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

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Cry "Reason" and Let Slip the Dogs of Creation

"But Cowboy Bob, shouldn't that title read —"

Yes, I know, the real phrase is, "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war", from Shakespeare. I figured it was the leashed I could do.

Creationists have used dog breeds for many illustrations, including the variety of diversification that our Creator built into the genetic structure of the dog kind, and also how breeding (artificial selection) reduces the fitness for survival of the animals. 

New genetic study of dog kind diversity
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Bill Perry
In days long passed, dogs were bred for their abilities. Now they are also bred for their appearance. A new study surprised scientists because they expected certain breeds to be related due to similar traits, and vice versa. But with all of the genetic studying, there is no evidence supporting Darwin's dreadful idea; dogs are still dogs and are not turning into something completely other — even with human interference.
People have loved (or hated) dogs for thousands of years. Dogs were frowned upon as dirty scavengers in Biblical times, but for many centuries more recently, they have been man’s best friend. Because of their usefulness for hunting and herding, people groups around the world have bred individuals to accentuate traits they desired. A new survey of 160 dog breeds, described in Nature, shows that genetics is now allowing scientists to untangle the complicated lineages of different types.
To finish reading, click on "Dog Breeding: Exploring the Limits of Change". Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Elephant Species in Darwin's Room

Ever heard the expression "the elephant in the room"? Not sure if it's used much outside these here United States, but it basically means an obvious problem that people are uncomfortable discussing for various reasons, including a desire to avoid making problems for the group. A problem for scientists as well as us reg'lar folk is the definition of species.

Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo
It's a common term and convenient, and people can use it to sound all sciencey and stuff. Carl (also, Carolus) Linnaeus was the creationist who is called the "father of modern taxonomy", and originated the concept. It's had problems ever since, as the classification system becomes increasingly difficult. Can two critters reproduce? Maybe, but they're on different continents. Similar characteristics? Not so fast, Freddy, lots of things have similarities but are unrelated in other ways. Scientists dispute whether or not to classify certain organisms as different species. The biblical term kind works, but people want smaller details, and secularists prefer the more difficult man-made term. Can't get the Creator any credit, because evolution, right?
When you think of the largest land animals on earth today, what comes to mind? Most people would probably say those creatures with long trunks and sharp ivory tusks. But do you mean the floppy-eared elephants of Africa or their small-eared cousins in Asia?
Identifying animals is much harder than you might think. Indeed, it touches on one of the most fundamental questions of biology. This difficulty actually has a name: “the species problem.”
To finish reading, click on "Defining Species—An Elephant-Sized Problem". Also, you may be interested in a more recent post here, "Bears, Hybrids, and Evolution".

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Science, Miracles, and Natural Law

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch are playing cards down at the bunkhouse, sometimes a troublemaker will bring up the subject of miracles. They promptly dismiss miracles as impossibilities because miracles don't happen, and besides, they violate natural law, whatever that is. Then they go back to cheating a poker.

Jesus heals blind man, miracles excluded by naturalistic presuppositions
Christ Healing the Blind Man, Eustache Le Sueur, 1600s
Of course, the naturalists' mantra of "Miracles do not happen because they are impossible" is based on circular reasoning as well as materialistic presuppositions. As for violating natural law? There's a prairie schooner-full of of natural laws that we're not rightly cognating on yet, but scoffers and evolutionists still rely on certain unknown and unseen things by faith. They have the a priori atheistic assumption that God does not exist and therefore cannot make himself known in his creation. I'll allow that the word miracle is thrown around far too often when something is most definitely not a miracle, but people are pleased about some good circumstance. There are also documented instances of healing that cannot be explained through natural means, so scoffers reject them and place faith (again) in Science of the Gaps, and even believe in the "miracle" of evolution without real evidence. Even though we do not know how something works does not mean it does not happen. There are times that referring to something as a miracle is indeed the most logical conclusion — especially the most obvious miracle, creation itself.
Atheists and agnostics don’t like miracles (though ironically they need them to justify their evolutionary worldview: Five Atheist miracles and A miracle by any other name would be … called science?). They often claim that miracles are somehow impossible, or inherently improbable, or unprovable—although their proofs become circular, as explained in Miracles and science. The idea is that miracles can be safely ignored as an option before the evidence is considered . . .
To read the rest with your miraculously, intelligently-designed eyes and brain, click on "How do miracles happen?"

Monday, June 19, 2017

Chicxulub Crater Questions

If you're heading south down Mexico way, past Mexico City but before the Guatemala border, you can find the Yucatán Peninsula. That's the place that some folks of the long age persuasion say that a meteorite or asteroid hit some 65 million Darwin years ago and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. While some call it a "smoking gun" piece of evidence for the dino demise idea and an old earth, others (not just creationists) are not so certain.

Chicxulub meteorite dinosaur extinction not compelling
Artist's conception of Chicxulub impact / credit: NASA Goddard
While the site looks like it would have accommodated a large object from space, but the "smoking gun" didn't eject expected amounts of iridium, which is common in meteorites. Other minerals found there that could be from a meteorite are sparse, and the expected melting is nowhere near deep enough. Creationary scientists speculate that an impact may have happened at the time of the Genesis Flood (the results of the Flood would have eventually led to the demise of dinosaurs), the impact was nowhere near as large as the secular science industry is proclaiming.
In secular literature and movies, the most popular explanation for the dinosaurs’ extinction is an asteroid impact. The Chicxulub crater in Mexico is often referred to as the “smoking gun” for this idea. But do the data support an asteroid impact at Chicxulub? I recently reviewed the evidence and found some surprising results.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Chicxulub Crater Theory Mostly Smoke".

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Fast Frog Food Flusters Evolutionists

Most of us probably know that frogs eat insects with the use of their sticky tongues. Have you ever seen it happen? Probably not, since the procedure takes less than the blink of an eye. Also, they eat more than insects. And yes, toads have the same food-zapping apparatus.

Frog sticky tongue meal process defies evolution

There are many factors at work here. The tongue flips out, but it's very soft and acts like a shock absorber so it doesn't knock lunch into the next county. At the same time, the saliva is honey-thick at the start, but much thinner when it reaches its prey. After it reels in its lunch, it has to get it off the tongue. Many factors have to be happening correctly at the same time, or nothing works, nothing makes sense to have without the rest. Gradual evolution is woefully inadequate to explain frog feeding, this is all in place because of the wisdom and planning of our Creator.
Frogs have the incredible ability to catch and eat a wide variety of prey, from hairy to furry to oddly-shaped. This prey can be up to 1.4 times their own body weight. A recent study published in Journal of the Royal Society Interface sought to figure out how frogs can accomplish this since not much research had been done previously. Their findings were summed up in an article from Science News.

After viewing slow-motion video footage, conducting experiments, and analyzing frog spit (it took several hours of scraping fifteen frog tongues to put together enough spit for just one test. Now who says science isn’t glamorous?), researchers discovered that the frog’s super-soft tongue and unique saliva work in tandem.
Stick with me now. You can read the rest by clicking on "Super-Sticky Spit: How a Frog Gets a Meal".

Friday, June 16, 2017

A Blast of Evidence against Uniformitarian Geology

Way back in 1770s, David Hume said, "For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities". James Hutton was studying geoscience, which was not yet a formalized field of study (doctorates would b given in geology many decades later). Still, he liked what he was doing and published books in the late 1700s, establishing uniformitarianism, summarized as "the present is the key to the past"; processes we see in geology today are the same as they've always been.

Hutton influenced lawyer Charles Lyell, who expanded on Hutton's work. He wanted to save geology, "freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses." When people like Lyell oppose the Bible, it's no surprise that they're willing to lie to promote their views. From here, failed medical student and backslidden clergyman Charles Darwin became excited by Lyell's uniformitarian-promoting, God-denying tomes. Through paganism, plagiarism, and his own observations, Darwin came up with his own version of evolutionism. Evolution demands long ages, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© attack any evidence for a young earth with the fervor of MS-13 gang members. On the web and in paper, of course.

Mt. St. Helens eruption supported biblical creation science
Credit: NOAA/NGDC, Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When Mt. St. Helens reminded the world of its presence in 1980 (and not without warning signs by any means), geologists were justifiably excited about the opportunity to make observations, take measurements, and do scientist stuff. What they found is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition: nobody expected what was found! Even worse for views of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin's supporters, this little volcanic explosion ("little" in comparison with other volcanoes) provided refutation for uniformitarian speculations and supported biblical creation science. Sure, they come up with excuses at the Darwin Ranch, but not much in the way of actual science to explain away the facts — especially the fact that the world was created recently, and not billions of Darwin years ago.
After decades of inactivity, Mount St Helens coughed to life in March 1980, some two months before its explosive eruption. Its smoke and rumbling were warning that something big was building up. Officials set up an exclusion zone around the volcano based on scientists’ ideas about how an eruption would occur. However, the blast was larger than expected, plus it first erupted sideways to the north instead of vertically. Of the 57 people that died, all but three were outside the exclusion zone.Wrong geological ideas can be deadly.

Wrong geological ideas have also led people to wrong ideas about the Bible—that the events it describes were mythological and did not actually happen. Mount St Helens changed that, which is why I have been so interested in what happened. The eruption demonstrated that geologic catastrophe can produce in hours and days geologic features previously believed to have taken millions of years. When we see what the volcano did in such a short time, we can better appreciate how the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood formed the much larger geological features on planet Earth.
To read the entire article, click on "Learning the lessons of Mount St Helens — How its eruption backs biblical history".

