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

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Reconsidering the Ica Stones

People who follow the human origins controversy have probably heard about the Ica Stones. They are artifacts that were probably found in Peruvian tombs, and have some mighty interesting (often highly detailed) designs in the carvings — including dinosaurs. Advocates of rock-to-rock star evolution dismiss them out of hand. One reason is the secular presupposition that dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart. Another reason given for rejecting them as genuine artifacts is because they belonged in a private collection. Then these owlhoots proceed to buy fossils from dealers in Liaoning Province in China and present them as evidence for evolution, but never mind about that now.


The Ica Stones depict many things, including dinosaurs, but they can possibly be verified
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Brattarb (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Like the bell found in coal, creationists need to use a great deal of caution when presenting information about the Ica Stones are evidence for a young earth. Yes, they do fit nicely with other historical evidence of dinosaurs living contemporaneously with humans. But are they valid? There quite a few, and I read some tinhorn's comment that one guy faked them all. That'll be the day! Year. Decade. Whatever.

The term "Ica Stones" is actually used to cover a lot of ground. Not all are carvings of dinosaurs, and some are "souvenir stones" that were made in modern times. The Ica Stones should not be dismissed as irrelevant curiosities, but there are stronger arguments for the young earth, creation, and the Genesis Flood. New Agers as well as ancient astronaut and UFO enthusiasts are interested, so you may want to show this material to them. That is, if the Ica Stones can be verified. Seems that they can be, according to this in-depth article by David Woetzel.
Perus’s enigmatic Ica Stones have been puzzling historians and scientists for many decades. Allegedly found in ancient tombs, the library of engraved rocks displayed at the private Cabrera Museum facility in the village of Ica, Peru contains clear dinosaurian representations. Dinosaur drawings from pre-Colombian cultures are highly problematic for the prevailing theory that all dinosaurs became extinct before man evolved. However, these artifacts have been viewed with considerable skepticism since they were not found and documented by trained researchers. But other similar ceremonial burial stones were discovered and documented by international archaeologists and are housed in the collections of respected museums. This article explores ways to test Ica Stones to independently establish their antiquity or to confirm that they are merely modern productions created by enterprising local artisans.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Can the Ica Stones be Independently Authenticated?




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

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Building Life with Carbon

In these parts, there is a report given about youngsters that may include the words, "Plays well with others". In Danish, it would be leg godt, "play well", which was used to make the name of a popular building blocks toy. Those of us who grow up and get jobs often get reviews on our performance, and one bit of praise in business-ese is, "A team player", which can mean different things, depending on the reviewer. If the element carbon was an entity, it would be given high ratings as a team player, as it works well with other elements and is an essential component in building life.

The element carbon has unique properties that show it was clearly designed by the Master Engineer.
Credit: Freeimages / Carlos Gustavo Curado
Carbon has many unique properties that would make it more of a "team leader" than a "player". F'rinstance, it is between Boron and Nitrogen on the Periodic Table of Elements, so it is very similar to them. However, its activities are far superior to those of its neighbors. Carbon is number six on the Table, and biblically, six is the number of man. Know what that means? Nothing, really. But it's an interesting coincidence, since carbon is essential to life.

Not only are we carbon-based, but we also need to take in other carbon-based foods for nutrition. Sure, you can tell someone to go eat sand, but sand on Earth is pretty much made of silicon, and wouldn't do anyone a whole heap of good. If you look at the Periodic Table, you'll see that silicon and carbon are close neighbors in their group, but although silicon also plays well with others, it cannot be the basis of life. Obviously, carbon is not the product of some kind of evolution, and is the product of the Master Engineer.
Isaiah clearly states that God formed the earth to be inhabited. This would imply that every aspect of the environment has been designed for the growth and maintenance of life. This includes everything from the air we breathe, the water we drink, to even the various types of atoms and molecules from which life is made. Over the past century and a half, man has made great technological advances that have increased our knowledge and understanding of chemistry and the environment in which we live. With this increase, many have become acutely aware of just how uniquely suited the environment is for life.
To finish learning this fascinating bit of chemistry, click on "Carbon: God’s Building Blocks for Life


That's a Fact - Carbon-14 Dating from
Institute for Creation Research
on Vimeo.



