. Evolutionists promote non-science and get paid for it. Stalkers defame biblical creationists. Yada, yada, yada.

Internet atheists generally have their heads wedged in a dark location —

"That's nasty, Cowboy Bob!"

I was referring to those bigoted clearinghouses of disinformation that contribute to their lack of critical thinking skills. We point out new evidence and how evolutionary scientists exclaim that things evolved "earlier than we thought", "the evolutionary timeline has to be rewritten", and similar things. Atheists and other evolutionists need to get disabused of the notion that contradiction is refutation, and dissuaded from believing that posting links that disagree with creationists' remarks trump creationary arguments. (Amazingly, some tinhorns reject evidence from evolutionists when used by creationists. Ornery cusses.) Anti-creationists also need to learn that peer review is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy; there is plagiarism and fraud in peer review, and the secular science industry needs damage control. But Darwin's disciples use that poor "evidence" for evolutionism and against creation anyway. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine: scientists are not the paragons of virtue that many people imagine.

Straw man arguments abound from people who have no real knowledge of science and how it works. The previous example about someone who rejects evolution because of religion is weaselly in several ways. First, it presupposes that evolution is true. Second, the idea that someone could reject evolution because of contrary evidence is considered impossible. The second problem leads to the third one: the remark is a straw man because of the previous presumptions, and by assuming to know the contents of the creationists' heart and mind. We're "wrong" to them because evolution.

Another tactic used is to ignore evidence creationists present, then hijack a post or other discussion to talk about what they prefer instead of the subject at hand. More than once, I have posted a topic and had critics complain about what was not there, acting as as though if a certain aspect was not brought up, creationists are being dishonest. Recently, one angry atheist complained about my post, "Dinosaur Extinction and Chicxulub Revisited", which involved new information casting further doubt on that alleged extinction catalyst. He demanded that I discuss shocked quartz, a subject that had been posted here less than a year previously. He did not (I believe he could not) deal with the material at hand, so he attempted to use a red herring. His "logic" led to the conclusion that the writers of the linked articles and I were lying. No, it is dishonest to ignore the content and attack creationists.

More than once, I've seen a Darwin disciple copy material from evolutionary sources, then paste and evosplain to us as if he had the thoughts all by his lonesome. If you're going to quote from popular science sites and things like Wikipedia, at least give credit, mmmkay? Otherwise, it's more anti-creationist dishonesty.

Another related item is when atheists find Christians that agree with evolutionary positions, or hold to views that they consider worthy of ridicule. The conclusion for them is that creation is wrong, biblical creationists are lying to get people to believe in God (who is holy and hates lying), or that since there are nutty people professing to be Christians, the Bible is wrong. This kind of bad thinking often implies that God does not exist. However, those are straw man arguments and red herrings, again ignoring the subjects at hand.

For example, some professing Christians misuse Scripture and say that the earth is flat because "that's what the Bible teaches". This concept is thoroughly refuted, but you can find atheists who will use fringe elements like this for their own purposes of ridiculing biblical creationists. We could do the same thing by citing examples of murderous atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Lenin, the Santa Fe (Texas), the atheist that cheered the killing of Christians in another Texas town, and Roseburg (Oregon) killers were atheists. However, we do not generalize that all atheists will kill Christians. The exception is not the rule, and such poor reasoning is an example of hasty generalization. 

Related to this is the idea of useful idiots, a term used by the Soviets in regards to their Western supporters. Professing biblical creationists and other Christians give aid and comfort to the enemies of God. They have agreed with a small point of complaint from an angry atheist, and the atheist uses it, adding, "...and he's a YEC!" or somesuch. Don't be disunderstanding me, I don't say that creationists need to stick together no matter what. They need to keep in mind the New Testament teachings on how to treat brothers and sisters in Christ, and not be aiding unbelievers in their rebellion against God.

Sometimes, we get atheists pretending to be Christians so they can promote evolution. Other times, we have theistic evolutionists with vituperative attacks and misrepresentations of biblical creationists. It becomes difficult to tell the two apart, but when someone claims to know about creation science (or even Christianity) but demonstrates massive ignorance, I suspicion that's a "never was" owlhoot. Take a look at the foolishness examined in "A Response to 'Talking Science as Christians'".

One more similar point is when atheists and other anti-creationists appeal to authority and turn them into useful idiots for the Darwin brand. "The Pope believes in evolution!" I don't care. The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a pastor down the street — the ultimate authority for biblical creationists is the Word of God.

When engaging in a debate (a real one, not swatting at groups of trolls on teh interweb), a good working knowledge of the opponent's position must be attained. The other person's position must be accurate represented (which is almost never done by atheists and evolutionists like this jasper). Engaging in majoring on minors (the intellectual equivalent of "typo pouncing") should not be a part of the discussion. Rather, the points of engagement should focus on the strongest part of the opponent's position. After all, if you can't dismantle those, you don't have much to offer in the way of opposition, do you? When someone takes the creationary argument, injects deep time and evolutionary presuppositions, then demands that we defend a position that we do not hold, that is a straw man. Let us explain our point of view based on our our own presuppositions, old son. You argue from your presuppositions and materialistic worldview, but somehow, it's wrong for us.

Again, the origins controversy is not about evidence. It is a spiritual issue. Since atheists and evolutionists do not want to admit that God exists and they are accountable to him, they corrupt science and logic in their efforts to maintain their flawed worldviews. Stay alert for misrepresentations, distractions, topic hijacking, and other things While some are intellectually honest, many need to be firmly guided to stay on topic. Otherwise, I strongly recommend moving on so you are not wasting your time. You have more important things to do.

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

Friday, July 6, 2018

Climate Change, the Milankovitch Cycles, and Astrology

Back almost a hundred years ago, Milutin Milankovitch got himself an idea. Using his deep time framework (scientists operate from their paradigms, they do that), he suggested that certain astronomical cycles affected the earth. His concept was not enthusiastically received until secular scientists needed to conjure up a rescuing device for their assorted schemes, such as orbital tuning, climate change, and secular ice age imaginings.

Modern astronomers and geologists have tried to use the Milankovitch cycles in numerous areas, and some of their schemes smack of astrology.
Original image, before I defaced it with de face: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos
Modern astronomers and geologists have tried to use the Milankovitch cycles in numerous areas, and are even now using their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings© to find new ways to force-fit Milankovitch's ideas into justify their own stories. Even though the "Pacemaker" paper that was used to support this thing was never any good, hey, any rescue in a storm of factlessness, huh? Evolutionism has been getting quite esoteric and unscientific lately, and some of the papers using Milankovitch's work smack of astrology. Well, why not? Astrology is just a scientific as evolutionism, so those to may as well get hitched up.
Sometimes a hunch proves to be unworkable. The Milankovitch Cycle theory has too many complications. It’s time to give it up.

In the 1920s, Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian astronomer, mathematician and popularizer of science, had a bright idea. Knowing that certain orbital cycles drift over time, he wondered if they could influence the earth’s climate. Though not the first to think about this, he set about calculating periods where sunlight would be more likely to hit the northern latitudes more directly, thinking that those areas would heat up. Other areas might receive sunlight at a more oblique angle, becoming cooler. The cycles might even generate an Ice Age!
To read the rest, click on "Why Milankovitch Cycle Theory Is Like Astrology". You may also like Dr. Jason Lisle's article, "The Ice Age".

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

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Whale Blasts Conventional Fossilization Story

Yesterday, we looked at "Whale Fossil Frustrates Evolutionists". Today, something more recent.

Through time, chance, and random processes, I ran into Rusty Swingset, the foreman at the Darwin Ranch. He admitted that the standard story of fossilization is still being told despite observable evidence. You have probably encountered it as well. Something dies in or near water, sinks to the bottom, gets covered up over long periods of time, permineralization happens, and a fossil is formed. Except that this does not happen.

What happens when something dies, whether on land or in water? Aquarium owners should know this. It gets scavenged and decays, which means there fossilization over long periods is not possible. Biblical creationists have pointed out many times that it happens when something is buried quickly. The existence of billions of fossils is evidence for the Genesis Flood.

A whale provided explosive testimony that the standard story of fossilization is simply untrue.
Assembled from components found at Clker clipart
In late 2001, a dead whale was causing a feeding frenzy for sharks. It attracted folks that wanted to get a look-see, and they started doing stupid things. For their own safety, the whale was towed further out to sea, and explosive charges were detonated. It was hoped that this would cause the whale to sink. The whale was obstreperous and did not sink. No way was it going to become a fossil, what with scavenging and such. Indirectly, the whale's explosive testimony reminds us of the Flood and recent creation.
Local charter-boat operators were thrilled with people lining up at Cape Jervis wharf, 90 km (55 miles) south of Adelaide, eager to pay for a closer look. Dozens of boats were busy for days going back and forth to the drifting whale. The regular ferry detoured to allow passengers a first-rate view. Some of the thousands of people who made the trip described the experience as ‘awesome’.
. . .
Next day, police crews from the water operations unit were monitoring the crowd behaviour. Some officials even suggested that laws might be changed ‘to protect people too stupid to protect themselves’. 
. . .
Worried officials, fearing the whale would become a hazard to shipping, or wash ashore causing an environmental crisis, enlisted the police bomb squad to sink it.
To read the entire article, we can meat at the link, "Whale explodes fossil theory".

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

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Whale Fossil Frustrates Evolutionists

One of the main ways of classifying whales is by their mouth gear. Toothed whales (porpoises and dolphins are classified with them), and baleen whales. Most of us know what teeth are, but baleen is not a word you hear overmuch when riding the trail. A baleen is a...well, how about if I have NOAA tell you:
Baleen whales were named for the long plates of baleen which hang in a row (like the teeth of a comb) from their upper jaws.  Baleen plates are strong and flexible; they are made of a protein similar to human fingernails.  Baleen plates are broad at the base (gumline) and taper into a fringe which forms a curtain or mat inside the whale's mouth.  Baleen whales strain huge volumes of ocean water through their baleen plates to capture food: tons of krill, other zooplankton, crustaceans, and small fish.
I think they explained it nicely, don't you? Let me add that toothed whales are hunters, baleen whales are filter feeders.

A whale fossil was discovered that disrupts the evolutionary timeline again.
Humpback whale breaching...the big splash is a-coming!
Image credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Advocates of universal common ancestor evolution spin yarns quite frequently, and they have quite a tale about whales. Short form: life supposedly evolved in the sea, a fish flopped up on land and evolved into everything else, but something did an about face back to the sea and evolved into whales. We're supposed to believe this because people in lab coats said so, even though the passel of expected transitional fossils to justify the story are nonexistent.

A whale fossil was found that is out of place according to evolutionary reckoning. (Out-of-places fossils happen quite frequently. Here, they attempt to say it is a baleen with teeth, but different as well.) The fossil doesn't fit the timeline, so evolutionists use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ since there is no evidence to support their story. That happens most of the time. Whales and everything else were created recently, which is an excellent explanation as to why evolutionists are continually frustrated.
According to the evolutionary mantra, whales evolved from a dog-like land creature. And as the whale of a tale goes, over millions of years the size of the evolving creatures grew and finally resulted in the largest animals ever seen on Earth—the baleen whales. At least that’s the way the myth went until a recent toothed (non-filter feeding) whale fossil was found. The creature’s immense size and alleged early evolutionary appearance befuddled the whole story.
Two evolutionists recently stated that Llanocetus denticrenatus, supposedly the second-oldest mysticete (baleen whale) known, lived around 34 million years ago.
To read the rest of the article and see why evolutionists are blubbering, click on "New Whale Fossil Harpoons Evolution". Tomorrow, we'll take a gander at how a modern whale troubles the standard fossilization tale.

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

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Yes, All These People Originally Came from Two

Depending on where you stand — sometimes literally — this world can seem densely populated, especially if you are in the East. Out in, say, the Wyoming territory or up Alaska way, there are not so many people doing the sardine in a can thing. We have 7.2 billion people, and they could all fit uncomfortably in New Zealand, a bit more comfortably in Texas, and so forth. The Bible tells us that we are all descended from Noah's family. Before that, we go back to Adam and Eve.

The biblical account of the population of the earth from two people is logical and consistent.
Credit: NASA Earth Observatory image by Robert Simmon
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some folks, especially atheists and evolutionists, commence to fretting about our Adamic origin. They say it's not possible, but that assertion is prejudicial conjecture based on evoporn. They also insert their naturalistic presuppositions into the biblical discussion, refusing to let Christians present the answer according to our presuppositions. Worse, their evolutionary views have no scientific support and are based on incoherent Just So Stories involving a Big Bang, accretion to form Earth and other planets, a dearth of the millions of bodies from our alleged ancestors, and more. The population account based on recent creation from Genesis is consistent, while evolutionary views are incoherent.
The Bible states that 2 people can populate a planet to 7 billion. That’s impossible
Where does the Bible say this? The Bible states that God commanded man to fill the earth (e.g., Genesis 1:28, 9:1, and 9:7)—which is far more than 7 billion!

But the claim that it is impossible to get seven billion descendants from two people is 100% wrong. The Bible reveals that God, who is all-powerful, created two people initially (Genesis 1)—a man and woman (Genesis 1:26–27) called Adam and Eve (e.g., Genesis 2:19, 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:13). Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), and Eve was the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20).
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Could 2 People Populate a Planet to 7 Billion People?"

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

Monday, July 2, 2018

Surprising Design of a Bird's Egg

Sitting in the apartment and looking at the porch outside, we see our feathered customers at the bird feeders. Sometimes they get a mite contentious, and other times we see them taking the food and feeding each other. Downy woodpeckers and their cousins the nuthatches stop by to remind us that they're cute. Blue jays like peanuts, and the red-bellied woodpecker stops by for a snack on his way home from work. It's funny to watch the tufted titmouse carry off a peanut. They all have many things in common, and one of those is that they hatched out of eggs.

A bird's egg is a marvel of the Master Engineer's design.
Credit: Unsplash / Soner Eker
Most of us know that eggs are in the nest (with the startling exception of the malleefowl), the young develop and eventually hatch. Research reveals that the Master Engineer designed the egg itself to provide for the hatchling-in-waiting. Eggs have a great deal of calcium, but the chick needs it. So, the shell provides the necessary ingredient, softening in the process for the inhabitant's eventual escape.
[W]e quoted Thomas Higginson who in 1862 wagered that a bird’s egg should be voted “the most perfect thing in the universe.” His opinion received support recently from researchers from Montreal, Canada, who took a closer look at eggshells. Publishing their work in the open-access journal Science Advances, they found that eggshells are dynamic structures, that begin hard to prevent breakage while the mother bird incubates them, but gradually soften near hatching time so that the chick can peck its way out. The science was advanced online by Nature, and Phys.org included a video clip from the research that reveals the fine structure of the eggshell.
There are many fascinating things about the evolution-refuting design of the bird's egg, and the article also gives some other interesting avian facts as well. To read the entire article (and see some nice pictures of birds), click on "The Information Packed Into a Bird Egg".

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

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Mysterious Radiohalos and the Genesis Flood

From my perspective, the geological mystery of radiohalos seems to have dropped by the wayside. These circles are tiny, and you need a microscope to see them. They baffled scientists for several years, until it was determined that they were caused by radioactive decay discoloring the rock.

Radiohalos are best explained by conditions during the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Alessandro Da Mommio (CC BY-SA 4.0)
When Dr. Robert Gentry published his work on polonium radiohalos as evidence for recent creation, secularists frantically tried to dismiss his work and preserve their uniformitarian views. Owlhoots will still dig up "refutations" and dismiss the subject, but the fact remains that radiohalos are a problem for secular dating methods, as shown by creation science research. The best explanation for their existence and their puzzling placement in the geologic column is the environment caused by the Genesis Flood.
Radiohalos result when enough charged particles, such as α particles (4He, helium-4 nuclei), are transmitted through a material to cause damage by displacing the molecular structure of the material along the path of the charged particles. Out of the common radioactive decay emissions, α particles have the highest linear energy transfer to any material they pass through, because they are larger, have a higher electrical charge, and are more massive. This means they cause more damage over a shorter distance in a given material than either beta (β) or gamma (γ) radiation.
To read this rather technical article in its entirety, click on "Radiohalos: Nature's Tiny Mysteries". There are several web articles available in the references section for those who have a notion to do more in-depth reading.

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

Friday, June 29, 2018

Layer Counting Yields Faulty Dating Methods

Some owlhoots put down the biblical timeline, saying the Genesis Flood could not have happened because some things are dated before it happened. How do they attain such knowledge? By counting things.

One popular "refutation" of biblical dating is a thing called dendrochronology. You may not have known the term as a kid, but remember being shown the stump of a tree that had been cut down and being told that if you count the rings, that's how old the tree was? That is the essence of dendrochronology. The word comes from Greek words for tree and time, so that works out nicely. This isn't just from cutting them down and counting, they drill core samples so they don't have to bring the whole thing down.

But tree growth rings are not consistent. Sometimes a tree will skip a year or more, other times, conditions will influence it to make additional rings in a year. Radiocarbon dating is used to calibrate tree-ring dating, which is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating. Nice circle you got yourself, Hoss. In addition, radiocarbon dating is loaded with assumptions and inaccuracies, and is not consistent around the globe. Also, altitude of trees seems to be a factor in the ages of trees.

Another bit of counting to do involves varves. These are sedimentary deposits in lakes and such. Like tree-ring circuses — I mean, dating — and radiocarbon, varve dating relies on unprovable assumptions. Rhythmites are a maverick in that corral, as they look a great deal like the deposits made by varves, but are the result of unpredictable catastrophic events. They can pile up in a hurry.

"Aha! But we have ice cores, Cowboy Bob! We've got you!"

That'll be the day. Ice cores are similar to the other two dating methods, what with drilling and getting samples, and so on. Researchers have to be prepared for the cold weather, too, since it's not exactly Myrtle Beach sand cores they're pulling up. Ice core dating has the same kinds of flaws in dendrochronology. In addition, deep core dating has the problem with circular reasoning.

If you study on it a spell, you'll notice that secular scientists use quite a bit of fundamentally flawed logic. Circular reasoning is common: assume long ages to prove long ages, assume evolution to prove evolution, use radiocarbon to calibrate tree-ring dating while radiocarbon is calibrated by tree-ring dating, the age of the rock is known by the fossil it contains and the age of the fossil is known by the rock layer in which it was found. I could go on, but these circles make me a mite dizzy.

All of this science is a prairie schooner-full of effort, wasted time, misspent money, and squandered intelligence for the sake of denying the evidence of the Genesis Flood and recent creation. No, scientists have not disproved anything about biblical chronology, but Darwin's Flying Monkeys© proclaim their evidence-free faith with loud voices.
Tree rings, ice cores, and other natural records of seasonal changes, they say, prove the earth is old and the Bible’s account of history can’t be true.
. . .
While most of us rely on calendars to track seasons and years, God gave us other markers of the passage of time. For instance, every year trees really do grow a fresh layer of cells on their outer trunks—tree rings. If we count up the rings, we can calculate how old the tree is, right?
Each season, rains wash silt onto the bottoms of lakes. The content of the layers looks different in the spring and fall. So we can just count up the layers and know how long the lake has been there, right?
Polar ice sheets add new layers each winter, too. The snow never completely melts in the summer and is covered by a new blanket of snow the following winter. Just count up the layers, and you know how long snow has been falling near the poles, right? . . .
These dating methods seem well founded and logical because we can observe these seasonal processes happening today. 
To read the rest or download the audio version, click on "Layers of Assumption — Are Tree Rings and Other 'Annual' Dating Methods Reliable?" Also, there is a nine-minute video at the end of the article. Plus, a short video at the end of this post as well.

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

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Crustaceans Make Evolutionists Crabby

If you are ever in Hawaii or some South Pacific islands, you might take a stroll outside some night and hear a crunching sound. Before you light a shuck out of there, it may be something as benign as the coconut crab. It's also called the robber crab or palm thief, but it's doing it's thing, not robbing anything, really. Big critters, and they really do like coconuts (and other things). Some folks consider them good eating, but stick to other crab meat, because these are endangered. They like to use their pincers, so I'd be careful.

The startling coconut crab is interesting, but is also an example of difficulties for evolutionists.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / fearlessRich
This is one of the more notable species of crab. There are many, and they fit into the category of crustaceans. Adherents to the universal common ancestor mythology experience discomfort because there are no plausible, consistent  origin stories, and there is considerable disagreement about the origin and classification of crustaceans. Like other branches of the evolutionary family "tree of life", their branch is in a state of confusion. If secularists would drop the evolution notion and realize that life is the product of our Creator, they might sleep better at night. Except for the coconut crunching, of course.
Did you hear about the crab that climbs trees at night to steal coconuts? It’s no joke. If you visit Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean, or some other south-west Pacific and Indian Ocean islands, you can see the robber crab in action.
The robber crab, Birgus latro, is the world’s largest land crab. It can grow to 60 cm (2 ft) or more from head to tail. It sneaks out of its burrow at night, climbs the trunks of coconut palms or other fruit trees, and snips off the coconuts or fruit with its two giant pincers. It climbs back down the tree and gathers up the food it dropped for a tasty salad. It uses its huge pincers to chip at and pound the coconuts until it gets them open.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The robber crab — Part of the great crustacean mystery". There are some other articles linked at the end for additional reading.

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

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Pluto Throws Sand in Deep Time Machinations

Mayhaps you were thinking of a cartoon dog throwing sand in the propaganda machines near the Darwin Ranch. Machines do not get along with sand very often. No, if you head over Deception Pass way, you will hear the sounds of business as usual. Besides, they still have the slave Winkie Guards posted. What we have here is a problem for the secular science industry on a much larger scale.

Secular scientists are having trouble explaining the existence of dunes on Pluto
Icy dunes on Pluto image Credits: NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We have seen many times that objects in our solar system (and beyond) don't cotton to being called old, as evinced by Cassini and Titan, among many others. One of the troublemakers for secular astronomers has been Pluto. It showed signs of youth. Now it has been discovered that Pluto has been throwing sand around.

No, not the sand on our beaches, but it is still composed of small particles. Astronomers wonder how they moved, as Pluto's atmosphere is almost nonexistent. Yet, the dunes exist. Once again, Pluto is recalcitrant for deep time conjectures, but scientists are searching for rescuing devices. Convection has been proposed, but with no model or evidence. This distant former planet has been geologically active far more recently than secularists want to admit, because that would mean the solar system was created recently and not the result of gradual cosmic evolution.
Sand dunes were surprising enough on Titan, but et tu, Pluto? and young, recent dunes? Scientists couldn’t believe their eyes.

What do you picture when thinking of sand dunes? Dry deserts, with wind whipping piles of sand into ripples and hills shallow on one side and steep on the other— that kind of thing. You probably don’t think of Pluto. The outermost planet (or Plutoid, Dwarf Planet, or Trans-Neptunian Object, depending on your taste) is supposed to be an icy ball frozen for billions of years. The latest analysis of data from the 2015 New Horizons mission, however, shows that Pluto has been busy recently constructing sand dunes out of particles of icy methane.
To finish reading, click on "What’s Pluto Been Dune? Making Young Sand Dunes". Also, for some other information on Pluto, click for this 2016 article. Finally, a very short video below that insists on deep time, but admits that scientists are surprised:

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