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

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

"Junk" DNA Similar to Computer Memory?

One trait that atheists and evolutionists have when encountering information regarding intelligent design (especially from biblical creationists) is to ignore it and attack. For example, a recent post about the follies of secular astronomical predictions was ignored by an uneducated tinhorn who wanted to be smarter than everyone else in the room — he wanted to talk about an asteroid instead. Similarly, we get challenged at The Question Evolution Project by atheopaths who ignore the content of the posts, change the subject and (wait for it...) attack. It's who they are and what they do. As we shall see, this kind of thing happens in professional circles as well as from social media nitwits.

Evolutionists attack but are given the inconvenient facts and are refuted

The book Contested Bones dealt with, well, bones. Three pages of it involved other failures of evolution. What's a fundamentalist Darwinoid to do except ignore the majority of the text and attack those three pages? Sure, that's how scientific discourse works in the secular world nowadays. The complaint was yet another bit of dysteleology (we looked at this concept regarding the panda's "thumb"), where "We reject the Creator, but he wouldn't do it that way, therefore, evolution. Here, the risible claim is that there is too much redundancy in DNA.

After this nonsensical argument based on personal preference, ignorance, and prejudicial conjecture, I would have moved on. Well, maybe I would have added that even if the claim was true, computer systems have redundancy, and we're talking about life here. That's my opinion.

However, in the spirit of Proverbs 26:5, the challenges were answered with some devastating material. Seems like secularists would learn to clam up instead of getting mouthy with their uninformed personal opinions about things like DNA, which are not fully understood. Turns out that this "junk" DNA works like computer memory. Uh, oh. The Master Engineer is vindicated again, and evolutionists are refuted as usual.
Chris Rupe co-authored the book Contested Bones with John Sanford to tell about the inadequate evidence for human evolution. The book is almost entirely about bones and the fossil record, but there are 3 pages in that book that refute claims by evolutionary biologists that the human genome is badly designed because of repetitive DNA elements known as Alus.

Some 10-11% of the human genome is composed of repeats of a specific 300-base pattern called an Alu. Evolutionists claim this is bad design. Their reasoning goes something like this: ‘You only need one copy of a phone book in a house, maybe a few at most, certainly not millions of copies. Therefore the 1 million copies of Alus in the human genome is worthless junk. It doesn’t even code for something. Therefore Alus are bad design. Since it’s bad design, there is no reason to believe there is an Intelligent Designer.”
To read the rest or listen to the audio version, click on "Some ‘Junk DNA’ May Act as Computer Memory".

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

Monday, February 19, 2018

Refuting the "Jesus was an Alien" Story

Didn't plan it this way, but this post fits in with the recent article on catching bad arguments in a video, and thinking critically. 

Every once in a while, someone goes into the weird stories corral and trots out the story that Jesus was able to do those healings because he was an alien. While he did cross some regional borders, I mean alien as in from outer space. This idea is usually found among New Age enthusiasts, and they have a passel of aliens in their worldviews.

If you study on it, you'll notice that these beings claim to be more highly evolved, and traveled from way up yonder to our planet to show us the way. That way involves throwing away the Bible and believing what they say about Jesus and the coming world religion. For them, Jesus is not God the Son, the Creator, the second person of the Trinity. They "prove" their claim by assuming it (circular reasoning), and have lousy evidence. Their reasoning is sorely lacking as well. Aliens, the invisible friends of evolutionists, supposedly evolved somewhere, but cannot supersede the laws of physics, since they are not the Creator.

The idea that Jesus was a highly-evolved space alien is dispatched with truth and logic
I know this "meme" is a mite overused, but I just had to this time.
Notice that atheists, evolutionists, New Agers, and other cultists try to put biblical creationists on the defensive. They will make claim, such as "Jesus was an alien", and too many of us let them take the lead. It shouldn't be that way. We need to challenge them to substantiate their claims, and that such claims are self-refuting. Not only with weird cultic beliefs, but also with the many assertions made to support deep time and gunk-to-gunsmith evolutionism.

It reminds me of the "Jesus was a good moral teacher" nonsense. (Some atheists even claim to be "Christians" because they like some of Jesus' teachings!) Would a "good moral teacher" or an alien make the claims about himself that Jesus made, and fulfill prophesies? Not hardly! The best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture; don't be taking things out of context, and examine more than just a few cherry-picked verses to support circular reasoning. Ironically, they are rejecting the Bible while at the same time appealing to it. I can show you some atheists that "reason" the same way.

The following article shows how the alien Jesus claim is dispatched with truth and logic. There are also several helpful links included.
How can we show just how ludicrous the ‘alien Jesus’ conspiracy theory really is? Jian L. from Australia writes:
I’m not sure if this particular conspiracy is discussed here, but some people make the outrageous and ridiculous claim that Jesus was merely an alien and NOT the Son of God, pointing to his various miracles and resurrection as proof that he was an alien visitor. Apart from the impossibility of the existence of aliens and the infallibility, inerrancy and inspired nature proving that he is the Messiah, what would you say to these people?
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

There are several reasons beyond the ones you mention for why the ‘Jesus is an alien’ idea is a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
I hope you'll read the rest. To do so, just click on "Was Jesus an Alien?"

