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

Monday, September 4, 2017

You Call That a Bird's Nest?

When talking about birds' nests, what comes to mind? Probably the typical thing you can see by looking up in the trees, made of twigs and other things that were liberated for the cause. Then, the expectant mother lays eggs and keeps the eggs warm with body heat until they hatch. We've seen the scenario. This does not fit the malleefowl.

Malleefowl engineers incubates mound defy evolution affirm creation
Leipoa ocellata (malleefowl) image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Peterdownunder (CC BY-SA 3.0)
This chicken-sized bird is found in 'Straya and other neighboring areas. It doesn't quite build a nest. Instead, it builds a mound (that is like a housing project) for the purpose of incubating the eggs. After the construction is completed and it's determined to be in the proper temperature range, Mom lays an egg, and does it again every week or two for six months. Dad keeps the temperature at the right level by making adjustments in the mound. Egg design, knowledge of temperature, maintenance, unique features, and more all indicate the work of the Master Engineer and thwart evolution.
What if your life depended on your parents’ ability to discern a narrow range of temperature without using a thermometer? If you were an unhatched Malleefowl chick, belonging to the family of birds known as incubator birds, then your life would absolutely depend on the ability of your parents to incubate their eggs between 29 to 38 degrees Celsius (average 33 degrees Celsius).

Incubator birds don’t warm their eggs by sitting on them. Instead, they build a sort of “greenhouse.” Although the humble size of a chicken, the industrious Malleefowl take on the engineering task of constructing an impressive mound for the eggs, digging about 3 feet deep and 10 feet wide (approximately 90 by 300 cm) with their large feet. Then they fill the depression with all sorts of organic material—sticks, leaves, bark, grass, sand, and soil.
To read the rest, click on "The Incubator Bird: Nest Engineers"
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Fibers, Burrowing, and Other Biomimetics

Still kind of hard to cognate folks who believe that everything happened by time, chance, and random processes. There is no Master Engineer who designed everything and has explained himself in Scripture, no, can't have that, science is arbitrarily established as having naturalistic beliefs; no creationists need apply. For that matter, use of language in a paper even remotely implying the existence of our Creator gets said paper retracted

Science is impossible in an atheistic or evolutionary worldview. So, they study the design in nature for human applications. Does that make sense, to study something for the sake of imitating it if that something was the product of chance, and then praising Darwin, blessed be? Not hardly!

Bamboo and other things in creation are studied for biomimetics
Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
Okay, I went away for a while, but I'm back now.

There's some exciting work being conducted in the field of biomimetics. A sea sponge makes a kind of fiber optic cable, and is being examined for flexible glass. Mussels and octopuses are being studied for underwater adhesives and other applications. Research is being done on bamboo for building materials. Machines that dig into soil may get help from lizards that dig their way into the sand. Inspiration for advances in night-vision comes from silk worms.

Read about these items and more by clicking on "Sea Sponge Makes Flexible Glass".
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 1, 2017

Simple Eyes and Blind-Chance Evolution

There was a time when individual cells were considered simple, and as scientists learned more, those cells were not so simple after all. They're amazingly complex. The same kind of thing happens when studying marine invertebrates with eyes that should be simple. Well, compared to those of more complex creatures, they're simpler, but those eyes are also very involved. 

"Simple" eyes like those in jellyfish testify of creation and refut evolution
Image credit: Marijke Wilhelmus / NOAA
Evolutionists think that they can find the origin of eyes by backtracking on light-sensitive cells, but that is a fool's errand. Some cells are sensitive to light, and those have microbial rhodopsin, a protein photoreceptor. The patch of photoreceptor cells is has intricate, specified complexity that defies evolution and testifies of creation.
The complexity of the vertebrate eye disturbed Darwin, but he supposed it might have originated millions of years ago through a series of small steps that started with a rudimentary light-sensitive spot. Today, evolutionary theory claims that all eyes found in the animal world somehow evolved independently and can supposedly “be traced from a simple ancestral patch of photoreceptor cells.” Those same authors stated, “There appears to have been a single evolutionary origin of light-sensitive cells.”
To read the rest, click on "Do 'Simple' Eyes Reflect Evolution?"
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 31, 2017

More Dinosaur Family Tree Follies

An axiom familiar to computer programmers is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), which essentially means that if the programming is not done correctly, nonsense ensues. Advocates of universal common ancestor evolution have the same problem on a larger scale, and it strongly impacts their cladograms.

The dinosaur family tree is being rewritten again using bad logic and computers
Assembled and modified from images at Clker clipart
Cladograms are made by finding similar traits in organisms and then producing a tree. The classifications of dinosaurs has been rewritten according to faulty data (assuming a common ancestor, despite no evidence for such a thing) and circular reasoning. A new cladogram is causing consternation for the hands at the Darwin Ranch, since the classifications of lizard-hipped and bird-hipped dinosaurs is up for a makeover. Biblical creationists don't have such problems. These owlhoots keep kicking against the goads, denying that dinosaurs and man were created on the same day of creation week. There was no single tree, it's more like an orchard.
Some things everyone knows. Everyone knows Tyrannosaurus rex was a carnivore. Everyone knows Triceratops was a plant eater. And, until recently, everyone knew dinosaurs fall into two broad groups (“lizard-hipped” and “bird-hipped”). Or do they? If several paleontologists in the UK are correct, this “obvious” truth, accepted for over 100 years, may now be in limbo.

Teaching the first-ever creationist dinosaur class at my college, even I assumed this was true. I didn’t imagine questioning it. But what once was firmly established may now be turned upside down.
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Redrawing the Dinosaur Family Tree".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Misleading Exoplanet Sales Pitches

Evolution is a fact and consistently verified, with no scientific evidence against it, from the Big Bang all the way up to you and me. If you believe that, astronomers have some prime real estate to sell you. The commute to each is a mite long, though. But they're like Earth!


Exoplanets in the habitability zone, secular scientists leave out important details
Artist's conception of Kepler-10 and planets — Image credit: NASA / Ames / JPL-Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When it comes to exoplanets, there's a minimum criteria for the possibility of life evolving on them. (Creation is anathema to them.) It's often called the habitability (or Goldilocks) zone. There are several factors, including the right kind of star, distance of the planet from it, size, solar neighborhood, and so on. Many of the important parts are left out, and we're sold a bill of goods along the lines of, "Just like Earth" — if Earth was made of lava. Seems like they're getting mighty intent on convincing the public that there's a passel of planets that pass the habitability zone test, but secularists are leaving out important information. It's not just planets, either. Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, is also being passed off as a suitable place for humans to migrate. That'll be the day! They'll just have to cowboy up and admit that Earth was created to be special.

To read about several instances of secularists neglecting facts, click on "The Habitability Habit: Exaggerating Earth-Likeness". You may also want to read "Privileged Planet Confirmed!".
 


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

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

How Does a Creationist Student Write a Paper on Evolution?

Christian students in government-run education systems are in hostile territory, especially at the university level. Their faith is being challenged by secularist material (sometimes attacked outright by misotheistic teachers and instructors), and the students want to get good grades so they can graduate or even move on to advanced degrees. Students in these settings are under the control of the secularists in charge (while still having to be respectful), and have to play their cards right.

Creationist students can write a paper on evolution without compromising principles
Credit: Pixabay / andrew_t8
What is a student who believes in special creation and rejects evolution on both scientific and theological grounds supposed to do when required to write a paper on evolution? Good students want good grades, but the Christian doesn't want to compromise on principles. Worse, just "doing the assignment" on evolution and giving the materialists what they want would essentially be lying.

Sounds bleak, doesn't it? But the situation can be advantageous. Professing atheists and anti-creationists claim to know about Christians and creationists, but few have actually taken the time to become familiar with our views. On the other hand, creationists often know more about evolution than the typical keyboard warrior because they have to understand evolution and creation science. 

In a similar way, when people are going to have a formal debate, each side needs to be familiar with the other side's views. Then, an accurate presentation can be made for one's own views and an informed critique of the other's presentation can be made. Anti-creationists seldom give us this basic courtesy, preferring to use straw man attacks, ridicule, and other foolish arguments. We have to be better than that — especially scientists and those in academic areas. When being required to write on evolution, the creationist student needs to know creationist material, but also have a good working knowledge of evolutionary material. It is also extremely important to know the materialistic presuppositions that permeate the environment. I'd better holler "Whoa!" now and let Dr. Walker do his part.
So you’re studying at a secular institution and have received an assignment asking you to explain some evolutionary concepts. What should you do? Should you refuse to do it? Should you argue the case for creation and try to prove that evolution does not work? What happens if you can’t find any creationist information on the topic?

Don’t panic. All you need is to understand the thinking of secular science, how to research the topic, and how to write the assignment. Once you know these things you can write an assignment without compromising your creationist views. And your assignment will be one which can advance the creationist cause, as well as being a quality piece of writing that will receive a good grade.
To finish reading (and I hope you do, as well as bookmark the article), click on "‘How do I do my assignment about evolution?’"
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 28, 2017

The Sixth Great Extinction?

According to standard secular geology, Earth has dealt with five "great" extinction events. Recently, new inquiries prompted speculations that there was a sixth major event. None of these fit standard uniformitarian assumptions (present processes are what happened way back when as well as not; "the present is the key to the past"), however.

Sixth extinction event geological history supports Genesis Flood
Credit: Pixabay /Free-Photos
The megasequences studied must be the result of catastrophic instead of gradual processes. The best explanation for what is observed in found in creationary models of the Genesis Flood. (I know, some tinhorns will say that the Genesis Flood is fiction and could never happen, but such illogical faith statements disqualify them from serious discussion. A response that can be summed up as "Because evolution" is not a rebuttal, Skippy.) Further, the new proposals not only support biblical creation science, but may cause some reworking of our models as well.
Geology students memorize the rock system names found on geologic column diagrams, learn age assignments, typical fossils, and the five worldwide animal extinction events. Now, secular researchers reveal a sixth extinction near the top of Earth’s rock layers, and it coincides with three other large-scale features all poised to reshape the way biblical geologists think about the Genesis Flood.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Newly Discovered Sixth Extinction Rewrites Geology".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels