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, October 3, 2017

Humans Are Not Causing Rapid Gecko Evolution

One of the favorite tricks of Darwinoids is to engage in equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. It is also called the bait-and-switch maneuver. For our purposes, we'll look at how the word evolution is used. This word actually has several definitions that involve change over time in one way or another. Humans were credited (or blamed, if you will) for "rapid evolution" involving geckos.

Credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto
Geckos, those baffling little critters that can hang by one toe and inspired self-cleaning adhesive tape, were observed changing over time. Although the geckos remained geckos, disingenuous proponents of  universal common ancestor evolution called these minor changes "evolution", equivocating on the key word to deceive people into believing that Darwin was right after all. Ain't happening, Zeke. Those sidewinders were implying that big picture evolution happened, but no new genetic information was added, and the geckos conveniently evolved into — no, they remained geckos. They were created to adapt, which is what they did.
News reports are proclaiming that human actions, in this case the building of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil, are “messing with evolution” because of changes in a species of gecko.

Here’s what happened: a portion of the Brazilian countryside was flooded for this dam, isolating gecko populations from the mainland. When the larger lizard species that used to inhabit this part of the countryside died off, the geckos dominated. Within a mere 15 years, the geckos had bigger mouths and heads to eat the larger insects the other lizards would otherwise have snapped up. This change in the lizards, which happened independently on all five new islands, is being heralded as an example of “rapid evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Are Humans Driving Rapid Lizard Evolution?"
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 2, 2017

Basic Science about Genetics, Evolution, and Creation

Darwin's defenders often say that the science of genetics refutes biblical creation science and affirms gunk-to-geneticist evolution. That'll be the day! In reality, further research in genetics has been a gold mine for creation science, and the prediction by creationists that there is no "junk" DNA has been confirmed several times. Evolutionists do not help their cause by using deception and bad science, such as when they stitched together the chimpanzee genome and say those critters are our closes relatives. The DNA puzzle is not yet complete, but continues to refute evolution and support special creation.


Puzzle of DNA is incomplete but new discoveries continue to refute evolution and support special creation.
Credit: Pixabay / qimono
Changes in what is known about genetics is rapidly changing, so what we read in textbooks is incomplete or even erroneous today. DNA is more than a storage medium for an amazing amount of information, it is a language as well. People who want to know more on the subject have an uphill climb. When scientists commence to writing their reports, the technical jargon can be mighty confusing, so it's easy to feel baffled. How about something scientific that starts on a more basic level?
Genetics is the science of heredity: the study of how traits are passed on from organisms to their descendants.  It is perhaps the most relevant field of science to the issue of creation and evolution.  Which position on origins is most consistent with our modern understanding of genetics?  Do all organisms on earth share a common ancestor as Charles Darwin believed?  Or do all organisms trace back to a large number of separately created kinds which are not biologically related to other kinds?  Can the science of genetics shed light on these questions?
Although it takes a while, you would do well to get comfortable and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Creation 101: Genetics". I have a feeling that there will be some more "101" courses later on. 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 30, 2017

DNA, Fetal Cells, and Women's Health

Going to have to use expensive words in this post, especially since the subject is rather technical. A chimera is a mythological creature made of multiple parts. Depending on the myth it would have the head of a lion, snake tail, and the body of a goat. This word has been incorporated into biological and medical sciences involving ethical considerations regarding biological tampering.


Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley
That was the easy part of the vocabulary. Now we move on to microchimerism, and you can see micro in there as well as chimera, but adding -ism does not make it into a religion. Instead, it is a rapidly-developing area of study for women's health. Simply put, it is male DNA in a woman's body, had has a great deal to do with fetal development. God's ideal for marriage and procreation is one man and one woman. The DNA is found in father, mother, and child, which includes a woman having multiple fathers for her children, and abortions. When people ignore God's ideal for their own purposes, they are putting a woman's health at risk, beginning at the cellular level.
Women are at risk from sexual involvement with multiple partners. This can impact their health and increase the risk of miscarriage in pregnancy, low birth weight and dangerous diseases that have the potential to kill. Additionally, the intriguing, relatively recent discovery of DNA in the bodies of women, originating from the fathers of their children, has brought attention to an unsuspected biological closeness between a woman and her children, and between a mother and her spouse. This DNA, clearly distinct from the mother’s, has been shown to persist in her body for decades after a pregnancy. Its presence not only may have health effects, but also exemplifies the deep biological union between a man and a woman, facilitated by the children they have together.
To read the rest, prepare to invest about half an hour and do some thinking. When you're ready, click on Dr. Kathy Wallace's "Becoming one flesh".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 29, 2017

Responding to Darwinism with Engineering Causality

The series continues on how Darwin's externalism has interfered with scientific investigation on living organisms, and evolutionists give credit to nature for changes real and imagined. Engineered complexity is the opposite and arguably more scientific approach. You can read the previous installment of the series here. Now we need to look at some additional factors.


Credit: Pixabay / Adi Rahman
Materialistic scientists are frequently surprised at what is found in nature. Organisms adapt, and do it quickly, but Darwinism requires huge amounts of time and assumes that conditions are the primary factors. While conditions are important, the best approach is to see that organisms adapt because they were designed by the Master Engineer to do so.

Anti-creationists often lie about biblical creationists that our argument is "GodDidIt", so there is no need to investigate further. Yet evolutionists essentially say "NatureDidIt", and even personify nature in a kind of pantheistic view. No, both camps want to know how something works. If Darwin's folks could bring themselves to admit that life is designed, they could commence to doing useful science instead of running into the wall of Darwin's externalism.
Discoveries of diverse internal mechanisms foster another new concept: Adaptation is based on a compilation of engineered systems that enable rapid growth and physiological changes to environmental cues and challenges.