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

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Aliens Among Us and Evolutionary Propaganda

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Did you know that aliens have visited us in the past, and are among us now, but we don't know it? It has to be true because I saw it on YouTube. (I also obtained from there proof the earth is flat and life evolved from a primordial scum.) Some people are gullible, and this can be seen when they want to prove evolution, and have evidence of imaginary invisible friends from outer space. Put fake news in video format and show the world? Sure, the end justifies the means for some owlhoots.

Evidence for ancient aliens is based on bad logic, evolution, and bad presuppositions.
Credit: Pixabay / LionFive
Here is where I get into some critical thinking with y'all. Ask yourself some questions, such as, "If space aliens are such a secret, how does the video maker know?" From some of the stories about such aliens, you may want to ask, "Why is the video maker still alive, and why wasn't the video and all evidence destroyed?" Some folks don't cotton to having their secrets revealed, after all, so it seems unlikely that such big secrets are being revealed.

Here is a video that has seventeen claims in ten minutes, and the maker seems intent on convincing us of ancient alien visitations. I'd be much obliged if you'd watch it, see what errors in reasoning you can catch, and then read what I came up with. Deal?

I'm going to indulge in some reification for the sake of convenience. That is, I'll say "the video" instead of "the makers of the video" and things like that.

It starts out with words like maybe, perhaps, seem to, and so on. While the video pretends to leave it up to the viewer to decide what the evidence indicates and asks what you believe, there is clearly an agenda behind it — especially with the claim that aliens have visited Earth in the past.

