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

Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts

Friday, December 15, 2017

Creation and — Formula One Racing?

Never thought I would do a post about motorsports. Some people are thrill about "man and machine". Even though I am a guy, motorsports are not something I prefer. But I grabbed the article featured below just to see why ICR wrote about Formula One (or, F1) racing, and I was pleasantly surprised. It's not so much about the sport as it is about the driver. I hope you will stay along for the ride (heh!) and maybe learn a few things like I did.

Physical and mental demands on a Formula One racer testify of the skill of the Master Engineer
Credit: Pixabay / Ádám Urvölgyi
The racing sport that seems to be the one most people hear about is NASCAR, but I reckon that it's on the wane. There are several auto racing sports in which well-heeled folks participate, and have some similarities. Those racing sports are popular, too. Here we'll focus on Formula One. Don't commence to thinking you'll be like one of the good ol' boys and use your own car in a Grand Prix race. That'll be the day! F1 autos are mighty expensive.

Let me take a side trail for a moment. Having done some bicycling, I know that there are many things of which a rider needs to be mindful. How the bike feels, its sounds, traffic (not just vehicular), weather, how the rider feels, proper equipment, handlebar and saddle adjustments, and much more. The mind is processing a great deal of input very quickly. The whole situation is intensified during a race.

There are similarities to what I just described to F1 racing. You may be tempted to think that anyone can get into an expensive car and go at high speeds around a track, but there are significant physical requirements. Making a turn, the driver may have to deal with five "gs" (g-force, the number of times the force of gravity; their effective body weight is five times greater). Astronauts on lift-off typically deal with three gs. The input for an F1 driver includes radio communications, as well as the feel of the track, the automobile, sounds (very loud), and much more. Then there's the challenge of keeping it under control when something unexpected happens.

The vehicles are carefully engineered by people using the minds the Master Engineer gave them. Doing the driving requires use of the engineered mind under stressful conditions and making rapid decisions. The brain is similar to a computer, but on a scale beyond the digital computer. More like a quantum computer! And we're supposed to believe all this came about by time, chance, natural selection, mutations, and luck? Oh, please.
Bright red with perfect details, a Ferrari Formula 1 F1 SF15-T diecast model race car would make a great present! Young boys around the world push their model Ferraris across the floor while making sounds of growling engines and squealing tires. They envision themselves seated behind the wheel, racing on winding tracks and reaching speeds over 200 miles per hour. A select few will become race drivers. Along the way they will be physically transformed into something they probably haven’t considered: a world-class competitive athlete.
Watching a Formula 1 (F1) car maneuver at high speeds is exciting. Seated in one during its performance is a different story altogether. Even riding as a passenger in dual-seated racing vehicles provides a whole set of sensations—mostly quite uncomfortable—that must be experienced to be appreciated. They are so unlike average driving that a realistic experience in one of these machines can’t be imagined. The physical strains demand that the drivers be in excellent physical shape.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest, just click on "Beauty in Motion: Formula 1 Drivers".

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

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Destroying Darwin Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although disciples of Darwin pretend that there is no basis for reports that creationists and other Darwin deniers are fired from science and academia, facts show otherwise. Secularists may throw us an occasional "maybe" that there was substance to the dismissal claims of creationists and ID supporters, but they generally say that the wise and noble secular judges were right in dismissing claims.

Persecution and discrimination against those who deny Darwin is increasing
Click for full size (original graphic source unknown)
Persecution of Christians, Intelligent Design supporters, and biblical creationists is on the increase. One of the more famous cases is that of Dr. David Coppedge. Another high-profile case is that of Mark Armitage, who was fired after presenting facts in a peer-reviewed paper regarding dinosaur soft tissue. Armitage prevailed in his lawsuit, which is surprising.

Dr. Jerry Bergman was removed from Bowling Green State University for his creationary views. It happened again! He was asked to resign (effectively fired) as a professor from Northwest State College after 25 years. Those tinhorns make me wonder how they got their jobs, because Dr. Bergman is a prolific author and highly credentialed. What really takes the rag off the bush is that this brilliant and respected author, lecturer, and professor has also completed three weighty volumes in a projected series of five regarding how Darwin deniers are persecuted; they just gave someone with a high profile material for his books! You can listen to his story at this 42-minte podcast, and there are additional links. I have to add, though, that Bob Enyart (the show's host) promotes a heresy called "Open Theism", so I advise against clicking on his theology links.


In related news, Dr. Bergman wrote an article about Dr. Günter Bechly, who was forced to resign after leaving atheism and endorsing Intelligent Design. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© are intolerant of anyone leaving evolutionism or atheism. Their death cult needs to be protected from scrutiny, and anyone who does not ride for the brand with full devotion must be punished. The Intelligent Design movement is not even biblical creation science! Let's take a look at the article:
One recent case is that of the distinguished paleontologist, Dr. Günter Bechly, a world expert on fossil insects, who was forced to resign [a tactful way to say he was fired] as curator for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. Then, as a result, he was censored from Wikipedia.  The editors at Wikipedia attempted to cover up their censorship of Günter, a world-class expert on dragonflies, by claiming his heresy on ID had nothing to do with their decision. Instead, they proclaimed the censorship was because he is not “notable” enough to include in their free online encyclopedia.
To read the rest of this article, click on "Change Your Mind on Darwinism, Get Expelled". There are some additional comments below, I'd be much obliged if you'd keep reading.

A frequent propaganda tactic is ridicule. One sidewinder will use ridicule, ad hominem attacks, false thesis arguments, straw man arguments, and more — often in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence. Here, he plagiarized a post from Wikipedia and attempted to sound scientific with psychology, but that is a false thesis and has nothing to do with the reality of the persecution of Christians. He is doing the persecuting, then blaming those he persecutes for objecting, saying that they have a mental illness! A diagnosis of the mental disorder shown below is made by a qualified expert after dealing with a patient, not by an uneducated, anonymous atheopath who is trying to distract from his own wicked actions. (Mayhaps he needs to be examined for what appears to be projection.) His bigotry is given approval by others of his ilk:

Click for full size
Despite the denials of fundamentalist evolutionists and misotheists, persecution of those who doubt, deny, or even question the Bearded Buddha is increasing. For that matter, the persecution of Christians in general is increasing. Keep your heads down, those of you who reject evolutionism. Biblical creationists, y'all need to remember that God is in charge, and they will stand before him one day.

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

Friday, December 8, 2017

Amber and Vampire Hell Ants

Remember the Dracula movie with Bela Lugosi? If you looked into his eyes, he had hypnotic power. The lighting helped, too. Here, we look into the amber and see Linguamyrmex vladi. Scientists got a mite creative there, that last word vladi is based on Vlad Tepes, also known as Vlad Dracul and Vlad the Impaler. He had a nasty way of dealing with enemies, and became part of the inspiration for the Dracula novel and movies.

Although nobody has any idea what the thing called a vampire hell ant actually ate, it had some interesting vertical trap jaw mandibles that are similar to vertical mandibles of ants living today. Did they grab another insect as prey, tip it like Junior's sippy cup and drink bug juice? Not all that likely, really. It may have used it to impale fresh fruit and drink that stuff down like a forerunner of the juice box. I reckon the "vampire hell ant" moniker is just a trifle hyperbolic. Gets your attention, though.

"Vampire hell ant" in amber, no sign of evolution, just design
Linguamyrmex vladi in amber close-up credit: Phillip Barden for www.AntWeb.org
(usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Advocates of atoms-to-ant evolution assign the Burmese amber a date of 99 million years (it must have been on sale, it's usually 100 million years). Of course, dating is based on assumptions and presuppositions that fit the evolutionary narrative. There is evidence of the Master Engineer at work, but nothing resembling evolutionary evidence. That's because even ants were created, but Darwinists detest that fact.
Locked in amber around the world are countless tiny flowers and small animals ranging from insects to lizards. Among these are hell ants—extinct ants with scythe-like jaws that moved upward in a vertical plane rather than horizontally. However fearsome these sound, you might well wonder how such an ant could eat. Detailed images of a newly discovered species of hell ant in Burmese amber may hold the answer.
All living ants—and lots of fossilized ones—have pincer-like mandibles that converge in front of the face. Their mandibles serve many functions—cutting leaves, digging, carrying their young, and ripping off bits of food from either a plant or dead animal. Since no living ants have vertically oriented mandibles, scientists can’t be certain how hell ants used them, but now they have some good clues.
To read the rest, click on "Vampire Hell Ants Preserved in Burmese Amber". BONUS! While we're talking about critters trapped in amber, you can learn about lizards that surprised evolutionists by showing no signs of evolution. Click on "‘Surprising’ lizards in amber". 

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

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

C.S. Lewis and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

C.S. "Jack" Lewis was born on November 29, 1989. Originally baptized in the Church of Ireland, which is Anglican, he fell away from his faith and became an atheist. Lewis was reluctant to relinquish atheism, but realized that Christianity is true. Jack was (and is) highly regarded as a leading apologist for the Christian faith. He wrote many fiction and nonfiction books, and most are available today. There are also scores of biographies of this complex figure.