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

Monday, January 29, 2018

Further Follies in the "RNA World" Fantasy

Darwin's true believers are a mite confused, and have trouble keeping their stories straight. Some will tell the falsehood that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, and then support cheating on OOL research. Following that, they commence to making up rescuing devices to explain away the impossibility of abiogenesis.


Attempts to make the "RNA World" concept work keep on failing

Way back when the excuse factory was attached to the propaganda mill and ran off a diesel engine, the concept of an "RNA World" was put forward.  Isn't that a song? You know, "Its an RNA world where evolution flows, no one owns a piece of my enzyme —"

"You're thinking of 'Five O'Clock World' by the Vogues, Cowboy Bob!"



via GIPHY


Anyway, evolutionary desperadoes said, "We don't need no stinking DNA, we can have RNA evolve all by its lonesome!", or words to that effect. Essentially, they are relying on magic, not science, in their efforts to deny the logic of the Creator.

A recently contrived experiment attempted to support the RNA World thing, but it was a goat rodeo of bad science that should have never been discussed in polite company. See "Another RNA World ‘Missing Link’ Experiment Misses the Point" for more about that. Then there's the paper by Szostak. His research could not be replicated or verified (although it was previously accepted despite the lack of science), it was retracted. At least he had the decency to be embarrassed.
The whole concept of how life originated is an insurmountable naturalistic hurdle. Life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in an interdependent triad in which each molecule is wholly dependent on the other two to exist. It’s worse than a chicken and egg scenario. Furthermore, since each type of molecule carries and conveys complex encoded information, an intelligent information provider is the only logical cause of this information source. Code implies a coder.
To read the rest (and learn more about what the RNA World idea is all about), click on "'RNA World' Paper Retracted". 



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

Saturday, January 27, 2018

The Bell in Coal Story

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is one of those items to use with caution. No, it is not "proof" of a young earth or the Genesis Flood. However, we do have something that merits serious consideration. Back in 1944 over West Virginia way, Newton Anderson was taking care of family coal duties and found an odd specimen. He broke away the coal and found a bell. Unfortunately, he cleaned it up a bit too well, but who would have thought that people would want to analyze the bell, coal and all, as an out-of-place artifact back then?


The bell found in bituminous coal may be an artifact from the pre-Flood world.
Most likely, the bell in West Virginia was found in bituminous coal
Credit: Donna Pizzarelli, USGS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
As I've said many times before, everybody has their presuppositions by which they interpret information for their worldviews. Evolutionists and atheists argue from a materialistic view, where they erroneously presume there is no Creator God, no spirits, and so forth. Biblical creationists believe the Bible is the written Word of God, and is true from the very first verse. We also believe that there was a global Flood that changed the planet. So, we're working from our worldview, you savvy?

For the sake of space, I'll refer you to the articles here about the Flood, Noah's Ark, the world back then, and so forth. Creationists believe that the pre-Flood world had a sizable population. People back then were descendants of Adam, and were not the semi-evolved brutes that Darwin's disciples portray; they were intelligent. People have asked creationists if anyone has discovered remnants of settlements, cities, and so forth, but since the Flood was so devastating, it is highly unlikely. Maybe there would be some artifacts of the antediluvian world? Possibly, but they would be rare. The speculation about the bell found in coal is that it is one of those remnants. Atheists and evolutionists wave this off, rejecting any possible evidence, and coming up with excuses that do not withstand scrutiny. After all, it threatens their uniformitarian and deep time assumptions.

One objection to the bell's antiquity is the figurine on the top of it that resembles cult idols found in more recent civilization. Interestingly, such idols are seen in many diverse places. A reasonable speculation is that some demons made themselves known and were worshiped, and that this one was known to some antediluvian people as well as those who lived more recently.

Creationists are advised to be careful on things of this nature, as I said. There are good reasons to have healthy skepticism, especially when the information is extremely incomplete. Gold chains, bells, and other things that may or may not have been embedded in coal are interesting, but most of us prefer to present stronger evidence for creation, a young earth, and the Genesis Flood.

Don't be disunderstanding me, though! Things like this that are more than a curiosity and have evidence that cannot be easily dismissed can generate interest in the abundant evidence for creation and the Flood. David Woetzel has researched the bell extensively, and Newton Anderson researched the figurine. I recommend that you read first the short article, "Bell Found in Coal", and the extremely interesting (and longer) article, "Update on the Mysterious Bell Found in Coal".





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

Friday, January 26, 2018

Evolutionists Cannot Explain the Origin of Eyes

Many of Darwin's disciples are fond of ridiculing creation with prejudicial conjecture along the lines of, "That could not have been created, therefore, evolution". Ironically, they invoke evolution as an entity with the ability to make design choices. It is also contradictory, because they believe their mad gibbering false god does wonderful things, but eyes are poorly designed, so... That is not science, old son, that is blind faith in pantheism. It is also desperation.

Evolutionists have no plausible mechanism or evidence for eye evolution

Speaking of blind, fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists cannot see the Master Engineer's amazing design of eyes. Claims that the human eye are poorly designed have been thoroughly refuted, other critters such as trilobites had exceptional eye construction, and more. Here's an idea: instead of continuing to debunk the foolish assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys©, have them give plausible evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of eyes.

Keep going. Press them to explain why different organisms have similar eye structures, why there are several kinds of eyes, how an organism can evolve eyes a bit at a time without being burdened by the added baggage — and to explain vision itself. Even if something developed eyes, it would need the ability to process that information. Oh, and no just-so stories, either. Show us scientific evidence for the evolution of eyes, including in the fossil record. But they cannot do this, even Darwinists admit they have a serious problem with these things. Too many prefer to remain spiritually blind rather than admit the truth of the Creator.
The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the present. Although Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the natural or fossil world. Furthermore, the simplest ‘eye’, the eyespot, is not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis; yet even it requires an enormously complex mechanism in order to function as a vision system.
To read the rest of this rather long but extremely informative article, click on "Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?"



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

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Stars and Heavy Elements

According to secular mythology, the Big Bang is responsible for everything in the universe; we are made of "star stuff" from cosmic evolution. That is, after the Big Bang, stars formed, some became supernovas, and (I am cutting out quite a bit of steps here) led to the formation of elements. These, in turn, eventually caused life to evolve.

Calculations and conditions indicate that stars cannot produce heavier elements, despite secular mythology
"This image combines data from four space telescopes to create a multi-wavelength view
of all that remains of RCW 86, the oldest documented example of a supernova."
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/SAO & ESA; Infared: NASA/JPL-Caltech/B. Williams (NCSU)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
A while back, I presented material about a concept of stellar alchemy, where neutron stars produced gold. No actual evidence, of course, just speculation. On the periodic table of the elements, gold is number 79, and iron is way back at 26. Doing some basic calculations and working from presumed conditions, a supernova cannot produce those heavier elements. Wanna know why? Because the universe was created recently, and the Big Bang is a rescuing device that is utilized in an attempt to avoid admitting the fact of creation. The explanations of secular cosmologists raise more questions than they answer.
Why should we be concerned about where heavy elements—those with a proton number greater than 26—came from? The answer points to two opposing paradigms in the story of origins. The first paradigm is based on random chance events in which nature somehow creates and sustains itself, and the second is based on an ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation that is consistent with the biblical narrative.
In the September 2017 issue of Acts & Facts, we looked at the question of the origin of the elements in our solar system and universe. We learned that elements heavier than 56Fe cannot be produced in stars like our sun because nuclear fusion reactions for elements above 56Fe become endothermic—i.e., the surrounding medium must supply energy to the reaction for it to occur.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Stellar Nucleosynthesis: Where Did Heavy Elements Come From?"




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

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Fisher's Theorem Reversed

First, a note of explanation. As we have seen in many examples, quite a few people refer to simple changes as "evolution", attempting to conflate variation with universal common ancestor evolution, as popularized by Charles Darwin. I have learned from other biblical creationists to specify those differences in terminology, so you will often see the word Darwinism on this site. Although most scientists have abandoned evolution into more advanced life forms alone as Darwin taught, people know what we're talking about when saying Darwinism. Also, it's a mite less tedious than saying some of the other synonyms, such as neo-Darwinian synthesis.