Many questions came to mind: Do historical records or even long-standing legends that pertain to the structures, artwork, and so forth exist? Did they mention aliens, "gods", and that kind of thing? Did they have more prosaic explanations that the video conveniently neglected? Historical records can be very helpful.
  • First, "there is no denying" that paintings depict ancient aliens. Interesting that the video mixes ancient pictures with modern fantasy art (some of which you might find at Pixabay), which strikes me as a bit misleading. Some of the statements do not allow for alternative explanations, such as when art supposedly depicts "beings in protective suits". That is the only possibility? (This is something that evolutionists use as well: only presenting the possibility that suits their conjecture.) A comment was made that there are plenty of pictures “that we’re not even aware of”. So how do you know, kitten?
  • A claim that government files were opened, and then the video shows pictures that are not from government files. More fantasy art and such. Many sightings of UFOs have indeed been explained, but some are not so easily dismissed. Therefore, aliens. No, therefore the bifurcation fallacy. Here are some articles on aliens that you may want to consider.
  • Big rocks that didn't roll in the old Inca capital's fortress. The stones are fitted together perfectly. (I guess we have to take the video's word for that.) A remark about the "rope and lever" method of transport is mentioned dismissively. It does not prove aliens were involved.
  • Paul Hellyer is the former Canadian Minister of National Defense. We are asked why he would say something that could ruin his reputation. Red flags there, it is an appeal to motive fallacy as well as an appeal to authority. After all, this government official says something that fits with the video's agenda. “You really want to believe him”. Why should I? We are also told that he is active in the UFO community, so that shows a bit of a bias. He says there eighty species of aliens, and they want to help humanity. How does he know these things? Who supports him aside from other UFO enthusiasts? 
  • Another segment about paintings and drawings, and this is very brief. The Madonna with Saint Giovannino by Domenico Ghirlandaio is referred to as "The UFO Painting" because some people think it depicts a space ship in the distance. (As if Dom just sat there and painted a space ship, and the pilot was considerate enough to pose.) The prosaic explanation is waved off in favor of the sensational view.
  • Here we go with rocks again. "How it got there, no one will ever know." Maybe, maybe not. Because of the way the contents of the video are framed, this is almost an argument from silence, implying it must be the work of aliens.
  • The segment on our galaxy being suited for life has been discussed by Christians and creationists for many years. It is a teleological argument, and does indeed show that our Creator knew what he was doing. We are then told that our galaxy is not hospitable to aliens, but other galaxies are suited to their existence. How do you know this? Those strange assertions are based on unknown presuppositions about alien life. Apparently, someone didn't do some research, because the opposite is true. By the way, it seems that UFO enthusiasts are unaware of how large our galaxy is, and the distance between galaxies. Then some people believe the line, "I have come from another galaxy to guide you". Oh, shut up. No, you're not. Next time, bring bacon wraps and tell the truth. I like bacon wraps and the truth.
  • Next up for bidding is the segment on the Nazca lines, one of the "best examples" that aliens visited Earth. Not hardly! I first heard this line (see what I did there?) from Erich von Däniken, who has some serious problems with facts and logic. He doesn't seem to be taken seriously outside the circles of his fans. As with so much of the material in this video, the Nazca Lines can be better explained than by their being the work of aliens.
  • More structures. This time, Pyramid of the Sun, in Teotihuacan, Mexico. Nice buildings, well put together and solid. The video says the pyramids are aligned to a planet. I wonder which one? Also, these buildings were not possible with ancient technology, especially since they assume that humans were freshly minted from evolution, and were pretty much stupid. (Actually, humans have always been smart.) So, the pyramids were too advanced for pre-Aztec Mexico. But that is an assertion based on the presumptions of evolution and ancient aliens.
  • This video majors on big rocks and ancient buildings. This time, Bolivia. The temple complex had (guess what?) heavy rocks. Seems like people didn't contract out to the cheapest bidder, but wanted quality work that would last a mighty long time. I suspicion they expected to be using such things indefinitely.“Rogue historians are convinced aliens assisted in building this near-flawless site”. Yeah, we've seen what kind of scholarship those tinhorns produce. I'm almost hearing, "They may be nutty, fringe historians, but they agree with our preconceptions, so they're valid. Unnamed, but valid". My cynicism is creeping in here, isn't it?
  • Stonehenge! I would have been disappointed if this classic of ancient alien mythology was omitted. It was a landing pad for spaceships. No, it was an observatory. Wait, it was... At any rate, it must have been built by aliens because humans were stupid back then. Don't be too sure, Shirley.
  • A sarcophagus lid in a distant jungle supposedly shows someone operating controls of a space ship. It is “proof of alien interaction with humans –according to alien theorists". Notice the claim, and then backing off again by adding the "alien theorists" part? Still, the video is using loaded terminology and steering the viewer to accept this "evidence" of aliens. It seems to do that quite a bit.
  • Great balls of stone in Costa Rica. This tiny segment talks about big balls, little balls, apparently made by hand. They excited alien theorists. Of course, since those people seem to be too biased to consider other options. At least, this is the impression I am getting from this video about alien theorists.
  • Speaking of balls, how about Ball Island? Wonder why this island in the Tasman Sea has such a name, since it is in the shape of a pyramid? The assertion is that the island is too flawless to have been made by nature. Implied is, "Therefore, aliens". There is a reference to dragons because if you squint just right, something looks a little like a claw. Maybe the island was built by dragons. How about very clever birds? Crows, ravens, blue jays, and the like are rather smart, you know.
  • As a Christian, I'd be a mite reluctant to visit Baalbek in Lebanon. The Baal part of the name is not a coincidence with Old Testament demonic cults, after all. Anyway, we have more big rocks. Again. This is allegedly a landing site or beacon for alien aircraft. (How do you know that?) It would also be a challenge to build today. So, that leaves aliens, again?
  • Egyptian hieroglyphs have an assortment of objects, and some of them resemble modern vehicles. And spacecraft. Must be aliens, since there is no other explanation. Sure, buddy.
Lots of rocks, buildings, and a bit of art. Several segments could have been consolidated. Did you notice that some of the segments were tiny, about fifteen seconds long? Yeah, there's some compelling evidence, Hoss. This video is for modern people with short attention spans. Serious claims would require longer, more detailed videos that involved research.


The video was saturated with circular reasoning (assuming ancient aliens to prove ancient aliens), and ignoring other possible explanations. A great deal of the video is based on evolutionary presuppositions, especially that humans were stupid brutes way back yonder. That concept keeps on putting a burr under the saddles of evolutionists. Do some research from less gullible places and you'll see that many of the mysteries do have explanations. The same goes for claims from evolutionists who are funded by our tax money. I strongly recommend that people ask questions about origins and consider other explanations, especially form biblical creation science sources.

I hope my remarks rejecting visitors from outer space haven't alienated y'all. I'll allow that I was unable to remain objective because I was put off by the video, which I found very unconvincing. And I'm biased by my biblical creationist worldview, where I lack belief that God made intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Anyway, I have something for you to try your hand with a short video about five alien species that live with us today. Then, use some critical thinking when encountering "evidence" presented for goo-to-you evolution.

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

Friday, February 16, 2018

Simple Human Traits are Not Really

Sometimes I wonder if over-simplifying and rushing through a job so it can be called "done" is a symptom of harried, scheduled-to-the-minute Western culture. Repairs on autos, computers, connections, and so on are often incomplete. Proper diagnostics are not performed and necessary questions are not answered. Although saying that something "should not be so" is akin to wishful thinking, I think I am on solid ground when I say that scientific pursuits should be done properly. This is clearly seen when evolutionary scientists do the "rush to market" approach with their pronouncements, especially in the area of genetics.

Evolutionists embarrassed, simple traits not genetically simple after all
Background image credit: Rgbstock / Tomislav Alajbeg
The human genome was examined with selected information and outdated equipment, and it was discovered that scientists were full of hooey regarding "junk" DNA. Worse, the human-chimpanzee genome similarity myth was done with a prairie schooner-load of bad science and circular reasoning, but the "98 percent similar" myth still lives on with Darwin's uninformed disciples. Scientific research should not stop when secularists get the results they desire, old son.


Some human traits that are called "simple", are not simple. Some scientists took a notion to do some actual science work, and found that ear lobes and skin color are not controlled by the simple genetics they had at first believed. We are the creation, not the Creator. He is wise, and has shown his skill through methods we are only beginning to understand. The hubris of secularists is embarrassing to the rest of us.
Many people were told in biology class that some basic human traits reflect simple genetic principles. One example is how earlobes are attached. When I was in high school, our biology teacher told us to examine each other’s ears and see how many had attached versus unattached earlobes. Attached earlobes do not have a lobe that dangles. In general, there were many more students with unattached than attached earlobes. We were told the attached variant is an example of a classic single-gene recessive trait, an explanation that makes genetics appear overly simple.
To read the rest of this short article, click on " Human Traits Not So Simple After All".

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

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Wild Origin of Life Speculations

You would think that the hands at the Darwin Ranch would be too busy with running the propaganda mill, counting up the grant money, and passing off conjectures as scientific research to indulge in peyote gnawing. I mean, some of the downright weird concepts they're coming up with for the origin of life. Facts and science are not included, those cost extra.

Origin of life stories are getting more wild, ignoring facts and science.
Credit: Pixabay / ar130405
The origin of life (OOL), chemical evolution, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, wishful thinking — whatever you want to call it — is scientifically untenable. As we've seen here before, those owlhoots just keep on a-trying. Recent results are getting very, very strange. So, here we go again.


How about the hydrocarbon soup out yonder, at Saturn's largest moon? Not hardly! The scientist who came up with this one seems to have forgotten (or never learned) basic chemistry and biology; it won't work, snookums. Or maybe life-based organisms did not originate in water, but took the shuttle later on. Uh, how about no? Then there's the one using assumptions that we're all "star stuff", so dust in the cosmic wind brought life here. Again I ask, "Who pays these jaspers?" A great deal of time and money is being foolishly spent in efforts to deny the work of our Creator and Redeemer.

To read about these stories and more, click on "Origin-of-Life Speculation Is Out of ContrOOL".

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Pacific Salmon Guidance Systems

One of the most popular kinds of fish that people eat is salmon, but the good stuff is a mite pricey. Worth it, in my view, but you had best be cooking it up proper-like. Other critters like wolves, birds of prey, and bears eat salmon. You have probably seen movies or documentaries of bears scooping fish out of the stream. It is easier when the streams are full of salmon that are heading up to spawn.

Life cycle and internal navigation systems of Pacific salmon testify of the genius of our Creator
Adult fall Chinook salmon in the Priest Rapids Hatchery, state of Washington
Courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The progress of Pacific salmon is fascinating. They are born in streams, grow up in freshwater areas, then move on to the ocean. This means they are able to adapt from fresh to salt water. When it's time to commence spawning, their guidance systems take them to their places of  birth (adapting again to fresh water), spawn, change color, and die. Interestingly, Atlantic salmon do not die right away, but can do their routine several times.


On a side note, I remember how freshwater salmon in Lake Michigan would go upriver to spawn, and were "snagged". This was done by throwing weighted hooks with multiple points in the water, gouging them, yanking them out, then repeat. "Look at me, I'm a sport fisherman!" No, you're not, Percival. The practice struck me as barbaric, and was outlawed later. But enough of my carping about that.

Salmon are yet another example of our Creator's amazing design abilities, none of which can be explained by fish-to-fish warden philosophies.
One of the great resources of the west coast of the United States and Canada is the multitude of salmon in the coastal ocean and rivers.
The life cycle and habits of salmon have been studied in detail because of the fish's usefulness as a food resource — not only for the people of this region, but also as a major export.
The building of dams on many of the rivers where salmon return to spawn has made it necessary to invent ways to divert returning fish into artificial hatcheries or to create man-made channels where the fish can return to spawn as naturally as possible. Both methods have proved effective in enhancing the salmon industry and preserving many salmon runs which would otherwise have been destroyed.
Hopefully, you're hooked. To read the rest, click on "Pacific salmon — The ocean’s high achievers".

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

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Three Gasses Essential for Life

Some of us are old enough to remember, and others listen to classic rock radio stations, when The Sweet had a song in 1978 called "Love is Like Oxygen". They said, "...you get to much, you get too high, not enough and you're gonna die". They are correct that we need just enough oxygen, but the part about love can be disputed. There are three gasses in our atmosphere (and in us to some extent) that are essential for life. They need to be in the correct proportions, too.