Radcliffe Camera, Oxford / William Leighton Leitch
While Lewis appealed to many people with his intellectual approaches to Christianity and his refutations of atheism, his theology was rather weak. Apparently, he did not want to offend anyone, and kept his scope broad — too broad, in my view. Like William Lane Craig, he did not argue from and for the Bible, but seemed to argue for theism in general. In addition, C.S. Lewis seemed to affirm the almost-Roman Catholic doctrines of the Anglican church (such as transubstantiationism), and did not take firm stands on doctrine. Weak theology tends to render apologetics impuissant. One can be intellectually persuaded to believe in the existence God, which is essentially Deism, but arguments without Scripture tend to produce a theist who is just as lost as any atheist. I fully believe that if he had given more consideration to being theologically accurate, and had learned presuppositional apologetics (his apologetics were more classical or evidential), this brilliant man would have been even more powerful in his presentations.

In a similar manner to his generic apologetic method, Jack was never a fan of Darwinism; he even had trouble with it before his conversion to Christianity. (Ironic, because theistic evolutionists and atheists sometimes use him as a kind of celebrity appeal to authority to promote evolutionism.) However, he confronted Scientism and naturalism, which were philosophical foundations for evolution. Lewis was unwilling to take on evolution directly because he thought it would detract from his main work in apologetics, and because he felt that he did not have the scientific qualifications. This is indeed unfortunate, since Genesis is the foundation of all major Christian doctrines, and you do not have to be a scientist to notice errors in reasoning. You need logic and facts, and he had those available. Unfortunately, Lewis did not have our advantage of many biblical creation science ministries available online, which is a tremendous blessing for us.

I found it intensely interesting that Jack made some remarks about Scientism and Darwinism, including the rabid following that those belief systems had back then. He described what is happening today, and almost predicted how intolerance for nay-sayers would increase. Evolutionary devotion and intolerance of contrary views has dramatically increased in the decades that passed since Lewis' time, and I think if he could see what is happening now, he would not be surprised.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has stated that C.S. Lewis would probably be a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement. ID itself is non-biblical and only seeks to refute atheistic evolution and has adherents from various religious and non-religious persuasions. Biblical creation science uses ID arguments, but does not divorce them from theology. For these reasons, I think Dr. Bergman was quite correct that Lewis would be an ID supporter.

Certain vagaries in his writings led many people to consider him a theistic evolutionist. Citing from various works (and some evolutionists blatantly misquoted him) could support such a contention. Like all people, his views developed over time. What could be considered his most devastating essay on Darwinism, "The Funeral of a Great Myth", was published posthumously in Christian Reflections. (He was a bit premature with a eulogy for Darwinism as a myth, as the social aspects have become increasingly standardized in business, culture, and even religion.) In this essay, as well as through a careful analysis of his writings, it is clear that C.S. Lewis was definitely not a theistic evolutionist.

Here are some resources for your edification:
I hope these resources will help you regarding the attitudes of C.S. Lewis about evolution. He was no friend of Darwinism.

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

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Secularist Laments Lagging Evolutionary Indoctrination

Although evolutionists have maintained a stranglehold on educational indoctrination in many Western countries for decades, some get on the prod that their conditioning is not yet complete. Contrary views of origins are actively suppressed, and even though secular educators claim to encourage critical thinking, only the sanitized versions of evolution are presented and inconvenient facts are omitted in government educational systems. That is one reason Question Evolution Day is important.

Despite the stranglehold that secularists have on educatioinal systems, some people reject evolutionism and think for themselves
Modified from a photo at Freeimages, original from Jeramey Jannene (click graphic for larger image)
In the United States and other Western countries, fascism is opposed in theory. Many people consider fascist a useful pejorative, projecting it on people they dislike (often without knowing the meaning of the word), and then employing fascistic philosophies and practices, including violence and leftist propaganda — sort of like when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag and blamed others for their own actions. You may be surprised to learn that atheism and evolutionism are strongly linked to fascist philosophies (see "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism" for more). Any totalitarian leader worth his or her salt, whether fascist, further left communist, or others, knows the value of indoctrinating the young early in life.

On a related side note, in early November, 2017, Canada's Governor General mocked the beliefs of many people who do not hold to the pronouncements of what amounts to Scientism and the secular science industry. She equated those of us who reject origins by "natural processes" with believers in alternative healing methods, devotees of astrology, essentially all religious views, and so on. I recommend this analysis by Dr. Mohler on the November 15 edition of The Briefing.

One sneaky trick is to say that secular public education, which controls students for several hours each day and actively promotes evolutionism while opposing any hint of evidence for creation, is good and right. However, when Christian parents and others follow biblical commands to teach the young, we are "indoctrinating". If atheists didn't have double standards, they would have none at all. For example, the movie Genesis: Paradise Lost was attacked by a sneering atheist (click for larger image):

Click for larger
An important part of indoctrination is opposition to critical thinking — as we frequently see in evolutionism. Secularists don't cotton to anything even hinting of the  Master Engineer. This hatred includes the Intelligent Design movement, but especially biblical creation science.

Effective propaganda often relies on logical fallacies. These sidewinders commence to using equivocation (such as equating science and evolution, or science and anthropogenic climate change), arbitrary assertions of opinions as scientific facts, blatant lying (creationists, ID proponents, or those who reject anthropocentric climate change are "science deniers"), demonizing through deceptive misapplications of psychological terminology, redefining words, and more. 

Moving from those deceptions, they can make a common enemy based on fallacies and falsehoods, such as when Hitler called the Jews a common enemy of Germany to help unify the people under his demonic leadership. Now creationists are "science deniers", and hinder scientific advancement. Therefore, we are the common enemy, so they can persecute the opposition and pretend that we are mentally ill when we point it out. See how that works? That's who angry secularists are and how they operate, and then claim that they are concerned for the good of all. Not hardly!

Despite the uphill battle against propaganda and deception, apparently some people think for themselves. Das ist streng verboten!
Evolutionists have had complete domination of public school science for decades. They can’t believe that a sizable percentage still don’t accept evolution.

Ryan Dunk at Syracuse University is dumbfounded. He said on his blog last September,
Despite over a half century of education reforms aimed at better science instruction, nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.
In both articles, Dunk commits numerous logical fallacies and propaganda tactics as if taken right out of the NCSE talking points:
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Darwinians Baffled that Students Refuse To Be Indoctrinated".

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

Friday, November 24, 2017

Nature Teaches Humans about Design

Okay, you caught me. "Nature" does not "teach" anyone anything, just like "science" does not "say" or "know" anything. That is the reification fallacy. Generally, it is not important except in formal debates and similar situations. Otherwise, so many people use the fallacy, we would be calling them out on simple figures of speech left and right and reigning in simple conversations. In conversations, people generally do not do this to manipulate the thinking of others to fall for propaganda. So, I felt like doing it here. Besides, the three links below are using the same figure of speech. Oh, and don't worry, the articles linked below aren't very lengthy.

A good designer is going to spend time making plans that include a variety of elements, as well as how the project can withstand variables. The infinite mind of the Master Engineer had everything covered in his plans, which took him no time at all. Humans used the minds that God gave them to study nature and learn some great things — and then praise their false god of evolution instead of giving thanks to the one who made it all possible. Ingrates.

Biomimetics is where God's creation is studied and principles are applied to our lives
Credit: Pixabay / Lukas Bieri
Now, let's commence to reifying. Animals are a good source of information that indicates design. Many have tails, and those tails actually use physics in some cases, such as the side-to-side movement actually helping increase the length of strides in walking and running. We can study ant algorithms in relation to population density. How do you get a robot to get off its back if it falls? Scientists are studying the way beetles click upright so they can apply the principle. To read more of this first installment, go to "Animals Teach Humans About Design".

Moving on, we can learn about the Creator's engineering work from plants. There's a whole heap of lignin laying around that plants are not using any longer, but if we get serious with studying it, it can be turned into bio-oil, carbon fiber, and more. We were taught in school that most plants need sunlight so they can make their own fuel, and studies are being conducted to efficiently use similar principles — but they need to learn how plants self-regulate so they don't burn themselves out. For these stories and more, click on "Plants Teach Humans About Design".

Let's get into the really tiny stuff. Cells have their own lock-and-key mechanism, and studying this in receptors on proteins to help medical diagnoses. A slightly related area is that cell membranes can let in some items and keep others out, benefiting biomimetic membrane fabrication. You can see what these stories are about and more, head on over to "Cells Teach Humans About Design".

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

Monday, November 13, 2017

Puzzling Dart Frog Poison

There are small critters in Central and South America have been given the name "poison dart frogs". Most have bright colors, but if you find yourself near them, resist the urge to pick them up. They are toxic, some are dangerously so. These attractive but dangerous amphibians were given their name because some species were used by natives in the area to poison the darts for hunting and such.

Poison dart frogs puzzle evolutionists
Dendrobates tinctorius credit: Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (CC BY-SA 2.5)
So, they're dangerous to touch, and the poison some secrete can be used to make lethal weapons. This raises some interesting questions: How does the poison work? How can they survive their own poison? What came first, the poison or the resistance? The first question involves biology and chemistry, but the other two are stumpers for evolutionists, because both the poison and the resistance must be operational at the same time, or nothing makes sense, nothing works — evolutionists have no plausible model beyond "maybe", "perhaps", "it could be", "scientists think", and so on. That' ain't a plausible model, Hoss. No, the poison dart frogs were engineered by their Creator.
Found in Central and South America, the poison dart frog uses its skin toxin for defense and its bright colors as a warning. Each tiny amphibian holds enough toxin in its skin to kill 10 people.1 Its popular name came from native hunters who very carefully dipped the tips of their hunting darts in the frog’s poison. A new study revealed how the frogs survive their own poison, and the answer points to God.
To read the rest, click on "Why Don't Poison Dart Frogs Poison Themselves?" You may also be interested in the short video below.

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

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Communication in Killer Whales

It would be easy to think that those black and white whales (often called orcas) act in a manner similar to their appearance. That is, pretty much the same. They are actually distinct, and their groups (clans or pods) are different from one another.

Orcas (killer whales) have unique communication abilities within their groups
Credit: Holly Fearnbach / Alaska Fisheries Science Center / NOAA Fisheries Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Let's reign in for a moment and clear up a couple of things. First, they are more closely related to dolphins than whales. Second, despite a silly movie from 1977, orcas are not known to have eaten humans. Third, don't let the cute and cuddly critters doing tricks at sea amusements fool you; they are killers because these sidewinders of the sea are devious. Orcas are also fierce, eating things larger than humans, and smaller, and whatever is convenient. A large part of their hunting prowess comes from their communication abilities, and that one group cannot understand another group's sounds. Yep, they have their own lingo because they were built that way. Orca communication is yet another item that can be explained by special creation, but leaves evolutionists are at a loss.
The captain of the fishing vessel Oracle knew he was in trouble when he sighted orcas on the horizon. He was right. In a coordinated attack, dozens of the huge mammals made off with 12,000 pounds of halibut on his lines and cost him 4,000 gallons of fuel trying to save the rest of his day’s catch from the interlopers. They even seemed to be teaching their young how to get a free meal. On another day, 50 orcas followed his boat for 65 miles and then loitered for 18 hours after he shut the engines down. After waiting two days, he had to abandon that fishing trip altogether.
To read the rest (or download the audio by my favorite reader), click on "Killer Communicators".

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

Monday, November 6, 2017

Trilobites Still Troubling Evolutionists

Something that gets the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod is when someone mentions the "Cambrian Explosion". The Cambrian layers were supposedly formed hundreds of millions of evolutionary years ago, but there's a passel of fully formed creatures, mostly invertebrates. Evolutionists admit that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for them, and make weak attempts to explain it away.

Some of the cant from anti-creationists is simply dismissive, such as, "The Cambrian? You mean that era which contained nothing but small marine organisms?" If such a remark is serious, it indicates a lack of knowledge of fossils and also the Darwinian mythology that the user espouses. (I reckon that those folks feel compelled to contradict creationists, even when it means contradicting evolutionists as well.) Paleontologists and other fossil hunters expect to see marine organisms, since those comprise the overwhelming majority of all fossils. (Interestingly, there are comparatively few fossils found in layers of the Grand Canyon.) Again, those found in the Cambrian layers are fully formed, not looking like they're in the process of evolving into something else.

Fossils, including the marine kind, are found on all continents. Many are preserved exceptionally well. Some Cambrian fossils have been found in higher layers (oopsie!), which further troubles Darwinists. These facts add support to the global Genesis Flood and creation science flood models, and are not friendly to evolutionary, deep time assumptions.

Trilobites support the Genesis Flood and creation.
Credit: Pixabay / tatlin
One of the icons of evolution should not be used: the trilobite. With advancements in technology, scientists have learned through their fossils (a fact that amazes me) about advanced optics of the critters. You'd think evolutionists would quit while they're behind, but hope springs eternal. Newer finds show that they had unique digestive tracts, and require revision in evolutionary ideas.
Trilobites were fascinating invertebrates that inhabited pre-Flood ocean bottoms. They were fossilized when “primitive” life supposedly was just getting started, but the complexity of these animals is unparalleled. New trilobite anatomical discoveries contradict previous evolutionary beliefs about their digestive systems.

According to evolution theory, trilobites appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago in a period called the Early Cambrian. There are about 56 families of these extinct creatures. Not only did they come in a wide variety of sizes, they also had three kinds of extremely complex eyes.
To read the rest, click on "Trilobites Can't Stomach Darwinism". Also for your consideration, "Trilobites Take a Bite out of Evolutionary Theory". Plus this short video:

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

Friday, November 3, 2017

Evolutionists Still Mystified by Giraffe Neck

Way back when, I lived in small a Michigan town on the shore of the lake that shares that state's name. There was a park on the shore, informally known as "G Park", short for "Giraffe Park", because teenagers would go there for a long necking session. You know, making lip lock.

"Does this have anything to do with creation and evolution, Cowboy Bob?"

Not really.

So anyway, as many of y'all know, evolution wasn't created by Charles Darwin. Lamarck suggested that physical changes were inherited by offspring. Darwin rejected this, but he backtracked and included some of Lamarck's concepts in his later writings. One of the rejected ideas of Lamarck was that giraffes developed long necks by stretching to eat leaves on trees. That idea was justifiably dismissed.

Evolutionists cannot explain the giraffe's neck. It was obviously engineered by our Creator.
Credit: Freeimages / Leslie van Veenhuyzen
However, evolutionists still cannot lasso an explanation for the giraffe's neck. Some are dancing in the dark with Lamarck, and even toying with the idea that they evolved it for the purpose of regulating their temperatures (yes, they use teleology). This conveniently ignores the fact that giraffes are engineered by our Creator to have those long necks in several important ways. By the way, they also seem to forget that the okapi, a forest dweller that is related to the giraffe. It has a much shorter neck.
Evolutionary storytelling about giraffes’ long necks goes back before Darwin, but all the tales have one thing in common: they don’t work. Doesn’t matter. Evolution marches on.

Nature's Editorial [September 12, 2017] should have been a supreme embarrassment. But when only evolutionary explanations are tolerated, those in power have no fear of shame. They can toss out various ‘narratives’ and ‘scenarios’ with alacrity, never needing to submit any of them to serious testing or debate. This editorial is a case in point: “Giraffes could have evolved long necks to keep cool,” the headline reads. “Another explanation offered for one of animal kingdom’s most distinctive features.”
To reach for the rest of the article, click on "Necking in the Dark: Evolutionists Clueless about Giraffes".

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

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Further Discussion of Engineered Adaptability and Evolution

This enlightening series by Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza continues. Previously, we saw that Charles Darwin focused on external influences and claimed that those are responsible for vertical evolution. I'll allow that he did not know what we know today, as Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) had not fully developed his studies in genetics. 

Credit: Pixabay / Gerhard Bögner
A study of the Great Chinese Famine had some excellent work, but was incomplete, failing to identify a causal mechanism. Likewise, scientists cling to the consensus of externalism as the means of change in organisms. Instead, they need to be examining the way the Creator has engineered them to adapt to changes.
Imagine the challenges facing an engineer who’s been tasked with designing a fully automated, unmanned spacecraft that needs to travel to a planet and safely return. . . . Every capability the autonomous vessel has, including the ability to relate to external conditions, will be due to its own features…and nothing else. . . . If the design fails, then the engineer will correct the design—not the external conditions—for the next generation of spacecraft. The precise, objective reality of engineering causality can be demanding.
To read the rest (and see why the spaceship analogy is apt), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Causality Studies Unmask Evolutionary Externalism". Other articles in the series are linked at the end, just above the references.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Argonauts on the Fast Shell

There are two very similar mollusks, the chambered nautilus and the argonaut (which is often called the "paper nautilus" because of the female's paper-thin eggcase). In ancient Greek legends, Jason took fifty men to find the golden fleece on a ship called the Argo, so they were argonauts. This relative of the octopus was thought to sail in its own way. See how that works? People thought they stole the shells, the wicked little pirates, but no, they own the shells.

Argonauta argo, Comingio Merculiano, 1896
People have been baffled by the argonaut for a long time, but gradually, many of its secrets have been revealed. It uses a form of jet propulsion, and actively scoops air to control buoyancy. I should have said she, because only the females have the shells. Males were unknown until the 19th century, and being exceptionally small is a contributing factor to their lack of discovery. Reproduction is something that is quite unique. The argonaut is yet another example of the Master Engineer's skill, and frustrating to evolutionists.
The delicate shell of the argonaut, also known as the ‘paper nautilus’, has long featured in art, architecture, pottery and jewellery. Finding them washed up on the shore, sometimes with the octopus-like resident still inside, people since the ancient Greeks have speculated about what the shell might be for.
Aristotle proposed that the shell functioned as a boat, allowing the argonaut to sail on the water surface. ‘Argonaut’ means sailor (Greek ‘nautilus’, ναυτίλος) on the Argo (the ship of Greek mythology). The idea that argonauts raise their flanged dorsal tentacles as sails to catch the wind was widely accepted for over 2,000 years. But no-one ever observed them doing it.
To read the rest, click on "Amazing argonauts — Scientists finally discover how the female argonaut really uses its shell".

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

Monday, October 23, 2017

Silicon Plays Well with Others

As carbon is to living things, silicon is to rocks. Silicate minerals comprise most of the rocks on Earth, and silicon is extremely compliant. Carbon wanted to have a party and invited other elements. The noble gasses remained aloof, what with being noble and all. The fun started when silicon showed up, since it mixes well with a passel of other minerals.

Garnet is one of many silicate minerals our Creator provided for our use
The garnet gemstone has silica in its composition. Credit: Morguefile / arien
Silicon is plentiful, and its ability to combine with other elements gives us a tremendous variety of shapes and colors in rocks. More than that, our Creator engineered silicon so we could use it in many applications and improve our earthly lives. Not just function, but our viewing pleasure.
So why do minerals have so many different shapes and colors? The answer tells us a lot about God’s love and care for us. He created a small set of basic building blocks, out of which the earth could provide the amazing variety of minerals we need to build places to live and grace our lives with beautiful gems.
The marvelous stability and interlocking properties of minerals, which have such an amazing variety of applications—from the yellow paint on our kitchen walls to the glass in our windows—point clearly to the handiwork of the Creator, who “formed the earth . . . to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18 ESV).
To read the rest of the article (and get a lesson in basic chemistry), click on "Shape-Shifting Silicon".

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

Monday, October 16, 2017

Engineered by the Master Architect

Some rather deep articles have been linked from here regarding engineering causality as a response to Darwinism. The short form is that Darwin and most of his followers believe that external forces are responsible for changes, and they extrapolate horizontal changes into vertical evolution — of which there is no evidence. The answer for Darwinism's silly idea is that organisms were designed by the Master Engineer. It is interesting that many human inventions and structures reflect designs in living organisms.

Cathedrals and other architecture reflect our Creator's brilliant designs in living things.
Interior of Salisbury Cathedral, William Turner, 1805
Architects who engineered cathedrals built them to endure, and many have lasted many centuries. Some of the support structures are found in the skeletons of animals. Only took humans a few thousand years to catch on to that aspect of our Creator's design. For that matter, the box turtle's shell exhibits architectural engineering as well! Interestingly, some evolutionists give credit to nature (which is the fallacy of reification, making nature into a being that makes decisions), instead of where the credit rightfully belongs.
“Nature is a pretty impressive engineer,” states evolutionist Daniel Lieberman in an issue of Nature magazine. He notes:
The physical world poses many basic challenges, such as gravity, viscosity and pressure gradients, to all living creatures, which in turn have evolved an astonishing array of solutions. Many of these, such as paddles, valves and hydrostats, are so widespread that we rarely notice them. Others perform so well that we marvel at their superiority to human-made devices.
Creationists maintain it was God who addressed these basic challenges with astonishing solutions—not chance evolutionary processes working for millions of years. Indeed, even if we were to give more time than what the evolutionists would like, we would still never see “nature” producing animals and their multiple systems with such superior function and detail.
To read the rest of this fascinating article, click on "Architecture  and Engineering  in Created  Creatures".

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Lunar Collision Origin All Wet

One of the popular speculations about the origin of Earth's moon is that a celestial body was unable to stay in its traffic lane, lost control, and smacked into Earth way back when. This would explain the absence of lunar water to the satisfaction of naturalists who deny the truth of recent creation.

Impact hypothesis of moon origin refuted by water on moon
The Harvest Moon, Samuel Palmer, 1833
Even a cursory consideration of this idea shows that it is ridiculous. After all, the moon is the perfect size to obscure the sun during a total eclipse, and the moon is necessary for keeping life on Earth working efficiently. It has that almost-circular orbit and all. Rocks that Apollo astronauts brought back were tested in 2008 and found to have water, but that didn't seem to make an impression. Now that the moon can be studied from a distance, scientists learn that there is indeed water in the rocks. But it shouldn't be there according to proponents of the impact hypothesis.
New clues confirm that the moon looks created.

In stark contrast to Genesis 1, secular scientists claim that a collision between a planet-sized rocky object and an ancient Earth somehow crafted the moon billions of years ago. This supposed collision was so violent and hot that it would have burned off all the original moon water— assuming there was any. So why do researchers keep finding evidence of water inside the moon?
To read the rest, click on "Lunar Water Douses Collision Origin".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 9, 2017

The Taste of Water

Everybody knows that water has no taste, right? That's a good thing when riding the long, hot trail and you need a good draw from your canteen that doesn't taste fruity or bitter. Well, I don't want flavor when I'm all hottened up. Don't be so sure there's no taste. A study indicates that mice are able to taste — more likely, maybe distinguish or discern that they are actually drinking water. Mice, critters, and people are designed to have many things in common, so it's likely that we can "taste" water as well.

New study shows that the tongue can "taste" water, in a way.
Credit: Pixabay / Capri23auto
The Big Box Chain Store sells its own brand of water, and I think it tastes mighty find. But on the label, it lists the ingredients as purified water (as I wanted), some chemicals, and minerals to enhance flavor. Strikes me as odd that they're enhancing something that has no flavor, but that's just marketing. People have subjected brands of bottled water to taste tests as well. My speculation is that the testers were responding to the additives, not the water itself. Interestingly, two hours south of me, New York City tap water won a taste competition.

Being able to "taste" water is helpful so we can know that we're actually drinking the stuff and not something that looks very similar. Like other things we taste, this appears to be built into the tongue itself. This helps illustrate that our Creator cares about even seemingly little details.
Our tongues can sense five basic tastes with specialized nerve cells for each: salty, sour, sweet, bitter, and umami (savory). But a new study suggests our tongues can detect another “taste”—tasteless water. A paper published in the journal Nature Neuroscience details this fascinating new research, which uses mice as the test subjects.
To lap up the rest of this short article, click on "Study: Tongues Can 'Taste' Tasteless Water". Of course, they don't know about the living water that all men and women need.

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

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Express Delivery to Chromosome Two

According to some outdated versions of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution, the human genome was examined. Using outdated technology, evolutionary assumptions, and a whole heap of hubris, some DNA ("noncoding") was considered "junk". That is, containing material that was important in the past but we evolved and don't need it anymore. Not a good idea to slap a branding iron on something you don't rightly understand and herd it into the Settled Science Corral, because the "junk" is constantly being found useful

Direct delivery to Chromosome 2 is another example of creation
Generated at RedKid.net
The extreme specified complexity of the molecular world, including DNA, RNA, cells, and so forth, cannot be explained by evolutionary ideas. In this case, a kind of package is sent from one chromosome, takes a ride on a protein, and makes a delivery to the exact location on another chromosome. Over a billion possibilities, and the package ends up where it's needed. Time, chance, random processes — with no evolutionary model or mechanism? That'll be the day! No, this is yet another of many evidences indicating that God engineered his creation. Creation deniers need to give some serious thought to their epistemology.
Think of the difficulty of sending a package from one location to another when there are a billion possible destinations. To make this process efficient it requires infrastructure and machines that can propel themselves and navigate. It’s even more amazing if this happens in an ever changing soup of molecules within a cell.

In 2007, John Rinn discovered a lncRNA (long non-coding RNA) transcribed from DNA on human Chromosome 12 that would somehow navigate and land at a specific location on human Chromosome 2 by riding a molecular “bus” known as the Suz12 protein. It was the first example of a transcript from one chromosome influencing the expression of a gene on another chromosome. This epigenetic action, he found, was a crucial part of cell signaling for differentiating skin cells in the body. It’s why the skin cells in the sole of the foot, for instance, have different qualities than skin cells in the lid of the eye.
To read the rest, shuttle yourself over to "Pinpoint Navigation and Propulsion in a Seemingly Random Soup".

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

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Seaweed Clogs Evolutionary Propellers

Imagine if you will being out in a motorboat on a fine, sunny day, ready to do some recreational activity. Maybe singing a happy song to yourself just over the sound of the outboard motor. Then, you hear that awful sound and the song dies on your lips as the motor stops running. Things were fine a moment ago. Checking the situation, you discover that you got into the seaweed, and that stuff got tangled into the propellers, bringing you to a halt. In a similar manner, a seaweed discovery clogged the works for Darwinists and their imaginary plant evolution timeline. 

Credit: Freeimages / Jacqueline Fouche
Ever hear of lignin? Looks like a misspelling, or an incomplete word, but it's actually a component in plant cell walls. It helps keep land plants standing up straight and looking mighty fine, and also helps water get from the from the roots to where it's needed in the far away regions of the plant. The story continues that lignin is not needed in aquatic plants, so it didn't evolve there.

Evolutionary storytelling (suitable for campfire entertainment on the trail, but not for serious science) gets complicated and collapses. Lignin was found in an alga. Specifically, a red seaweed. That's not supposed to happen! Not only does it confound Darwinists because of its "early" evolution, but it's in a kind of seaweed that allegedly diverged a few zillion Darwin years ago. Some have invoked the non-science magic of convergent evolution, a convenient story that actually explains nothing. But some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that lignin is exceptionally complex, and not just a simple cell modifier. Also, why would it evolve in the alga? It was doing fine getting water, and structural support wasn't exactly an issue. Seems self-contradictory to me. If they were more circumspect, Darwinists would realize that their evolutionary stories are meaningless, and the real scientific evidence indicates recent creation by the Master Engineer.
Lignin is a primary structural (strengthening) component of wood. It enables land plants to support themselves as they grow upward through the air, and is crucial to transporting water from roots up to the leaves. It has long been thought, and taught, that this feature is unique to land plants because aquatic plants, nicely bathed and supported by the surrounding water medium, do not have any lignin.

That textbook teaching is overturned now, however, by the discovery of lignin in marine algae.

Not a big deal, you might think, except that this discovery “has major evolutionary implications”. As the lead researcher, University of British Columbia Assistant Professor Patrick Martone, explained:
To find out what the professor explained and more about the implications of this discovery, click on "Overturnin’ the learnin’ about lignin". I wonder if you're eating that same seaweed in your sushi.

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