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

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Animal Dispersal by Raft

Two things that get anti-creationists on the prod is when biblical creationists know more about aspects of fish-to-photographer evolution than its proponents. Added to that is when observable evidence supports creationary models far better than it supports evolutionary conjectures. In this instance, we have been ridiculed for suggesting an aspect of biogeograpy: that one way animals were dispersed is by using rafts. Evolutionists are often stymied by similar creatures living in widely separated areas, and often have to invoke the miracle of "convergent evolution" instead of presenting real science.

Animals may have dispersed after the Genesis Flood using rafts, these sea lions seem ready to go
Credit: Freeimages / Martyn E. Jones
Don't go to disunderstanding me, I'm not saying they rented rafts like the ones used to shoot the rapids on the Colorado River or something. After all, most critters cannot carry charge cards. What I'm talking about is using whatever is available (and I suspicion it's often by accident) and going with the flow. Ever see sea lions making themselves at home on boulders, docks — and rafts? Animals can be opportunists.

Creationists have said that one way animals dispersed after the global Genesis Flood is by using makeshift rafts. Small pieces of debris are not likely to get very far, but large amounts, including trees, were available after the Flood. In addition, the world was still settling down, and there was a great deal of residual tectonic activity. A dramatic example of rafting animals was observed after the March 2011earthquake and tsunami in Japan. It is not much of a stretch to extrapolate from the "small" tsunami and simpler creatures to the far more intense global catastrophic Flood.
Following the earthquake, a 125-foot tall tsunami decimated the Japanese coastline, killing 18,000 people, melting down three nuclear reactors, and washing 5 million tons of debris out to sea, including fishing boats, docks, buoys, and various pieces of wood and plastic. This debris was caught by ocean currents and slowly transported 4,000 miles to coastlines on the other side of the world, including Hawaii and the Pacific coast of North America.
. . .

This tsunami debris didn’t come alone. Thousands of tiny voyagers survived the long passage at sea by riding on plastics. Marine biologists, working with local and state officials as well as citizen scientists, catalogued and bagged 600 pieces of tsunami debris and, with them, at least 289 living species (biologists suspect there are likely more that escaped their notice).
To read the rest, click on "Hundreds of Species Voyage Across the Pacific After Japanese Tsunami".

Question Evolution Day

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

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Creation Science Rocks the Amadeus Basin

The three main divisions of rocks are igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary. While the first two supposedly dominate the earth's crust, sedimentary rocks are the most common kind found on or near the surface. The name is a giveaway, because they were formed by (you guessed it) sediment. (Fossils are found in these as well.) Long age dogmas are used to indoctrinate the young, insisting that such rocks take a huge amount of time to form despite contrary evidence. Case in point: the Heavitree Quartzite that is deposited in the Amadeus Basin in Australia.

 Lake Amadeus, Northern Territory, Australia November 1994 image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
You see, secular geologists are in lockstep with proponents of minerals-to-man evolutionism, since Darwin requires long ages and said geologists are happy to oblige. Also, they are unwilling or unable to consider anything other than uniformitarianism (present geologic activity has been mostly the same for huge amounts of time). Instead of dropping their preconceptions, they still cling to them and say that what they observe is "not well understood". Secularists reject catastrophism out of hand, especially when the huge amounts of water necessary to make the depositions they observe are examples of the Genesis Flood. Creationary scientists have workable models and better explanations for geological observations (which infuriates anti-creationists). Brace yourselves for some compelling geology. Here is just the first paragraph:
A detailed study of the sedimentary structure and geographical extent of a prominent and widespread sandstone unit in central Australia reveals evidence of high energy depositional processes. The sheet-like nature of the Heavitree Quartzite indicates that an abundant supply of sediment was deposited and distributed in a high-energy, shelf-like environment. The extent of the sedimentary formation indicates that the depositional process represented a cataclysm of continental scale. Abundant sediment supply was transported to the flat, shallow depositional basin by wide flowing rivers. The sediments were laid down rapidly throughout the basin by high-energy water flows associated with the shallow marine environment of the basin, and by rapid changes in relative sea level. In the early stages of deposition strong reversing tidal currents played a major role in dispersal, but as water depths increased unidirectional currents became dominant. These findings from sedimentological analysis are indicative of the types of depositional environments expected during the early phase of Noah’s Flood.
That geology rocks! To read the rest, click on "The Sedimentary Heavitree Quartzite, Central Australia, was deposited early in Noah’s Flood".