Our Creator engineered three gasses that are essential for life, including at the cellular level.
Credit: Freeimages / dumitru ionut
We hear about the "Goldilocks Zone" where, if a planet is in that zone (not too hot, not too cold), then Darwinists consider it a candidate for life to have evolved. There are many more factors involved, but one that seems to be overlooked is atmospheric pressure. If the pressure is wrong, then we cannot breathe. Three gasses are present and under the proper pressure on this planet our Creator has given us, and he engineered them for numerous functions that make life possible, including at the cellular level.
In this article we shall look at the gaseous components of our atmosphere: oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Nitrogen constitutes the major component (approximately 78%) with oxygen following at about 21%, and carbon dioxide at 0.04%. Though carbon dioxide constitutes a minor part of the atmosphere, life, as we know it, could not exist without it. Life depends on all three of these elements being in the gaseous form.
To finish reading, take a deep breath and click on "Proportionally Perfect for Life: O2, CO2, N2".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 12, 2018

Evolution, Discrimination, and Freedom from Thought

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The subject of this post is very fitting for the seventh annual Question Evolution Day, but it is very important for Christians, creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, lovers of intellectual and academic freedoms, and other people. There is some startling information in the main post that will be linked, exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the evolutionary establishment. Although that 1995 article focuses on academia, many of the principles apply to the persecution of Christians, biblical creationists, and others. Since it was written, things have only grown worse, and atheo-fascism is increasing.

Question Evolution Day is relevant to those receiving discrimination and persecution for creation beliefs

Students who believe in creation science or Intelligent Design (which is not creation science) are advised to keep mum about their lack of belief in evolutionism lest they be denied advanced degrees. It is difficult for a creationist student to keep his or her integrity and also write an assigned paper on evolution. Indeed, some academics believe that it is perfectly acceptable to persecute creationists, deny tenure to professors, and even retroactively remove awarded degrees! Someone who does quality work, meets the standards, earns a degree only to have it rescinded on theological grounds (rejecting the religion of evolutionism) should at the very least receive a refund for tuition and fees. Strange to say that Christians and creationists are the persecuted minority class; bigotry is allowed and has no reprisals. Some creationists have received threats of physical violence and even death.

Someone may ask, "Why don't the students or professors file charges? Religious discrimination is illegal". Yes it is. However, laws are useless if they are not enforced, and it is culturally and politically justified to persecute creationists. People with materialistic presuppositions assume that a creationist has an erroneous view of reality via the fallacy of ipse dixit. Atheism and materialism are irrational and incoherent, and reason is left tied to a chair in the saloon while circular reasoning is in control: since someone rejects our atheistic worldview where we define reality according to our paradigm, that person is dishonest or even insane. So much for "tolerance"!

Free speech is mighty fine, as long as it fits the views of those in power who use arbitrary definitions and assertions. After all, evolution must be protected from scrutiny; it would not do to have people actually questioning evolution and seeing its flaws. Worse, some people are seeing that science and Scripture support recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Perhaps fear of thought is a reason that some universities actively ban presentations of creation science by students as well as by instructors. After all, it puts a damper on their indoctrination of students.) Sounds a bit like the Soviet Union, where anyone teaching in a university was required to sign an affirmation of atheism.

When secularists paint us with a broad brush, saying that we are "fundamentalists" (a once valid word that has become a pejorative) and indicating that we all think and act alike. Labeling with illogical, emotive words is used in lieu of actual thought and rational discourse. Perhaps one reason we are a threat to secularists is because we promote critical thinking, and people who are able to discern logical fallacies are more likely to notice emotional manipulation when it is employed.

Those people who label Christians, creationists, and ID proponents (essentially anyone who denies Darwin) often imagine what we may do (sometimes citing the actions of oddball professing Christians in a sweeping generalization), therefore we become dangerous in their minds. In a way, we are dangerous but not physically. Instead, we are "dangerous" according to the thought police of leftists and atheists, because we take a stand for what we believe, and have science supporting our contention that evolution is wrong. The Creator exists, and he has made himself known. This means we are accountable to him, and there is a final Judgement.

Journals operated by atheists, leftists, and secularists in general tend to downplay or even ignore overt discrimination against Christians. This is in stark contrast to the abundance of reports of this very thing reported in Conservative and Christian journals. The secularists do damage by selectively reporting and ignoring material that interferes with their narratives.


The "alternative media", which includes weblogs, social media, and other things, is important. We can get present information that is suppressed by the secular science industry, atheists, evolutionists, and the like. It also means that people like you and I have voices. (I work for a living, and do not make money doing this.) You can share this post, others like it, to support Question Evolution Day as well as intellectual, academic, speech and thought freedoms.

Maybe if I let you read this fascinating report (heavily researched, with 83 supporting references), that will help motivate you. Also, there's an excellent video below.
The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.
To read the rest, click on "Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview".

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

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Sensors Engineered in Living Things

People who have watched or read science fiction are probably familiar with the phrase, "Sensors indicate..." We are all mighty happy that y'all have sensors, but what are they sensing? We have a great deal of information bombarding us constantly, but need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff; I am using "selective hearing" to ignore the television in the other room at this moment.

The Master Engineer equipped living things with sensors to obtain and process the proper information
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Charles Darwin focused on externalism, where outside forces supposedly caused organisms to change and evolve into better things. His disciples followed suit, and are constantly trying to wedge facts into their failed conjectures. Doesn't work.


The whole heap of speculations would have been more accurate if they had considered internalism, which we have discussed before. Living things are equipped with sensors that were put in place by the Master Engineer, and which defy evolution. Many of them have additional functions than simply determining what information to ignore and what to process.
Sensors trigger many life-saving processes within both human-made devices and living creatures. They also enable human-engineered entities to adapt. We know organisms make suitable self-adjustments to solve multitudes of environmental challenges, a process that allows them to colonize new niches. What if that adaptive process begins with their sensors?
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Sensor Triggers Affirm Intelligently Designed Internalism".

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

Friday, February 9, 2018

Marvels of the Bald Eagle

As most people probably know, the bald eagle is the national symbol and official bird of these here United States, although its range covers Canada, the US, and down Mexico way somewhat. Although "bald" means "hairless" nowadays, the scientific name, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, has "leukos", back when "bald" meant "white". That there is a bonus fun fact at no extra charge. You're welcome. Impress your friends, but I'd skip trying to pronounce the Latin part.

Bald eagles are examples of the Master Engineer's skill. They also thwart Darwinism.
Credit: Pixabay / Dave_E
Birds are amazing creatures that exhibit the skills of the Master Engineer, and their intricacy defies evolutionary storytelling. (People who claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds don't seem to know basic ornithology. Darwinists have no real idea when eagles first appeared in the fossil record.) Eagles have exceptionally sharp vision, and are designed for high-speed power dives as well as conserving energy riding the updrafts.

Nesting areas are usually selected so they can do their hunting. They are skilled at hunting fish, but are not too proud to eat carrion, my wayward son. In many ways, the eagle is a marvel of design, beauty, grace, and creativity. No wonder the Bible mentions them several times.
The bald eagle is indigenous to North America and can be found near any kind of wetland habitat or large body of open water where there is an abundant supply of fish. Bald eagles mate for life and build large eyries or nests, typically within 200 m (700 ft) of their chosen water source, though they can be as far as 3 km (2 miles) away. Good nesting trees usually have the following characteristics: height (to provide protection for eggs and young eaglets); visibility of the major food source (the body of water); and sparse foliage (allowing for an open flight path to and from the nest). While eyries are typically placed 15–40 m (50–130 ft) above ground, they can be positioned much lower wherae trees stand in water (such as mangroves), or even on the ground. They are the largest tree nests recorded for any animal species: up to 6 m (20 ft) deep, 3 m (10 ft) wide and weighing more than 2 tonnes (4,500 lb).
To read the article in its entirety, glide on over to "The American bald eagle: On eagle’s wings".

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

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Embarrassing Astronomical Failures

Secular taradiddles of astronomical prediction are failing left and right, but secular scientists keep on presenting speculations to keep their Creator-denying vision alive. Probes are sent out to gather information which continually works against their predictions. Sure, they conjure up rescuing devices, but those are unhelpful.

Secular scientists are continually surprised that their predictions are thwarted by the evidence.
Illustration of NASA's Juno spacecraft in orbit above Jupiter’s Great Red Spot
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scientists had a passel of things dead wrong. Predictions about Jupiter's poles and the Great Red Spot were risible. Expectations about planets around other stars resembling our solar system did not pan out. The supposed process of the evolution of stars was also way off. The expansion of the universe idea needs substantial revision. These things threaten secular views, but biblical creationists are not having problems with the evidence.

To find out more details, click on "Astronomical Theories Totally Wrong and Upside Down".

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

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Scallops and Telescopes

In another startling example of "It was right in front of us all the time", we have the eyes of scallops. Sure, many of us like to have them fried up in a pan or something, but the thing you see on your plate or for sale in the market are quite a bit different than the processed kind. Maybe you've seen where Sally sells seashells by the seashore, and seen those things. You're getting closer, but in real life, they are rather startling to behold. 

Scallop eyes are very similar to the principle used in the Webb telescope.
Flam scallop image credit: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management / James Sinclari
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Most humans have two eyes that work quite nicely, but there are various numbers on all sorts of critters. There are different species of scallops, and some of them have over 200 eyes. They work on a principle similar to using mirrors. Of course, Darwin's disciples give pantheistic praise to evolution for this "masterpiece of engineering" as if evolution was a kind of entity, directing changes, making choices, and so forth. 


Not only does that contradict their own naturalistic assumptions, it takes credit from the Master Engineer. Cowboy up, people! There is no sensible way, and no plausible mechanism, that the eyes of scallops happened by chance, and then we take so many years to develop through intelligent design a similar system for a spacefaring telescope!
When the James Webb Space Telescope launches into orbit next year, it will use an array of mirrors to gather light from far away galaxies. Though this model was developed in the 1980s, scientists only recently discovered a similar design already in use in the eye of a humble sea creature, the scallop. That’s right—in 2019 we will be able to see distant galaxies the way a scallop might see them.

. . . If you could look closely at a live scallop, you’d see its shell frilled with tentacles and a layer of flesh on the inside rim, edged with little dots—its eyes.
If you see fit, you can read the rest of this short but interesting article by clicking on "Seeing the Glory of God in Scallop Eyes".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Stromatolites — Living Fossil Testimony of the Genesis Flood

Darwinists consider stromatolites evidence of the oldest life on Earth, and fossils have been found in some rocks that are dated billions of years old according to deep time conjectures. They were considered extinct until some were found alive and well, and are considered by some to be living fossils. Like many scientific discoveries, they were overlooked for a mighty long time because of evolutionary preconceptions: scientists didn't look because they assumed that stromatolites were extinct. (Don't let evolutionary thinking ruin your mind, kids.) Interestingly, stromatolites seem to need special water conditions to survive, but are still found in diverse areas.

Stromatolites give tesimony of the Genesis Flood
Shark Bay stromatolites image credit: NASA / Mark Boyle
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Reminiscent of corals, stromatolites are the assemblages of single-celled, DNA-less microbes known as cyanobacteria. Like annoying house guests, they get together and stay put. Eventually, mats are built. During the Genesis Flood, some of these became fossilized. Secular scientists have evidence-free guesses as to why stromatolites faded away until few are remaining, but creationary scientists have a much more satisfying explanation.
Scientists believed stromatolites were extinct—until they found them living in Shark Bay, Australia, in 1956. Living stromatolites just keep popping up in newer and more diverse environments. The latest research has identified them even living on land.

Living stromatolites have been found in highly saline marine environments in the Bahamas and in atolls in the Central Pacific. Stromatolites have even been found in freshwater lakes and streams in Spain, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, and Japan. Although these are freshwater bodies, they all have an unusual water chemistry, allowing the stromatolites to thrive in both saltwater and freshwater environments.
To read the rest, click on "Stromatolites by Land and by Sea".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 5, 2018

Precambrian Rabbit Season

One of the excuses cranked out by the hands at the Darwin Ranch is that a rabbit found in the Precambrian layer would falsify evolution. That is just plain silly. Also, it is a bit of a straw man argument, since biblical creationists do not propose that the Genesis Flood would produce such a thing. Of course, some tinhorns will dismiss the Flood models as "anti-knowledge", based on their naturalistic presuppositions and intolerance of alternative interpretations of evidence.

A rabbit in the Precambrian is a silly concept in several ways, but there are many other things that have falsified evolution.

I also wonder if these owlhoots even know their own long age mythology. Some make assertions that show their ignorance of developments in evolutionary research, such as pollen that was found in the Precambrian layer, and fossils that are out of order.


One atheopath demanded an explanation of why dinosaur fossils have not been found at the Grand Canyon, was given a link explaining that neither secularists nor creationists expect this, ignored the answer and kept on like it was never provided. That is similar to the way the questioner in the article linked here was acting.What is a fundamentalist evolutionist to do when confronted with the evidence that falsifies evolution, a frequent occurrence? Check the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© and realize the answer is to declare a misdeal, reshuffle the deck, and try again to get the hand they want to play. That is, ignore the facts and make excuses. They often have to "rewrite evolutionary history" or some-such rhetoric, such as the "Out-of-Africa" story. I have even seen some jaspers say that there are no fossils out of order, declaring their blind faith in the geologic column and evolutionary pronouncements. But then, people like that often think that Wikipedia is a reliable source of science information, too.

Often questions submitted through the web include links from an anti-creation site requesting us to answer them. Sometimes the correspondence continues for several rounds. Recently J.H. from Zimbabwe wrote with a host of questions, which were replied to. He continued to send questions. The following is an extract from his correspondence about the fossil record. Geologist Dr Tas Walker responds.
To read the rest (and I recommend also checking the links provided in the post), click on "The fossil record and Precambrian rabbits — Why unexpected fossil finds won’t falsify evolution".

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

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Dino Dave Woetzel Talks with Jackson Wheat about Dinosaurs and Cryptozoology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On January 18, 2018, creationist David Woetzel ("Dino Dave") was on a video interview with Jackson Wheat, a proponent of evolutionary biology and atheism. You may remember reading about Dave on this site, with a post about his personal examination of the Angkor Wat Stegosaurus carving and my review of his book Chronicles of Dinosauria. Woetzel has gone on expeditions to locate living dinosaurs. That makes sense, since he has a strong interest in cryptozoology (see "Cryptozoology & Creation Apologetics"). The video format is one-sided, probably by design, as we do not see Jackson Wheat.