The synthesis thing is where neo-Darwinism happens. Darwin was largely ignorant of the research on genetics by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), and his philosophies were beginning to flounder in the early 20th century. Along came eugenicist, racist, and mathematician R. A. Fisher to the rescue. He formulated a theorem to mathematically prove evolution by assuming evolution, and then calculated with mutation rates. Fisher's Theorem and it's convoluted Lügenmärchen corollary became icons of molecules-to-mathematician evolution.

Mendel and genetics almost destroyed Darwinism, but Fisher's Theorem was used to rescue evolutionism.
Modified postage stamp of Gregor Mendel
The theorem was flawed from the outset but looked good, especially with its hubris about projecting into the future with limited scientific knowledge. More recently, the paper was retooled with new factors and information, and the reformulated version is mathematically proven. Problem is, the repaired version is devastating to Fisher's original goal, and actually works the opposite way. All the fancy footwork and doublespeak from secularists cannot overturn the truth: Darwin and company were wrong, life was created, it did not evolve.
Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental,” because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law – on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics.  Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness – without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity – a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra – Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.
To read the entire article, click on "Mathematician and Geneticist Team Up to Correct Fisher’s Theorem". Also, you may be interested in a follow-up, where a scientist was supposedly giving tribute to Fisher, but spent time promoting himself. See "Father of Neo-Darwinism Condemned with Faint Praise".



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

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Even Water is Designed!

If you think on it for a spell, you might realize that people who have plentiful water take it for granted. This here planet that our Creator gave us to look after is just over two thirds water. Interesting that we ourselves are also two thirds water. Sure, some of it is mix in with other fluids, but those fluids rely on water to keep us alive. Evolutionists who search for life on other worlds primarily focus on whether or not those places could sustain water, since it is necessary for life.


Water itself was designed by the Master Engineer
Credit: Freeimages / shivani
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have you to think a bit further. Ever wonder where it came from? I'm not talking about clouds, rivers, and things. Before that. Dumb luck at the alleged cosmic evolution of the solar system? Not hardly! Water has many characteristics, such as its chemical composition, density, surface tension, heat capacity, viscosity, and so on. Even though the logic indicates that water, as well as life itself, was designed by the Master Engineer. Of course. some folks kick at the goads and refuse to admit the truth.
Water, the most abundant compound on earth, perhaps in the solar system, has so many properties that make it truly remarkable especially in regard to making the planet habitable and life possible. Each of the following properties discussed here clearly shows that water is purposefully designed for making the earth habitable. 
. . . 
Water is commonly referred to as the matrix of life. Its versatility and peculiar properties make it uniquely suitable for life; it is unrivaled by any other liquid. For this purpose, almost all biochemical reactions take place in water. It is necessary, then, to take a look at the structure of water and how this structure gives rise to the properties of water that make it uniquely suitable for life.
To read the entire article, splashdown at "God’s Flawless Design of Water Makes Life Possible". 




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

Monday, January 22, 2018

Jurassic Coast Propaganda Playground Fails

Several places around the globe have interesting geological features, and are used as icons for deep time and Darwinism. As expected, they give a slanted view of what is seen, but leave out important information. A nice patch of land in England has been named the Jurassic Coast, and is rife with secular propaganda (as well as some fabulous scenery). Looks like a great place for a stroll.


England's "Jurassic Coast" is rife with secular propaganda for deep time but the facts support the global Genesis Flood
Credit: Pixabay / diego_torres
The secular view of uniformitarian geology is heavily promoted, but does not explain the features. Some problems are the erosion layers, rate of cliff retreat, planation surfaces, and more. The evidence is best explained by the Genesis Flood, including the presence of fossils, which require rapid burial. Watch for evolutionary and deep time propaganda, old son. They are not giving you all the facts, nor the most reasonable explanation. Secularists need to cowboy up and realize that the world was created recently, and that's why all their speculations don't hold up to scrutiny.
Numerous geological sites across the world present the story of evolution, uniformitarianism, and rocks millions of years old. One popular site is the Jurassic Coast in southwest England, where millions of people a year visit and take a ‘185 million year walk through time’.1 However, the discerning tourist can readily see another interpretation from the rocks and fossils, namely evidence of rapid burial through many conformable (continuously deposited) sedimentary layers, which is far better explained by the Genesis Flood.
To read the rest, journey over to "The Jurassic Coast—Icon for the Genesis Flood".





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

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Male Health and Genetic Entropy

Adherents of universal common ancestor evolution rely on atheistic interpretations of scientific facts, and they have a special fondness for geoscience. Evolutionists need the earth to be ancient, so secular geologists and paleontologists give Darwin the long ages he needs to perform his miracles. Many evidences for a young earth, using secularist methods, are largely ignored. One of these evidences for a recent creation is in biology. Specifically, genetics.

Genetic entropy is more pronounced in males, and humans cannot be as old as Darwinists want to believe
Credit: National Human Genome Research Institute
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Evolutionists are enamored with studying fruit flies, since they can induce mutations and variations (but cannot get anything other than freaky fruit flies). The science around mutations in fruit flies also applies to humans. Specifically, the Y chromosome in human males. Yes, really. Males have the a Y chromosome, and females have two X chromosomes. There's more possibility of damage (mutations) being passed along to further generations, despite the best efforts of our inner DNA repair mechanisms. Males have more health problems than females, and at the rate of genetic entropy that can be observed, humans cannot be as old as Darwinists want to believe. Biblical creationists have been saying for years that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect at their creation, and when sin entered creation, the downward slide began.
A good example about how much we do not know about the chromosomes is admitted in an article in Science Daily that proclaimed:
Decoding Y chromosomes is difficult even with latest sequencing technologies. The question [of] which genes lie on the chromosome and where they came from is hotly debated.
The authors then claim that “genetic material in fruit flies is often transferred to the Y chromosome from other chromosomes. Although largely a result of ‘accidents’, some of these transfers create functional genes.”
To read the rest, click on "The Problem with Males: Y-Chromosome Degeneration".



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

Friday, January 19, 2018

Noah: Man of Resolve — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Several months ago, I read and reviewed Noah: Man of Destiny, by Tim Chaffey and K. Marie Adams. Just before Christmas, I was pleasantly surprised that Noah: Man of Resolve was one of the e-books on sale at Answers in Genesis, so I grabbed it. I'm telling you how I obtained my copy so you know that I purchased both books and was not given promotional copies or anything. The publisher and authors probably do not even know that I exist, let alone that I am writing reviews.

Noah: Man of Resolve, book 2 of the Remnant Trilogy" by Tim Chaffey and K. Marie AdamsIt has been made clear that this is a trilogy, as seen in part of the name, "The Remnant Trilogy". (See how that works?) I suspicion that all three  were written as one large book and then separated into sections. I'm thinking that because the authors don't have continuity errors from book one to book two, which are more likely to happen when authors spend a lot of time off in their writing. Also, books one and two have "a glimpse of" preview of the next book in the volume you'd be holding in your mitts. Plus the fact that the second book takes up precisely where the first one left off, and has some tense action sequences.

Noah:Man of Destiny had some editing problems early on, but those were confined to early chapters, and I did not notice any glaring errors in this book. Each of the first two books is slightly under 300 pages, which includes extras after the main novels. More about those extras later.

Man of Destiny established characters and conflicts, and there was a bit of romance where Noah met and married the missus. Man of Resolve continues with character development and shows us that Noah was indeed a man of resolve, as were some of his friends. We are given some rather emotional moments of rage, tragic loss, and committed love.

Although a work of fiction, the authors were very concerned with staying true to what we know in Scripture, but also using artistic license to tell the story. People are abandoning faith in the Creator and turning to a satanic substitute that wicked people and the "Seer" are promoting. Wickedness is increasing, as we read in Genesis 6:5. 