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Emotion in Your Eyes

People have a whole heap of ways to express emotions, what with tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, and so on. It seems that our eyes can convey a great deal. Notice how many songs talk about the eyes, and we use expressions like, "I see it in your eyes"? Pictures can convey some of the emotions, but when we're with someone, we can discern an emotion. I was upset and hiding it by giving myself a stone face, but people still knew something was wrong. People who know me can tell when I'm up to something, also.

Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
We were created with many special muscles, more than apes have, to help us communicate in a way that is unique to humans. Darwin's disciples have invented a silly story that an ancient ancestor copied from an ape, but conveniently ignore several important details, including evidence and a model. Face it (heh!), we were designed to be different, old son.
Unlike animals, we communicate all kinds of information with our eyes. One subtle glance might express doubt and another joy, all without a word. How did we get this way?
Evolutionary psychologists take Charles Darwin’s answer seriously. Supposedly, artful eye expressions evolved from primates that had no eye expressions. When psychologists from Cornell and the University of Colorado in Boulder presented their research results about eye expressions, they dragged up some evolutionary baggage. The journal Psychological Science carried their 2017 report.
To read the rest, click on "Why Eyes Express Emotion", see?

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Arthropod Powers Defy Evolution

You may not know the word, but arthropods are all over the place, on land, in the sea, and so on. They comprise most of the animal world, and have an external skeleton, many limbs, a segmented body, and are cold blooded. You have your spiders, insects, scorpions, lobsters, and a whole passel of other things. Let's highlight a few of them, which are being studied for biomimetics (imitation for our benefit).

Butterfly proboscis studied biomimetics
Credit: National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
That big nose-like thing you see in the butterfly picture that looks like a straw is called the proboscis. It works like a straw, or maybe a sponge, or is that a sensor, or some of all of those things. This is being studied for several applications, including a drug delivery system.

Did you know that mosquitoes beat their wings about 800 times a second? (I still swat at the things when I hear that annoying whine.) More impressive is that they make efficient use of their wing strokes to obtain lift. Ever blow on one while it's buzzing around you? It gets buffeted by your wind and is trying to compensate — and it does, because it doesn't crash.

In an earlier post, we learned about those critters that we consider disgusting, but are just doing their jobs, the dung beetles. It turns out that they navigate by the stars. Ahoy, a ball! Well, not specifically the star patterns, but the brightness. Bonus: dung beetle humor.

Of course, homage is paid to Darwin in some studies. Scientists don't know how and have no plausible model, but still put their faith in evolution. Then they mock us when we point out that evolution by chance, time, random processes, luck, and so on is an illogical way to explain the amazing features in God's creation.

You can read about the butterfly, mosquito, dung beetle, and several more gifted things by clicking on "Small Wonders: Arthropods With Superpowers".


Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Promiscuity Idea Fails Evolution

Promiscuity does not aid evolution after all, new study supports creation science

Another idea in microbes-to-metallurgist evolution is being turned upside down, and it supports biblical creation science. Turns out that promiscuity to increase evolution is inconceivable; it slows down alleged evolutionary processes. Instead, monogamy is the real source of diversification. So for those folks with alley cat morals, you can't use evolution as an excuse any longer.

Once again, a study made speciation the equivalent of evolution. Not hardly! (This old terminology switcheroo happens so often, I wonder if many of these scientists are not so much deceptive as they are ignorant of biology basics.) Creationists believe in speciation and natural selection, which are not the things that add information for evolution to supposedly happen. 

We also have diversification after the Genesis Flood. If you study on it a spell, there were two of each created kind (seven of certain others) on the Ark. They were forced to be monogamous. Aw, I'm stumbling on my words here. Let the author if this article explain:
Conventional evolutionary wisdom has been overturned—again.

Evolutionists have long taught and believed that promiscuity increases genetic and rapid diversity, thereby helping the evolution of new species along. But this “conventional wisdom” has now been overturned by a new study on shorebird populations, led by the University of Bath’s Milner Centre for Evolution.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "New Study Overturns the 'Conventional Wisdom' of Evolution".

Monday, June 12, 2017

Australian Aborigines and Astronomy

When it comes to indigenous people, evolutionary thinking persists and affects how "white" people like me are supposed to view them. That is, the a priori assumption that atoms-to-aborigine evolution occurred, then the semi-sapient humans began to learn how to survive, think, sit around for a few thousand years and then build cities. Silly thing, that, since the evolutionary timeline does not jibe with human nature. So, what are we to make of evidence that conflicts with the evolutionary narrative?

Pleiades Aborigines stories astronomy support biblical creation refute evolution
Pleiades image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Evolutionary astrophysicist Roy Norris found out that the textbooks on Australian Aborigines were absolutely false. More than that, he learned that they had a deep understanding of celestial objects that belied biased evolutionary assumptions about their culture and intelligence. While Norris maintained his belief system, he noticed the amazing similarities between Aboriginal stories about certain constellations and those of people elsewhere in the world. His explanations were weak speculation, but the facts fit the biblical narrative and other histories that Babel (Babylon) was a center for astronomy, and there was a dispersal of people from Babel: people took their stories with them.
Conventional ‘wisdom’ says that Australia’s Aboriginal people have occupied the land for at least 40,000 years. That view of course derives from the evolutionary timeline, which links these people to a supposed ‘Stone Age’, with its attendant ‘prehistoric’ and ‘primitive’ connotations. And while it’s no longer socially acceptable to speak of nomadic hunter-gatherers as being ‘lesser evolved’ than other peoples, such implications from evolutionary teaching remain widely held.

Consequently, when facts come to light which contradict evolutionary stereotypes, it can come as quite a surprise to those who believe evolution. British-born astrophysicist Ray Norris speaks of this . . .

A personal interest in how Aboriginal people view the stars has led to him also becoming Adjunct Professor in Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University.
To read the entire article, click on "Aboriginal knowledge amazes evolutionist astronomer".

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Secular Scientists "Discover" What Christians Have Already Known

The hands down yonder at the Darwin Ranch keep coming up with "discoveries" that are nothing new, but they get all agitated about them anyway. In this case, meaningful interaction between fathers and daughters is important. The Bible made it plain long ago about the importance of the family unit, beginning with God's plan for marriage back in Genesis.

Scientists find fathers important in lives of daughters, Bible already said that
Credit: Pixabay / platinumportfolio
Scientists learned that fathers giving stability in the household makes daughters less likely to engage in "risky sexual behavior". Both parents need to be united in child raising, whether boys or girls, and one parent must not undermine the efforts of the other. In addition, kids quickly develop a "divide and conquer" strategy, such as asking the father's permission, adding that, "Mom said it's okay with her if it's okay with you" — but Mom wasn't asked in the first place. That's not a part of the study, I'm sharing something additional.

Since we have a pagan materialistic mindset in much of Western society, secular scientists do not want to give credit to our Creator. Instead, they bow down to their religion of naturalism, giving praise to evolution as if it were an entity. As we've seen far too often, evolutionary thinking prompts secularists to present conjectures based on conjectures, but no actual models or even plausible reasoning.

There is more about the study in Dr. Albert Mohler's podcast The Briefing for June 7, 2017. You can download the episode, read the transcript, or listen to all or part of it online. The whole thing is interesting in my opinion.

Friday, June 9, 2017

Cave Soil DNA Disagreements

Can you imagine a game show where people need to match survey questions about items found in a cave?

"Stalactites, Steve!"
Gets a strange look from the host, checks the results. Buzzzzz! Nope, DNA didn't match the survey.

But DNA is in caves, especially in the soil. Some of it comes from our fully-human Neanderthal ancestors, too.

Credit: Morguefile / Koan
Scientists are disagreeing about the age and movement of the DNA. The stuff breaks down over a short amount of time. Maybe soil helps preserve it, but water in the soil helps mix it up and seep into deeper rock layers. Some secularists are believing that the DNA is way, way old, and others are saying, "Waitaminnit, it has age limits". To date the DNA because of their long-age assumptions require it to be old is circular reasoning, but actual science shows that the DNA cannot be all that old. There will be serious mental issues when dinosaur DNA is recovered as well. Can't have not-so-old DNA is "old" rocks, that would imply that Earth was created recently, which is anathema to evolutionary concepts.
New techniques are allowing scientists to extract ancient DNA from cave soil. But is it really as old as claimed?

DNA has a lifetime. It decays. That’s why researchers do not consider it likely that dinosaur DNA will ever be recovered sufficient to make “Jurassic Park” a reality. Now that DNA is being recovered from cave soil where early humans lived—without the need for bones—will the evolutionary dates drive the interpretation, or will known decay rates lead scientists to reconsider their assumptions about how old it is? We examine recent news reports for clues.
To read the rest, click on "Ancient DNA Recovered from Caves".

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Fish Venom and Creation

Several years ago, I stopped into a sandwich shop in East Lansing, Michigan. Things had changed a bit since the last time I was there, and one of those changes was the cute little pickle they speared with a toothpick and shoved into the sandwich. Okay, I'll start with the pickle. That was how I learned about a jalapeño pepper on a stick. It took many years before I came close to them again, and made sure that small pickles were indeed small pickles. Unpleasant surprises are educational.

Great Barrier Reef Near Whitsunday Islands, International Space Station, credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In a similar manner, a fish commences to chowing down on a fangblenny, a fish the size of your finger. Munchie discovers that the fangblenny is one of many venomous fish in the deep blue sea and gets himself bitten from the inside. Although there's no pain from the venom, it causes his jaw to drop open and the fangblenny swims away. Later, Munchie decides to leave similar fish alone. That's right, there are nonvenomous fangblennies that mimic their brethren.

In the original perfect creation, venom did not exist for the purpose of killing or extreme defense. Evolutionists conjure the uninformative, unscientific magic of "convergent evolution" that explains nothing, including various types of venom. Scientists who want to do something useful are studying the fangblenny's venom as a way to reduce blood pressure — the same stuff that made the predator fish's jaw dropped open. Other kinds of venom are also being studied to see if they can be beneficial to us.
Venom is produced by many sorts of animals. It usually contains a variety of biomolecules, many of which have other nontoxic physiologic functions. And those toxins act in a variety of ways—causing pain or inflammation, dropping blood pressure, inhibiting or stimulating blood coagulation, paralyzing or overstimulating nerves, and so forth. Some—like certain unusual components of mamba venom—even inhibit pain with narcotic-like efficiency.

The study of venom toxins provides medical science with clues to help in the pharmaceutical industry. Some cone snails, for instance, release a super-fast-acting form of insulin into the water near potential prey. The insulin is rapidly absorbed through the gills, and as the target fish’s blood sugar level plummets so does its ability to flee from danger.
To read the entire article, click on "Origin of Fangblenny Fish's Unusual Venom".

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Nylonase Not Supporting Evolution

Creationists have to deal with Darwin's Flying Monkeys© (because the Evo Sith don't want to invest in krakens), and they go on the prowl citing what they consider to be facts supporting scum-to-scoffer evolution. It is almost comical at times, because defenders of Darwin use incomplete, fraudulent, deceptive, and often outdated material. Informed creationists often correct them on their misuse of science.

So-called nylon-eating bacterial are not evidence of evolution
Bacteria image credit: National Institutes of Health
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
One item that seems to have fallen through the cracks is the claim that random mutations produced nylon-eating bacteria. (With Evo Sith logic, that slight modification means that universal common ancestor evolution is true, and there is no Creator. Sure, you betcha.) The entire story is outdated and incomplete, but a passel of people believe it; fake evolution news tends to get stuck in the public's craw, and they pass it around. Dr. Don Batten wrote about nylonase several years ago, and several points in his paper were vindicated. Now he has updated information for us, and it isn't good for evolutionists.
Theistic evolutionists connected with Biologos, continue to assert that random mutations have created a ‘new gene’ in bacteria that degrades nylon. This assertion comes from a misunderstanding that was popularized by atheist professor of biology William Thwaites in 1985, who claimed that the enzymatic activity arose from a frameshift mutation—thus from a randomness. This was in turn based on the speculation of a Japanese geneticist, Susumu Ohno. Such an occurrence would indeed be fortuitous. I have been following this subject, but after reading a helpful post by Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute I realized it was time to publish an update.
To read the rest, click on "Nylon-degrading bacteria: update — Nylonase does not support microbes-to-mankind evolution".

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Who Ya Calling Anti-Science?

When "debunking" creationary material, anti-creationists use several tactics, but seldom employ reason, science, and logic. Ironically those are things they claim to uphold. Instead, they use logically fallacious arguments such as the straw man, loaded terminology, arbitrary assertions, poisoning the well, the red herring, outright lying, and their usual first resort, the ad hominem attack. (I believe most of their fallacies could be considered variations on the red herring diversion.) Something I've said for years is that respect must be earned,  and such scheming moves their respect percentages into the negative numbers. One version of the red herring/ad hominem is the use of emotive terminology.

Anti-science and science denier are overused nonsense terms
Fine print fail (lower right), made on imgur, URL added later
Those of us who reject microbes-to-mocker evolution are often bushwhacked with speech-control labels such as "anti-science" (here, for example), or its ugly kid brother, "science denier". Those are based on the equivocation fallacy where those of us who reject universal common ancestor evolution and affirm special creation are essentially accused of being opposed to science itself. Perhaps they think that by using such wording, they can avoid the inconvenient truths of creation. Related to these epithets are "climate change denier", "homophobe", "racist", and others. They are only used to provoke negative emotions. While things like racism exist, the excessive use of such words tends to negate their effectiveness when the claims are legitimate. But "anti-science" or "science denier"? Listen up, pard: science is not an imperator nor a monolithic entity, and not many people are anti science, you savvy?

Another level of labeling is when creation science is referred to as "pseudoscience" peddling "junk science". As I said earlier, anti-creationists are willing to lie for Darwin for their purposes. 

Here's another science denier, who has no excuse for this mendacious comment:

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Interesting how the accusations of "pseudoscience" toward creationists are not only pusillanimous, but apply instead to evolution, which is the real pseudoscience! Just look at the way the human-chimpanzee genome similarity was faked. Efforts to slime creationists and other disbelievers in evolutionism are convenient ways of avoiding the facts and dealing with the implications: Earth is not nearly as old as they claim, and the evidence supports what God said in his Word. That means we'd better cowboy up and find out what he has to say.

It is interesting that a major secular science publication is warning against the overuse of the expression "anti-science". More interesting is the way they use labels themselves and display their double standards.
The world’s leading science journal warns its members to beware of the anti-science label.
The Editorial in Nature this week warns, “Beware the anti-science label.” The reason? “Presenting science as a battle for truth against ignorance is an unhelpful exaggeration.” reads the sub-heading. Anti-science does exist, as they point out with the disastrous policies of Trofim Lysenko in communist Russia and China, that led to the starvation of millions of people. But such cases cannot be compared with less threatening examples. The article lists several reasons why overusing or abusing the term is unjustified:
To finish reading, click on "Anti-Science Label Can Be Misused".

Monday, June 5, 2017

Evolutionists Stitch Together the Chimpanzee Genome

One of the most popular propaganda ploys that evolutionists use is the so-called high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes, which is then proclaimed throughout all the world as proof that we evolved from a universal common ancestor. Check out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© (even the cheap new ones that don't have a whistle), and you'll see that this claim is used to justify assertions that there is no Creator, or at least, that evolution of that nature happened. However, the science that they hang their hopes on is nothing but choplogic.

Chimpanzee genome stitched together with assumptions and incomplete data
Credit: Pixabay / venturaartist
The chimpanzee-human genome similarity was shown to be false through re-examination by a notable creationary scientist. The whole comparison thing was bad science from the get-go, as the chimpanzee genome was actually not sequenced. Just a few portions were examined, assumptions about evolution were made, and human contamination was added to the mix. The whole shootin' match was stitched together and paraded by the faithful as a fact.
DNA is a double-stranded molecule that under certain conditions can be denatured—i.e., “unzipped” to make it single-stranded—and then allowed to zip back up. During the initial stages of DNA science in the early 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples. Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was. These initial studies not only established a fraudulent gold standard of 98.5% DNA similarity between humans and chimps but also the shady practice of cherry-picking only the most similar data. The idea of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity was born and used to bolster the myth of human evolution, something that the lack of fossil evidence was unable to accomplish.
To read the entire article and learn the inconvenient truth, click on "DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution".  Also, you can read about further dishonesty and incompetence in the science industry at "Darwin Party’s Hot Air Machine Never Stops".

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Canals on Mars Prove Evolution!

Yes, it's true. A famous astronomer built on the work of a previous astronomer and saw canals on Mars. What, you didn't know? It was in the newspapers, even the New York Times. Except that the big news was in 1907. Seems that fake news is not a new phenomenon, only the moniker is new.

Life on Mars fake news  abiogenesis  has been around a long time
Making use of the Breaking News Generator again
This is where someone might object that scientists makes mistakes, but things got fixed because science is self-correcting. No, not really. Secularists often use the reification fallacy and act like science is a sentient being that makes choices (especially regarding muck-to-mechanic evolution), which is a form of pagan nature worship. Giovanni Schiaparelli thought he saw channels on Mars, and the Italian word was translated as canals (which strikes me as an easy mistake), and Percival Lowell "saw" canals on Mars. He even wrote a book or three on the subject.

Those mistakes were corrected with additional research and improvements in equipment. It also didn't hurt for us to go to Mars and look. Well, not in person, but those space probes, Rover, and stuff sent back some mighty interesting information. No signs of canals or life, thought. The search for life on Mars and elsewhere way out yonder continues, based on the a priori assumption of evolution: they believe that since life evolved here, it must have evolved out there. Scientists think that maybe perhaps it could be that abiogenesis worked somewhere else, since it couldn't happen here. Chance and luck aren't exclusive to us. Yes, some folks really believe that way.

We've seen propaganda reporting from the science news industry in recent times. Dreadful stuff makes it into the textbooks and sets up camp for far too long, including the known fraud of Haeckel's embryo drawings. Secular science media only exacerbate the situation, jumping the corral fence in their excitement and galloping away with misconstrued "evidence", especially for evolution, ignoring reports where the evidence supports special creation. After the dust settles and better information is available, you may have to dig for more accurate material. Meanwhile, Darwin's followers continue to spread fake science news, especially on the internet. Remember hearing that Columbus was told not to take that trip in 1492 because he'd sail off the edge of the earth, and Christians were guarding that flat earth myth? Started and perpetuated by anti-creationists and atheists. They lie, it's their nature. Watch what you're reading and hearing, old son.

Here is a music video by ApologetiX that is based on "Don't Tell Me You Love Me" by Night Ranger. This improved version is "Don't Tell Me We're Lucky".

Friday, June 2, 2017

Apps in Your Brain

Some people go wild downloading apps (applications) when they get a new smartphone, tablet, or whatever. There are millions available, and many are junk — or worse. (I have apps that came pre-packaged that I don't want, don't use, and can't uninstall. Bummer.) It's not surprising to hear someone say, "There's probably an app for that".I reckon some folks have apps on the brain.

Our Creator pre-installed apps in our brains
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
The human mind and brain have been compared to computers in many ways, except that our working, uh, hardware is far more intricate and specific than anything a computer company could dream up. There are apps for your brain that sound exciting, and you'd like to download them into it. But that's not possible. Nor necessary. You have pre-packaged evolution-defying apps in the brain, courtesy of our Creator (who wrote our Operator's Manual).

Yep, we got us the Magic Rocks app for our inner ears to help us keep our balance. Then there's the Maps and GPS apps for navigation (obviously). The Handy app helps the brain work the hands. Don't forget the Memory Management app! To learn about these fascinating features, click on "Your Brain Comes Equipped with Techno-Apps".

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Dinosaur DNA Difficulties

News keeps getting worse for the hands at the Darwin Ranch down Deception Pass way. Trying to deny science related to dinosaur soft tissues and still believe in long ages is downright difficult, but they make a serious effort. Now the prospect of actual dinosaur DNA is becoming more of a possibility.

Dinosaur DNA will cause problems for evolution
Some evolutionary scientists are being confronted with a choice: the narrative that dinosaur fossils are multiple millions of Darwin years old (which is based on assumptions), or the scientific fact that DNA degrades rapidly, and cannot for long periods. Secular scientists are loathe to admit that facts show the earth was created recently because minerals-to-mastodon requires those long ages.
According to Dr. Adrian Lister, a British paleobiologist, DNA cannot survive in dinosaur bones because dinosaurs lived far too long ago for their DNA, which is inherently unstable, to survive to the present . . .

Dr. Lister is no stranger to Ice Age remains, having a particular expertise in Ice Age elephants, what we call wooly mammoths and mastodons . . . Dr. Lister knows how difficult it is to study DNA fragments from the Ice Age. That professional experience convinced him that DNA cannot last for millions of years, much less for 50 or 60 million years—the reachback time that evolutionists assume for the “age of dinosaurs.”
To read the entire article, click on "Dinosaur DNA Trumps Mammoth Expert".

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Armadillos Armored against Evolution

In Texas, one of the state mammals is the armadillo, but the reason why escapes me because lots of folks consider them a nuisance, especially gardeners and home owners. There was a time when Charles Apelt got the notion to hollow out the carcass and use the hard shells to make into baskets. A tisket, a tasket, an armadillo basket... Personally, I don't like the idea very much. You'd think that will his business interest in them, he'd have hunted the armadillos to extinction. Instead, they are thriving, and even found in new areas.

The armadillo (Spanish for "speed bump") looks like slow-moving speed bumps I've encountered in Michigan and New York: the opossum. But even though they have a superficial resemblance (sans body armor), they're not closely related. The opossum is a marsupial, the armadillo is a mammal. And no, the 'dillo is not a rodent, like some people think. One other thing that the two critters have in common is that some people eat the things. I don't recommend it, since some 'dillos carry leprosy, and you can get sick if you don't do it right. Besides, I think they're kind of cute. Except maybe the screaming hairy armadillo, which reminds me of Haywire the Stalker and his annoying friends in the atheopath clown car.

Armadillos defy evolution and support creation
Credit: Pixabay / cherylholt
They're problematic for fans of universal common descent evolution. The fossil record does not show significant change, and their diversity supports creationary contentions that they diversified from one armadillo kind. In addition, they have unique defense mechanisms, such as the ability to burrow quickly (which protects the soft underside) and frustrate predators with the hard stuff. Some even roll themselves into a ball. Hey, so do the roly-poly pillbugs. Someone's going to call that "convergent evolution", I'm sure.
Evolutionists say that the fossil ‘record’ of armadillos ‘begins’ in South America—but such long-age interpretation of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers leaves them puzzling over the origin of armadillos. They have ventured some tentative guesses about the ancestry of the armadillo, but not very convincingly. The uniqueness of the backbone of the xenarthran family, a class of animals including armadillos as well as anteaters and sloths, makes it difficult to establish evolutionary relationships beyond the xenarthrans.

It is very significant to note that the plates of the ‘shell’ (called scutes) were fully formed in their ‘earliest’ find in the fossil ‘record’. Evolutionists are disappointed that there is not a developmental ‘history’ of the scutes in the fossils, but this is precisely what creationists would expect—fully formed fossils with no record of evolutionary history.
To read the entire article, roll on over to "Amazing armoured armadillos of the Americas".

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Evolutionists Drooling over Salivation Study

Darwin's Brigands™ are continuing the old bait 'n' switch trick with terminology again. (Again? More like, still.) When you have a discussion with these hijackers of science, you have to nail down your definitions. Evolution has many meanings, and when you're talking to someone who believes in scum-to-stalker evolution, watch out that he or she does not point to variation or "change over time" as evidence for his belief system — changes are not evidence that Darwin was right, but they get sneaky by equivocating on the word evolution. Very disingenuous.

Lying for Darwin because the truth does not work
Made at Add Captions, then modified a bit
As in other cases, evolutionists are all het up about a study in the genetics of salivary protein, and the variations thereof. They call it "evolution", but that is nowhere near the truth. Life, the universe, and everything were created. Despite all the efforts of secularists, they cannot change this truth, nor can they change how the facts refute their version of evolution and support biblical creation. The idea that slight changes in salivary protein genetics proves evolution ain't worth spit. They use deceit because the truth does not work.
Whether discussing neo-Darwinian evolution, emergent evolution, or extended synthesis, these versions of evolution are all typically defined as simply change over time. Yet this vague definition leaves many unanswered questions. What types of change? What length of time? What causes these changes?

Each of these evolution versions is offered as an explanation for the origin and diversity of all life on earth, but examples of mere change offer little insight into the genetic events involved. Only specific types of changes will provide the evolutionary mechanism necessary to account for all of life’s complexity and diversity.
To read the rest, click on "Salivary Protein: Evolution or Just Adaptation?"

Monday, May 29, 2017

Galactic Evolution Stumpers

According to deep time adherents, some celestial objects just won't act their (assigned) ages. There are many links on this site alone to how planets, moons, and whatnot are showing signs of youth instead of millions of years. Secular cosmologists keep on plugging away with their narrative, even when they repeatedly encounter observed evidence that refutes their predictions. Probably because they find recent creation detestable, despite the evidence. They continue to present things they know are untrue, even according to their mythology.

Galaxy cluster MOO J1142+1527, credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Gemini / CARMA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Beginning with Big Bang and deep time presuppositions, astronomers and cosmologists are baffled when galaxies that are supposed to be very old have "stopped forming stars". Not that anyone has actually seen stars forming, we're only presented with presumptions based on their paradigms. Still, there is yet another game changer where the evidence refutes cosmic evolutionary expectations, but the same old song will still be played. Ya wanna dance?
When you see the words “challenging” and “requires substantial revision” in the abstract, you know trouble is coming.

Eleven astronomers from five continents are unanimous: this galaxy doesn’t fit current theory. Here’s what they found, as announced in Nature.
To find out what was found and why it upset them so (as well as what they're not going to do), click on "Galaxy Evolution Crisis: Start Over".

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Pupplies Help a Child's Health?

Way back in the olden days, we had a small dog, but my parents were not overly concerned with protecting me from the unsanitary beast. Nor were they all that worried about unsanitary cats, once they became part of the family. Proper hygiene was in order, and that was enough. (By the way, some people have scared pregnant women into avoiding cats, but the danger there is mitigated by taking care when changing the litter box.) I know people who would want to have "kisses" from their German Shepherd and have her lick their faces, even on the lips. I can't do that.

Children Playing with Puppies, William Collins, 1812
The idea that dogs' mouths are cleaner than ours is a myth, they have their own bacterial flora. No need to overreact, though. Our society has been "too clean" these past years (the word germaphobe is used too freely in my opinion, as a true germaphobe suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder), and are actually doing harm to ourselves and our children; we're lacking bacteria, microbes, and important things our system uses. 

So, Snoopy licked Lucy's face? He is probably doing her some good. Darwinists appeal to "co-evolution" to explain these things, but it's a "scientific explanation" pulled out of thin air. The fact is, certain bacteria were created for our benefit, and we were created to use them.
Many people react with revulsion when a dog licks their face—especially babies. Such a reaction is justifiable based on the unsanitary habits of Rover. However, recent research supports the idea that babies actually benefit from living with dogs.
 . . .
These authors approach human-microbe relationships from an evolutionary “survival of the fittest” worldview where life develops through a long progression of deadly struggles. The host-microbe relationship is regularly portrayed in warlike terms, which explains why puppy microbes are labeled “pathogens” even though they do not cause disease. The system that links the infant to the beneficial microbes is also labeled an “immune” system which conveys a defensive concept rather than functioning as the comprehensive regulatory interface it actually is.
To fetch this article in its entirety, click on "Puppies Provide Protection".