Creationist Dino Dave Woetzel was interviewed by evolutionist Jackson Wheat.
David Woetzel. Screenshot from the video, which will be linked below.
Wheat wanted to talk about his favorite topic, evolution, and tried to divert Woetzel to other topics, which were usually refused; Dave wanted to stay with his areas of research. It was interesting that Jackson brought up the failed transitional form tiktaalik, but Dave did give him a good response with some facts that Jackson left out of his claim.

The best part for me was the stegosaurus carving. Wheat gave some boilerplate evolutionary objections, but Woetzel was able to easily meet those challenges. One objection was that the carving was not detailed enough, so it must be some other animal, but we don't rightly know what. Oh, come on, it was a piece of ornamentation, not a scientific treatise. And if evolutionists have a legitimate alternative, make a case, not an excuse such as found on anti-creationist sites. Dave's explanation of some of the oddities of the carving included historical and cultural information. Seems that people tend to forget about another carving in the area, which Dave examined.

A couple of short items that Woetzel brought up made me uncomfortable because they are controversial for creationary apologetics. However, some of the "do not use" lists need to be revisited, and Dave is not one of those gullible people who saw a video or read a hysterical article and got the bit in his teeth and ran with the story. No, he's a right smart fellow, and has reasons to think that the Ica Stones and the bell found in coal are not so easily dismissed. I won't use those as evidences for recent creation and the Genesis Flood myself, though. Mayhaps later.

Darwinists want "hard evidence" for the possible existence of dinosaurs living with man (including in modern times), but those same folks will eat up speculations for evolution that are presented as actual science. Meanwhile, we are given weak, fallacious excuses based on ignorance and incredulity along the lines of, "We haven't found any dinosaurs, so they must not exist". This includes their waving off historical evidence, and the fact that the world is a big place that has not been entirely explored. Reports of dinosaurs are in the kinds of areas that we might expect them to live, but they are remote and dangerous places.

It's been my experience, and that of other creationists, that atheists and evolutionists are locked into their presuppositions and naturalism. There was no Genesis Flood, and is no evidence for it, because atheism. Yep, that's "logic" on their world. We can present all we want, but they'll find rescuing devices online. But we keep trying, as some people will begin to use their cognating bone and begin to question evolution. We hope that they will ultimately realize the truth of creation and the Word of God.

If you want to see the video (I converted it to MP3), click on Jackson's video, "Talking with Dave Woetzel". No, I don't like to embed long videos. Ever get to a site that is loaded with them? I bet you click out, just like me. Shorter ones, yes, like the one below.

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

Friday, February 2, 2018

Bacteria are Everywhere — Fortunately

Yes, you read that right. There is no escaping bacteria, they are everywhere. (For that matter, microbes are even on and in each of us, and many are beneficial. Some have even been discovered recently.) No need for germaphobes to go into a panic. For one thing, this is a fact of life that cannot be changed. Also, many germs are beneficial.

Germs and microbes are everywhere, many are very beneficial and designed by our Creator.

A way to bother your friends on a trip to the beach is to tell them that each grain of sand is full of microorganisms. They will probably assume that all germs and tiny things of that nature are bad, but you can point out that they help keep the ocean clean and assist the earth's nitrogen and carbon cycles. 

There is no escape, flight is futile. Go to the South Pole, they are there, too. Bacteria are everywhere, and seem to migrate. Persistent little travelers, aren't they? Also, they adapt to their surroundings. The fact is, our Creator put these things in place to help our health and to assist in keeping our planet running. They are biologically programmed for their functions. Darwinian speculations are not helpful.

To read more about these small but important matters, click on "Bacteria Rule the Earth".

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

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Dinosaur Tracks and the Genesis Flood

A popular place to find dinosaur tracks is in the Southwest United States, especially Texas, but the "Dinosaur Highway" of tracks extends up yonder into Canada. There are so many, that state parks, creationary organizations, schools, and other organizations have "digs" so people can find them for themselves. This area is not the only spot in the world, of course, but they are plentiful.

Creation science Genesis Flood models offer the best answers for formation and preservation of dinosaur tracks
Credit: United States Geological Survey
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Proponents of an old earth happily tell the Darwinian storyline of how the tracks formed. Such "explanations" are weak at best, raising more questions than they presume to answer. They also ride around five necessary conditions for the preservation of tracks. For that matter, the conditions for the formation of the tracks in the first place are unique. Creation science models based on the Genesis Flood offer far better explanations than the secular uniformitarian long-age speculations.
There’s nothing quite like seeing firsthand dinosaur tracks that were made in mud or wet sand long ago. But how long ago were they made, and how did they form? No process quite like that happens today. We recently photographed similar tracks made in similar sediments from sites in the American South and West. What links them together? Did these dinosaur tracks really form according to the evolution-based story printed on the state-sponsored placards we saw at some of the sites? First some facts, then some answers.
To read the rest, take some strides over to "Dinosaur Tracks Back Noah's Flood". EDIT: Things got worse for secularists. Posted the same day as what you just saw: "Dinosaur and Mammal Tracks Found Together".

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