There is no profanity, and while sexual immorality is becoming rampant, it is only mentioned. However, there is more violence in this book than the last, and some of it is a bit graphic — may be disturbing to younger and more sensitive readers. The violence is not gratuitous or given excessive detail, and I've seen worse on network television. Let me add that I've read secular books that had violence that was necessary to the storyline that have put me off from continuing. This is nowhere near that intense, you savvy?

These books are necessarily full of reasonable creationary speculations about the pre-Flood world's conditions, animals, people, and so on. Again, the authors are careful not to violate what is clearly stated in the Bible. They also explain themselves in the extras: "Behind the Fiction, "Answering Questions Raised by the Novel", "Encounter This", and "Borrowed from the Bible". Here, we see that the authors did a great deal of research and simply did not spin a fun yarn. Even the names of some characters were carefully chosen, and other names were studiously avoided. Working at and researching for the Ark Encounter worked both ways, helping both the exhibits and the novels. Several questions were deliberately raised by the authors to provoke thought in the readers, and to show that some people have unscriptural opinions about Noah, the Ark, and his time. 

One slightly negative thought is that Noah and his wife seemed a mite underwhelmed when he learned about the Flood and having to build the Ark. Seemed a bit like, "Wow, that's too bad". However, the astonishing news only happened once in history, so how could they deal with it? I'm sure that more about their reactions and feelings will be developed in the third volume.

I recommend Noah: Man of Resolve. It is a good story with theological support, faithfulness to the Bible, and gives people things to think about and discuss. Be aware that this second volume is not a "stand alone"; you'd best be reading the first book before getting into this one so it makes more sense. From the "That's the Biz, Sweetheart" department, I have to wait a few more months before commencing to read the final volume, which will be released in about five months.





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

Thursday, January 18, 2018

The Hard Side of Flour

That white, fluffy stuff found in most kitchens known as flour can be fun, especially when it is used to make something edible. I like that part. You can also play detective and sprinkle it on the ground to see who is intruding. Doesn't work too well in a brightly-lit room, though. You can also make glue with it.

"But Cowboy Bob, I have a gluten allergy!"

Was it properly diagnosed, or did you form an opinion? People cannot pretend to be doctors, so do not self-diagnose, old son, and do not eat the glue. Anyway, this post is about something more solid: petrified flour.

Flour was petrified, and it did not take millions of years to do it
Credit: Pixabay / Julia Schwab
Creationists share stories and articles about various items that turned to stone or something. Unfortunately, they don't check their sources. Some items may be valid, but when in doubt, go without. I suspicion that the reason some folks bring these up is to make the valid point that petrification, like fossilization, requires proper conditions, not long ages. These conditions are explained by the Genesis Flood.

Sacks of flour can be seen that were petrified. No, not horribly frightened, but actually turned to stone. That's the real meaning of the word, you see. And it shows quite clearly that Darwin years are unnecessary.
The oblong rocks at the Eureka Springs Gardens in Arkansas, USA, bring a curious smile to passing tourists, once they inspect them closely.
Grey and smooth, the rocks have a fabric imprint, resembling coarse canvas sacking. They look remarkably like sacks of flour! The bottom of one sack is elongated and even preserves a pattern of stitching. The top is pulled together, complete with petrified wrinkles, as if it was once tied with rope.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Petrified Flour". You may also want to see the short video below on petrified wood.




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

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Geologic Boundary and Evolution Dispute

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

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


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

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Oldest Fossil Microbes?

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

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


via GIPHY

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



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

Monday, January 15, 2018

Dinosaur Proteins and More Rescuing Devices

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


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

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




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

Saturday, January 13, 2018

The Panda's Thumb and More Materialistic Theological Arguments

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


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






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

Friday, January 12, 2018

Epigenetics and Engineered Adaptation

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

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

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

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


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

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Secularists Forced to Admit Saturn's Rings are Young

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


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






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

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Fantastic Flying Feathered Friends

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

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

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

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




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

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

The Scientific Fact of Phlogiston

Imagine some cowboys at the campfire on the trail:

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

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

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

"What's phlogiston?"

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

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

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




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

Monday, January 8, 2018

Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales

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


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


 
via GIPHY

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

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



 

>



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

Labels