Question Evolution Day

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

Monday, January 1, 2018

Unexpected Flying Critters

As you can tell, I have my unregistered assault keyboard in working order and ready to begin 2018. Today, however, the subject matter will be light reading, and we will commence to doing heavier stuff later. So, let's get things off the ground by talking about things that get off the ground.

Wallace's flying frog is among several creatures that were designed to glide
Wallace's flying frog image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rushenb (CC BY-SA 4.0)
What are you likely to think of when someone asks about a critter that doesn't have wings but still manages to fly? Class? Anyone?

"Flying squirrel!"

I suspicion that it's the most common response since there are different species that are kind of widespread. Like its cousin the colugo, it doesn't actually fly, but glides. There are several animals that can be seen getting some distance by abandoning ground travel. There are flying frogs, geckos (probably to sell flight insurance), and even snakes.


Yes, really. Several things get in the air. For example, Wallace's flying frog was named after Alfred Russel Wallace. (He's the same guy that came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection in a fever dream, but Charles Darwin got published first. We don't hear much about him because he was a sort of heretic because he believed in a form of intelligent design.) Interesting that it's in the family of Rhacophoridae, sometimes called tree or moss frogs. Only a few of them glide.

Evolutionists have no plausible explanation for the varieties of creatures that have the intricate specified designs needed for such travel. The sensible conclusion is that these were designed by the Master Engineer. We can expect to see creation deniers become intellectually honest when pigs fly without the assistance of catapults.
Mammals, reptiles, and even amphibians can actually glide through the atmosphere. God’s inventive engineering has equipped these unexpected animals for aerial travel. The fantastic designs of more familiar flyers like falcons and fruit bats should not fail to inspire, but each newfound aeronautical wonder in the living world offers a fresh example of God’s creativity.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "When Frogs Fly".
Question Evolution Day

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

Saturday, December 30, 2017

The Facts Cannot Be Disputed

The last post for 2017 will deal with one of my favorite subject, which is how anti-creationists use reprehensible reasoning while asserting they have all the facts. Normally, articles by this author like the one linked below would be shared to The Question Evolution Project "as is", but I had a hankering to add some additional material.

Evolutionists and creationists do not have separate facts, disputes arise about eh interpretations of facts
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
Something that other biblical creationists and I emphasize is that facts are facts; there are no facts for atoms-to-atheist evolutionists and other facts for creationists. No, the disagreements occur on the interpretations of the facts. You have probably seen claims that there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution, but a bit of examination and logical thinking will reveal that the "evidence" is not based on facts, but interpretations, speculations, and opinions. You'll also get a passel of bad logic.

One sidewinder insists on lying outright, saying that Creation Ministries International denies facts that conflict with the Bible. He is hidebound to cling to his falsehood, even though I caught him and explained that they dispute interpretations of facts that disagree with the Bible. Atheists and evolutionists presuppose materialism and naturalism, and therefore reject divine revelation. Biblical creationists presuppose God's Word as the ultimate truth. Everyone has their starting point.

Atheists and other anti-creationists have a habit of misrepresenting Christians and creationists (such as in the example above). One thing they like to do is poison the well with loaded terminology, such as "biblical literalists". That has a negative connotation where believers put their think bones on the shelf and believe poetry, apocalyptic material, figures of speech, and so on as literal. Not hardly! We use the historical-grammatical approach as well as the same kind of sense where someone does not take the term "sunrise" literally. You savvy? Tim Chaffey wrote:
Bible-believing Christians generally follow a method of interpretation known as the historical-grammatical approach. That is, we try to find the plain (literal) meaning of the words based on an understanding of the historical and cultural settings in which the book was written. We then follow standard rules of grammar, according to the book’s particular genre, to arrive at an interpretation. We seek to perform careful interpretation or exegesis—that is, to “read out of” the text what the author intended it to mean. This is in contrast to eisegesis, which occurs when someone “reads into” the text his own ideas—what the reader wants the text to mean. In other words, exegesis is finding the AIM (Author’s Intended Meaning) of the passage because its true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient.
So, it's really not that difficult, and something that thoughtful readers of various genres engage in on a regular basis.

The following article shows us how an evolutionist used awful logic and manipulated the "facts" to bash creationists and prop up evolutionism. The author identified several logical fallacies, and although I disagree with a couple of his identifications, it is definitely worth reading. Twice, if you've a mind to. Even if people don't want to get into the specifics, the point I hope all y'all will get is that, with some thinking, you can see when evolutionists are trying to hoodwink us.
In a section called Forum, in the January 2013 issue of Scientific American a one page article called “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts,” written by a fifth grade schoolteacher, Jacob Tanenbaum, has an embarrassing number of factual, analytical and logical errors, misinformation and fallacious arguments.
Besides the exaltation of science as a savior, it also exhibits a disturbing trend among materialists, that being the vilification of Bible believing Christians and the belief that they are a threat to our very existence.
This post is an examination of that article in depth.
The article was titled “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable facts,” but apparently there were second thoughts about the title and the online version was renamed “A Science Teacher Draws the Line at Creation.” There are indisputable facts on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. The status of evolution in our education system is that it is an indisputable fact and they do not want it to be open to debate. There are, however those that do dispute it and they are not just Creationists.  His article centers around three things:
To finish reading, and I hope you do, click on "Indisputable Facts".

Question Evolution Day

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

Friday, December 29, 2017

Humans Helping Birds Evolve?

A major problem found in proponents of atoms-to-ornithologist evolution is that they are uncertain of their own belief system, seeing small variations in living things as examples of "evolution". While many make honest mistakes, there are blackguards who equivocate on evolution to convince people that Darwin was right, and there is no Creator. To further complicate matters, the definition of species is disputed, and although evolution is supposed to be a slow process, quick, observable variation flusters evolutionists, such as with the rapid gecko changes.

The variation in the great tit's beak is variation, not Darwinian evolution
Credit: Pixabay / Sara Price
Parus major (also known as the great tit) is a relative of the chickadee, tufted titmouse, and a few cute little chirpers. They're mainly found in the Northern Hemisphere, and are very popular in Britain. People over there are very fond of feeding birds (my wife and I do some ourselves here in New York), and some changes in beak size have been noticed. Some folks have called this slight change "evolution", and even attribute it to human influence: bird feeders. Longer beaks reach the goodies better, so natural selection kicks in. Of course, not all bird feeders are the same, so this doesn't look all that scientific to me. And it's definitely not Darwinian evolution. What really happened is that the Master Engineer designed critters so they could adapt to varying conditions, but not to change into something else.
Each year thousands of people fill bird feeders with seeds, corn, and nuts to encourage feathery friends to make a stop in their backyard. Bird feeding is especially popular in the United Kingdom where Britons spend nearly double that of other Europeans on bird feeders and birdseed, and half of homes with a backyard boast bird feeders. According to researchers, this seedy proffering is driving the rapid evolution of bird species.
. . .
Researchers looked at genetic variations in more than 3,000 individual birds from these populations. What they found was a genetic divergence between the groups that was linked to beak shape. Comparisons of populations revealed that British great tits now sport longer beaks than their Dutch relatives.
To read the rest, perch here: "Don’t Feed the Birds or They’ll Evolve". Also recommended, "Rapid Finch Speciation Counters Evolution".

Question Evolution Day

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

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Geologists Puzzled by Unstable Mountain

The dominant philosophy of secular geologists is uniformitarianism, where "the present is the key to the past", and the slow, gradual processes we see today have remained constant. Wielders of this viewpoint often lasso themselves, because the long-age views pack a passel of problems.

Geologists expect mountains to be stable, and are surprised when they do not fit uniformitarian assertions.
Credit: Freeimages / Amy Hennen
(I was unable to find a usable picture of the mountain, so here are some rocks)
Way over yonder in Norway, Mt. Mannen ("the man") is not behaving itself and is called "unstable". Bad parenting? The economy? What caused this? Anyway, there have been alarms that the mountain is in danger of "collapsing", which really means a huge landslide could suddenly happen and destroy properties and kill people. Geologists tried to do some controlled intervention and make the slide happen. When something occurred, it was not what they were hoping for because it was too small.

Secular geologists are imposing their philosophy on the mountain, which they expect to be cooperative and sit quietly for millions of years. Observed facts contradict their uniformitarian viewpoint. If they would cowboy up and consider a young earth perspective, including how the geological features were primarily formed by the Genesis Flood (catastrophism), they would most likely be less surprised by what they observe. Perhaps geologists could make better predictions, too. Just a thought.
Mount Mannen in Norway, 320 km northwest of the capital Oslo, has made headlines more than once, even here in Finland, where I live. But not because of its respectable 1,300 m (4,300 ft) height, since nearly 300 peaks in Norway exceed the 2,000 m (6,500 ft) mark. It is because it is regarded as an ‘unstable mountain’.

Mannen has been closely monitored since 2009 as part of an emergency preparedness service; authorities are prepared for a massive landslide of up to 100 million cubic metres. This would be bad news for the Rauma Line—a railway operating in the danger zone. It is estimated that it would take only a small fraction of the potential slide—‘only’ 2 million cubic metres—for the debris to cross the valley and likely devastate buildings and damage the Rauma Line.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Norway’s live ‘unstable’ Mount Mannen surprises geologists".

This short video was presumably taken from the railway line
that is in danger of a landslide from Mt. Mannen.

Question Evolution Day

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

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

The Big Bang Further Self-Destructs

Secular cosmologists conjured up the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which was reluctantly accepted over other models such as the oscillatory and steady-state. Over the decades, serious flaws were discovered, so astronomers fudged data and came up with a prairie schooner full of patches for the Big Bang. One failed fake science patch is the concept of "dark energy".

Failed Big Bang theory received more bad news that the universe should not exist
Severely modified from an image at Clker clipart.
"But Cowboy Bob, the Big Bang must be true, because here we are!"

Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that tinhorns like this one use to justify the fictitious, evidence free rescuing device called the Oort cloud. Looks like a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy mixed with ad homiems, straw man arguments and the irrelevant thesis fallacy, but never mind about that now. But do mind that people think illogically like that.

Some cosmologists kept on fiddling with data and determined that this nice little universe we have should not even exist. While that is old news, additional research makes the whole thing worse. Even using their assumptions (no actual facts required), the conclusion is that if the universe popped into existence, matter and antimatter would cancel each other out and there would be nothing here, no cosmic evolution leading to biological evolution at all. The universe would be nice and clean, though. All those silly efforts to deny the work of the Creator keep on coming up empty.
Recently, the asymmetry matter/antimatter problem, one of the most serious objections to the Big Bang model, just got a little worse. The asymmetry problem involves the fact that there is very little antimatter in the universe. Antimatter is just like normal matter, except that some of its properties are opposite that of normal matter. For instance, the antimatter equivalent to the electron is called the positron. The positron has the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge, rather than negative. Likewise, the antimatter counterpart to a proton is the anti-proton which has the same mass as a proton but with a negative charge.
To read the rest, click on "Big Bang Scientists: Universe Shouldn't Exist".

Question Evolution Day

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