Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Surprising Intelligence in Small Packages

Way back when, there was a myth that people with bigger brains were more intelligent than others. Then there's the observation where someone can pay mucho dinero for higher education, but are dreadful at simple logic. I can name some people that believe they're the brightest bulbs in the chandelier but are actually quite dim, but never mind about that now. So, how does this brain size and intelligence thing work in smaller creatures?

Bumblebees and others have small brains but surprising intelligence.
Credit: Pixabay / DrScythe
The brain of a bumblebee is about the size of a sesame seed. Does that explain the time I got stung by one that flew into the open window of my delivery truck, smacked into me, then stung me when it wasn't my fault? Those bad boys pack a punch. But I digress. These fuzzy little critters are capable of learning, and others can learn by watching their fellow travelers.

Bats are masters of echolocation, but what happens in a crowd? Seems like there would be a heap of interference and collisions happening, but they dial down the noise. In fact, they're being studied for biomimetics purposes: wireless communication and interference.

We looked at how chickens can be manipulative as well as intelligent a spell back. Their intelligence has been underestimated for ages, but we've learned that they know about numbers and have reasoning abilities.

Then there's the intelligence of something without a brain: slime mold. Colonial fungi can actually learn and share information. Then, when they split apart, the separate colonies are better for the experience.

Our Creator has endowed aspects of his creation with levels of intelligence and communication that many of us never dreamed was possible. Ask a Darwinist for an explanation, and you'll get a nice story based on conjecture and assumptions, but not science.

More details on the teasers listed about can be found at "Animals Can Be Smarter Than You Think".


Friday, March 10, 2017

Ancient Trees and Biblical Timelines

Biblical creationists often need to deal with tendentious evidences for Earth's alleged old age, including radiometric dating, ice core samples, distant starlight, and others. These have been dealt with by creationists in many places (several of which are linked on this site). Another "proof" for Earth's age is that of trees, since the Genesis Flood, about 4,500 years ago, would have ripped them up and they'd have to start over. Yet some are claimed to be substantially older.


Old sequoia General Sherman and the Genesis Flood
"General Sherman" sequoia credit: US National Park Service,
usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Some folks say that certain trees are dated at 30,000 years, so the timeline of the Bible must be wrong. Ofttimes, people are using outdated material and incomplete material. For example, the General Sherman sequoia pictured above was thought to be in excess of 6,000 years, but has been revised down to an uncertain approximation of 2,150 years. Many believe that these ages are calculated simply by counting tree rings (dendrochronology), but none of them have yielded such long ages by that method alone — and none exceed the date of the Flood. Other dubious time calculation factors have been added to yield preconceived results. Try as they might, the Flood did happen, and spurious "evidence" cannot erase this fact.
High in the cold, dry air of the White Mountains of California, just north of the infamous and inhospitable Death Valley, lives possibly the world’s oldest living organism. It’s a Bristlecone Pine tree, given the Biblical name of ‘Old Methuselah’ due to its estimated age (from counting the number of its tree rings) of 4,723 years. Amazingly, this tree would have been over 2,000 years old when Jesus Christ walked the Earth.
I won't be a sap and leave you out on a limb. You can finish reading the article by clicking on "Patriarchs of the forest". Although from 2002, it still has some very interesting information. Be sure to see the "Related Articles" linked below it for further information.


Thursday, March 9, 2017

Threading RNA Into the Ribosome Needle

People who deal with sewing or looms, whether on a personal or an industrial level, know that precision is required. My wife has longed for a self-threading needle, as have probably many other people. Sewing machines and looms break down and need maintenance. Sure would be mighty fine if the things performed their own maintenance, wouldn't it?

RNA and ribosomes like needle and thread
Credit: Morguefile / cohdra
Imagine something similar on a much smaller scale. Remember those microscopes you used in school? Not good enough. This is about an aspect of our internal self-repair, where ribosomes correct faulty RNA (which is a good friend of DNA) so we can continue living. The intricate design and specified complexity involved is another reason to reject common-ancestor evolution, and realize that the evidence supports biblical creation.
What does it take to slip a tiny thread through the eye of a needle and then use that thread to accomplish a purpose? Chimpanzees and other apes can’t do this. It takes fine, precise motion. Three examples of using needle and thread point to God as a super-genius Creator. . .

Did God make any threading machines? . . . Yes, He did, and without them our bodies would die in minutes. But His machines handle “threads” many times smaller than a human hair. If an RNA molecule, which carries the information needed to construct a protein, is like a thread, then the ribosome is like a needle’s eye. The slender RNA winds through the ribosome, which helps translate the RNA’s information.
To read the entire article, click on "God's Threading Machines". 

 

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Definitely Dinosaur Protein

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage, and others.


undoubtedly dinosaur proteins in remains
Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires. Excuses have been made, such as the "iron as a preservative" concept, which smacks of desperation and illustrates bad science. Even though Mary Schweitzer believes in long ages, she's willing to present the conclusive evidence that the dinosaur proteins are original material.
Mary Schweitzer’s team reports the most rigorous techniques yet to certify collagen in dinosaur bone. But will evolutionists finally give up their beloved millions of years?

Since 2005 and even earlier, Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State has boldly charged against fossilized dogma, proving the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She still believes they are millions of years old, but has faced criticism and (more often) silence from her stubborn, incredulous colleagues. This response hasn’t fazed her. If anything, it has stimulated her to prove she’s right. Now, the latest press release from NC State announces, “80-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Collagen Confirmed.” Here’s their interpretation that rescues long ages by assertion:
To read the rest, click on "No Doubts Left: It’s Dinosaur Protein". 

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Is the Echidna One of God's Pranks?

There's a critter down Australia and New Guiney way that is sometimes called the spiny anteater. It's spiny, but not with sharp pointy quills like a porcupine. Also, it does eat ants somewhat, but is not closely related to anteaters. Seems gentle enough, but it's a protected wild animal, so don't be getting a notion to make a pet of one. Maybe consider a hedgehog and name it Spiny Norman, since there's a bit of resemblance. Anyway, the subject is the echidna (I kid you not, it's pronounced ee-KID-nuh), and is baffling to evolutionists, like its cousin the platypus.

Echidna puzzle for evolution
Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainImages
The classification for yon beastie is a monotreme. It's a mammal, but lays eggs. Yes, really. Read up on its alleged evolution and you get a whole whack of storytelling but no actual scientific evidence. Then they deny the Creator and resort to the nonsensical "convergent evolution" tale. Because of its unique characteristics and those of the platypus, it's not difficult to be suspicioning that God has a sense of humor and put some of these things on Earth to cause evolutionists to say, "I find this very troubling".
You might think that spiky little animal waddling along the forest floor is a porcupine. But it has a long, sticky tongue and it digs for ants, so maybe it’s some kind of anteater. Nope? Well, it’s a mammal, at least, right? Wait—it lays eggs. Mammals don’t lay eggs. So what is this thing?

The echidna seems to break all the rules. It’s a mammal, but it lays eggs. It’s warm-blooded, but it has a low body temperature. It lives on land, but it detects food like some fish do. And, like so many other rule-breakers, such as the platypus, the echidna settled in Australia.
To read the rest, click on "Echidna—Outback Oddity" (audio version also available).


 

Monday, March 6, 2017

Moving the Cosmic Goalposts

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution have many things going for them — on paper. Start with some assumptions, do some calculations, make impressive pronouncements, let the sycophantic science media get the bit in their teeth and gallop to the public. But do not, under any circumstances, let actual science interfere with grandstanding. Evidence is bad medicine for speculations in secular cosmogony and cosmology.


Big Bang and new theory of gravity
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Since observed evidence causes problems for secular cosmogony concepts, secular scientists come up with rescuing devices. Dark matter, dark energy, dark other things that have never been observed but look good for calculations abound, and "explain" why spiral galaxies hold their shape after assumed zillions of years. These things have not been observed, only inferred according to presuppositions (see "Dark Matter Remains Missing"). Another rescuing device is to come up with new physics, and even find a new theory of gravity that makes things all better for the Big Bang. I reckon that this is the fallacy of moving the goalposts on a grand scale. By doing these things, they're tacitly admitting that the Big Bang is wrong. Cowboy up, people! The evidence y'all deny testifies that the universe was created much more recently than you want to believe.
Occasionally we read in the popular press, especially online, that someone has come up with a new theory of gravity. Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?

The standard ΛCDM big bang cosmology is derived from an application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory. But when that was applied to the universe as a whole, two problems developed for the secular model. One is the need to add in dark energy (or the cosmological constant, Λ (Lambda), to Einstein’s field equations) and the other is the need for a significant amount of invisible cold dark matter (CDM).
To finish reading, click on "Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?" Also worth seeing is "The Expanding Big Bang Fairy Tale".



 

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Creationists and Credentialing

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There seems to be a fine line between rejecting material because someone dislikes the source (the genetic fallacy), and using caution because the source is questionable. Some owlhoots fallaciously balk at learning science from creationists because creationists do not support materialistic presuppositions. Other times, material from individuals is questioned because they lack the proper credentials.


Some creation scientists have dubious credentials
Image credit: digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Readers of this Weblog and The Question Evolution Project may notice that several creationary mavericks are absent from the corral that I choose for reliable resources. I'll allow that sometimes I'm a mite skittish when atheopaths are looking for excuses to discredit individuals or organizations since I also want to make good material available for readers and viewers, but do not want to give detractors fuel for their fires.

Don't disunderstand me. There are very intelligent people who have no advanced degrees that have studied their material and present it accurately, and are not claiming to be more credentialed than they really are. My problem is that there are some individuals, such as Kent Hovind, Don Patton, Carl Baugh, and others who seem to be sincere about presenting creationary material, but are using doubtful credentials to bolster their credibility.

One anti-creationist claim is that a few of the numerous people in creation science circles have doctorates from unaccredited universities. If an American college or university did not go through the accreditation process, that does not necessarily mean that the program is substandard. (Similarly, a scientific paper may pass a peer review process, but that does guarantee it to be factual or even useful.) One simple reason that a small Christian school is not accredited is that the cost to obtain and maintain the accreditation can be prohibitive.

I'm ambivalent about relying on this credentialing business as to whether or not to use material from a dubious doctor. People may hear "not credentialed" and think, "Oh, it must be a bad place, and the creationist is a fraud." Not hardly! For example, James White has a doctorate from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, a non-traditional school. He has responded to critics on this, but nobody can legitimately challenge his knowledge of his material. Some of the creationists in question have their doctorates from "degree mills", such as Kent Hovind's "degree" from Patriot University in Colorado.

Aside from the questionable credentials of a few people (several of them are no longer active), I shy away from them if more reputable creationists and creationary organizations find their material to be lacking. Sometimes, the doubted creationists presents material that anti-creationists gleefully ridicule, but then, they ridicule just about anything that shows evolution to be the fraud that it is. Yes, there are some "evidences" and "arguments" that creationists should avoid (Answers in Genesis disagrees with Carl Baugh about the Paluxy River tracks), but there are a few arguments on the "get that out of Dodge" list that some creationists want to see included on the "use this material" list again.

Wikipedia, the biased, unreliable go-to source for atheists and anti-creationists, had an interesting "tell" in a post about Baugh: "Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims." See that? They are using loaded terminology to basically say that scientists are not creationists, and vice versa. That lie is easily refuted.

Unfortunately, uninformed people condition others who are also uninformed that uncredentialed is immediately a bad thing. Because of public perceptions as well as the dubious teachings of some individuals, my recommendation is to be very careful who you endorse. If the material presented is in your area of understanding or expertise and you believe it is worthwhile, then obviously, feel free to use it. Otherwise, I recommend caution, and feel it's a better witness to use sources for which we can feel confident.


Labels