A design-based, organism-focused model could posit that as organisms actively travel through space-time, they continuously track environmental conditions, and their inherent capabilities express suitable traits. These features are the outworking of systems with intrinsic sensors and programmed logic that are accurately described with engineering causality—which is characterized as internal to them.
To read the article in its entirety (and I reckon this series is getting mighty interesting), click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Causality Is the Answer to Darwinian Externalism".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Carbon-14 and Dinosaur Bones

A prairie schooner-full of links to articles on dinosaur soft tissues can be found on this site alone, and there are many more on the web. Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny the existence of dinosaur soft tissues! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong.


No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete.
Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith
Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree, to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined. Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring©, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further evidence that the world was created recently, and the Genesis Flood is by far the best explanation for discoveries in geology and paleontology. Well, despite the desire to protect evolutionism from science, C-14 testing was eventually done. The results were not good for the Darwin club. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
This article will explain how recent events, including the announcement of dinosaur soft tissue and carbon-14 (C-14) in the otherwise ordinary bones of major classes of dinosaurs collected from museum shelves and throughout the geological column, may have placed evolutionists in a zugzwang-like position with respect to their long-held beliefs concerning the origin of life. In other words, like a chess player in zugzwang, they will now be compelled to move (investigate dinosaur bones) in a manner that can only weaken their position.
To check out the rest of this article (and get an overview of carbon-14 as well), click on "Carbon-14 in Dinosaur Bones Challenges Evolution Theory and Supports Genesis Flood Account". Also, you may like the one-minute video below, courtesy of Creation Ministries International.


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

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Universities Prohibit Science against Evolution

There was a time when education meant equipping students for the future. This included lectures, learning from books, debating, listening to lectures that would challenge their thinking, and more. Now we have "safe spaces" where the darlings can feel safe, and they are spoon-fed information that conforms to ideologies. This is a good way to protect evolution from scrutiny and logical thinking.


Generated at Add Letters
The politically/culturally correct movement is useful to suppress free speech, and is frequently advantageous for political and moral leftists. Evolution is the reigning paradigm in government-run educational centers (as well as liberal religious schools), and the very idea that Darwin's views are not supported by scientific evidence is harshly suppressed. (It interferes with their materialistic indoctrination.) Perhaps academics and students realize that if they have to admit there is a Creator, they have to also come to terms with what he has to say. Biblical creation science is not politically correct, nor will it ever be. So, bigots will keep anyone off campus who is politically conservative — especially if they reject evolutionism. Never mind that the true spirit of scientific inquiry would allow the consideration of contrary evidence. But leftists and atheists are not fond of logical thinking and free speech, especially if they expose political, evolution, and climate change falsehoods. Can't even let those be question or examined, no siree.
Much is in the news lately about the University of California at Berkeley, where riots have prevented planned guest speakers from appearing. The university claimed in an email about their decision to cancel a talk by Ann Coulter that they uphold the First Amendment, but canceled her talk out of “safety concerns”. As evidence, they referred to the recent riots at colleges over conservative speakers, such as a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos that was canceled in February. Coulter is a strong supporter of creation as documented in her book, Godless.

In another case, when Ben Shapiro was scheduled to speak at several colleges, demonstrations rose up to stop him. Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) comes from a Jewish family, partially from Russia. He is a conservative Republican, and a creationist. And yet the absurd reason they gave for preventing him from speaking is the claim that “Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro Is A ‘White Supremacist’” and a “Fascist”. It’s becoming increasingly common for protestors to use ad hominem tactics to block a variety of guests from speaking at college campuses, especially creationists.
Calling a Jew a "White Supremacist", how stupid can they get? News flash for those sidewinders: white supremacists hate Jews first, before other ethnicities! Sorry, I had to interject. To read the rest of the article, click on "Universities Ban Discussion of Creation by Speakers, Students".


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

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Decoding Meteorites

Rocks falling through the sky can be interesting, and those quick streaks of light indicate for us that a meteor burned up in the atmosphere. Most burn up, and tons of dust lands on Earth. No, they don't know quite how much, but it's a lot. When rocks do not burn up and actually reach the ground, then they're called meteorites. Big ones are rare, so there's no call to be worrying about them.


Meteor. Meteorites are used to determine the age of Earth using faulty dating methods
Meteor image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Meteorites have a lot to tell us. (No, they don't talk, and if you're hearing talking meteorites, I'll observe you from a safe distance.) We can learn from meteorites by studying them, especially the chemical composition. Secular geologists presuppose that they are the best things to use for obtaining the age of the earth through unreliable radiometric dating methods because they're not from Earth. Creationary scientists also have hypotheses about our planet's age that differ greatly from those of their secular counterparts, which involve stripping away deep time preconceptions and seeing how the observed data match with the biblical time frame.
Have you ever sat gazing at the stars on a clear night when a bright streak flashed across your vision, barreling toward the earth? “Falling stars” inspire wonder and mystery, but at times they also inspire terror.

In the cold early morning of February 15, 2013, a bright fireball exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, causing a sonic boom that damaged thousands of buildings and injured nearly 1,500 people due to shattered glass and other debris. No one saw it coming, a meteor approximately 65 feet (20 m) across and weighing over 13,000 tons (12,000 metric tons)—the largest object to smash into earth’s atmosphere in over a century.
You can read the rest of this very interesting article, or download the audio by my favorite narrator by clicking on "Misunderstood Messengers from Space".
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels