Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

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, September 17, 2019

Mica in Sand Thwarts Secular Geologists

Saddle up and ride over to the gorge-ous Grand Canyon, then take special notice of the rock layers and the various colors. There's a whitish-yellowish part known as the Coconino sandstone that uniformitarian (deep time) geologists think is a problem to creationists. Not happening, pilgrim.

Secular geologists think that the Coconino sandstone at the Grand Canyon is a problem for Flood geology. In fact, the opposite is true.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Diego Delso, delso.photo, License CC-by-SA 4.0
Secular geologists say that the Coconino sandstone was made in a desert and could not possibly have been formed by the global Genesis Flood and allows millions of years for evolution to happen. From superficial examination, it does appear to be a problem. Further examination, however, shows that there is mica in the sand, which should not be there under the conditions secularists expect. Instead, this mica supports the Genesis Flood.
My graduate school professor, Dr. Steve Austin, was a serious field geologist. But periodically, his childlike delight in exploring God’s creation shone through. He taught us to let the rocks and the earth “speak to us,” as Job 12:8 (NKJV) said several millennia ago. 
. . .

For some time now, I have been studying a famous layer of yellow rock known as the Coconino Sandstone found in the walls of Grand Canyon. Other creationists and I have devoted many years to this sandstone because most other geologists interpret the sandstone as sand dunes that formed in an ancient desert some 275 million years ago and later fossilized (hardened into rock). How different from the view that Noah’s watery flood laid down these layers quickly around 4,300 years ago!
To read the entire article or download the MP3 with my favorite reader, click on "Mica, Mica in the Sand, Tell Us Something Really Grand!" For additional information, see also, "Coconino Sandstone Myths Debunked".

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

Monday, September 16, 2019

Astrobiology, a Pseudoscience Without Evidence

Supposedly, a science requires research, investigation, and especially evidence. People can get degrees in bio-astrology — I mean, astrobiology — even though it is based almost entirely on guesswork. Worse, astrobiology has no evidence to back up the numerous claims and expectations.

People can get degrees in the pseudoscience of astrobiology, which has no evidence to support it. Here are some more outlandish reports.
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of the truth contained on this site)
It is ironic that materialists demand evidence for God and miracles, yet they believe all sorts of things based on ipse dixit — because someone said so.  Long ago, people were discovering how to get away from reliance on the claims of others. They wanted evidence. Bioastrologers — I mean, astrobiologists — and other secularists are locking themselves into consensus and disinterest in evidence. The following article has several items showing how astrobiology shenanigans are a waste of our tax money. They're probably laughing over their firewater at how we have to pay them to deny the Creator.
  • Cyanide in a meteorite gives "understanding" to the origin of life
  • Search for extraterrestrials that are not like life on Earth
  • Instead of a materialist admitting defeat in the search for extraterrestrials, more materialism is added
You can read about these and others by clicking on "Astrobiologists Whip Up False Hopes".

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

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Engineered Nanobot Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A few months back, I took some inspiration from a 1989 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that tied in with a previous post on gene editing ethics (see "Science Fiction and Genetic Engineering"). While taking a break from serious stuff on my Roku device, it happened again.

Once again, inspiration from science fiction. A Star Trek TNG episode provided some illustration for engineered adaptability, but the characters erroneously called it evolution.
Fun fact: the Angry Picard "meme" is from a segment where he was quoting Shakespeare
I had to turn the dial on my suspension of disbelief gadget up to eleven because the show was saturated with evolutionary propaganda that ran contrary to what I have learned about both creation and evolution. Speaking of which, the episode is simply titled "Evolution" and it involved nanotechnology. Although it does not actually exist yet in any practical sense, research is happening. Nanites (nanobots, nanomachines, and other names) are supposedly one billionth of a meter in size. If they are developed, nanomachines could be extremely important in medical science. Anyone who watches or reads science fiction has probably encountered stories involving nanobots.

In the story, two nanites escaped and somehow found their way into the warp core of the Enterprise. They began to replicate and adapt to their environment, and their feeding for further development and replication endangered the ship. Some folks didn't take too kindly to the disruptions and wanted them eliminated. But whoa there, Hoss! These critters are evolving. Yup, evolution. Isn't evolution wonderful? (Our television franchise loves promoting evolution, don'tcha know.) They have evolved into a new, intelligent life form in just a few hours. Isn't evolution wonderful? So, we can't kill them off since they're a newly-evolved life form. Evolution.

Except that it wasn't evolution.

It occurred to me that this 1989 story was indirectly illustrating some of the points of the engineered adaptability concept proposed by the Institute for Creation Research in 2013-2014. This creation model is contrary to how Darwin and his acolytes hijacked natural selection and other concepts. They insist on outside "environmental pressures" to cause evolution, but the opposite is true. Specifically, the Master Engineer designed living things to adapt and even anticipate changes, whether on an individual basis or even entire populations.

That's what happened in the story. There was no blind, purposeless molecules-to-machine evolution going on. These nanites were following their programming, adapting and changing. This television show illustrates something that we see so frequently riding the Creation Trail: owlhoots are so enthusiastic in their adoration of Darwin that they "see" evolution where none exists. The adaptation through design was misnamed in the show, and it is misnamed in science today. A huge amount of effort is involved in denying the creator in evolutionary thinking.

Excuse me now. I have to replace my suspension of disbelief gadget. That silly program burned it out.

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

Friday, September 13, 2019

Damage Response Machine for DNA

When everything was perfect in the beginning, the Master Engineer knew that things would run down after the Fall of Man. He put systems into place The exceptionally important and extremely complex molecule for life known as DNA is quite fragile. However, the MRN complex helps fix things up.

The Master Engineer knew that things in living things would deteriorate, so he designed ways to repair the extremely important DNA molecule. This is another refutation of evolution.
Credit: Unsplash / Blaz Erzetic
This molecular machine is comprised of three proteins, and repairs several kinds of damage. Proponents of molecules-to-molecular biologist evolution really have no explanation or model for how they came into being. It is amazing that the more we learn about the world even on the molecular level, the more we learn about the brilliance of God.
You have been designed with many trillions of cells. Within the nucleus of each cell (except for red blood cells) is the “molecule of life” called DNA. It’s organized into chromosomes (humans have 46) upon which many thousands of genes are found. Genes are hereditary units, comprised of nucleotide bases called T, G, C, and A. Each cell undergoes complex metabolic processes, or metabolism. Because we live in a fallen world, sometimes these processes (such as oxygen metabolism) can produce reactive chemicals that can produce harmful DNA lesions. Our DNA can also be damaged by environmental toxins and ionizing radiation.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "DNA Repair Research Reveals Astounding Complexity".

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

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Neglected Abundance of Food

It gets a mite difficult for people like me who can place an order for food on the telephone or on a website for delivery —

"You do that quite a bit, don't you, Cowboy Bob?"

They told me my weight is genetic. Or something. Moving on...

Many of us have little worries about getting victuals (correctly pronounced "vittles") at our convenience, so we may have problems understanding or empathizing with those who are desperate for decent food. In other places, people eat and thrive on things that make those of us in the Western world cringe. Then there are various things that people have not considered for sustenance and could theoretically alleviate starvation.

Some of the starvation problems are not simply drought, but bad government. Back in 1985 and following, there were rock concerts and such with the noble intention of alleviating starvation in Ethiopia caused by famine. It was not a good idea because distribution and other factors were not considered. Even worse, the government let much of the food that was delivered rot on the docks and money was used to buy weapons. Atheist Soviet ruler Josef Stalin killed millions of people through famine. The Great Chinese famine was caused largely by atheist ruler Mao's incompetence. The list could easily go on.

Our Creator has provided his creation with an abundance of food. We need to learn how to find and use it. We can even eat duckweed.
Duckweed in a marina image credit: James Fischer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (public domain)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Our Creator has given us many things to be used for food. I disremember when, but I saw a movie where a boy was stranded in a remote place and tried to make algae soup. It was too nasty for him to eat. Maybe it needed hot sauce. Some suggested foods have been ridiculed partly because of what I refer to as "the eww factor": No thanks, don't want maggots, worms, or bugs for lunch, but you go ahead. However, some of those things do not have to be consumed per se, but can be put to good use. Some strains of duckweed (ducks love the stuff) are high in protein and are better for you than a typical salad. Or you can have the alternative vegetarian diet by feeding duckweed to livestock and then eating them.
People don’t starve because of a lack of resources. They suffer because of bad ideas and wicked rulers.

Solomon, the wisest king of all, had a lot to say about poverty. One of his proverbs says, “The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice” (Proverbs 13:23). Here are some of his other proverbs about poverty. Hunger is not the result of a lack of resources, but a lack of character (slothfulness), a lack of truth (mythology and bad beliefs), and a lack of justice (wicked leaders). Recent news articles from scientific discoveries reinforce his maxims, but sometimes you have to think outside the box of natural inclinations.
To consume the rest of the article, click on "Food Abounds for the Poor".

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

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

How Humans are also Animals

In "Animals Do Not, But We Do", we saw that critters can do all sorts of things, but they cannot develop languages, create civilizations, build colleges and hospitals, and all sorts of things. However, biologists will tell you that humans are animals. Is that correct? Well, yes and no.

Humans were specially created, but we are also considered animals. According to biological classifications and common design elements, this is true.
The Cowboy by Frederic Remington, 1902
According to biological classifications and physiological traits, we are considered animals. (Using the same kinds of system, we certainly are not plants or minerals.) Going further, we are more specifically classified as mammals, which have certain characteristics in common beyond those of animals. Some humans can be considered animals because of their actions like those who crashed planes into buildings on September 11, 2001. Darwinists use cladistics and homology to argue for evolution, but their systems can work the other way, arguing for a common Designer. Even though we are biologically animals and mammals, we are still very different, having been created in God's image.
Are you an animal? If a man eats with deplorable table manners, his wife might ask him if he had been raised in a barn. If the guy down the street behaves wildly, you might call him an animal, though not to his face. If you hear on the news of a couple like Bonnie and Clyde going on a murder spree, you might remark that they are behaving like animals.

What is it about these behaviors that prompts us to call a fellow human an animal, whether in jest or seriously? It is any behavior that we deem less than civilized, behavior that we associate with animals more than with humans. But do those behaviors mean those individuals are actually animals? Of course not. The very fact that we might derisively call someone an animal based on “animal-like” behavior illustrates the fact that we humans generally consider ourselves different from animals.
To read the rest, click on "What Are Humans? Animals, Mammals, or Neither?"

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

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Animals Do Not, But We Do

Advocates of fish-to-philosopher evolution often point out the similarities between humans and animals, such as having DNA, blood cells, limbs, eyes, and such. We have so much in common, we must have evolved from a common ancestor, so we are just another type of animal, right? Not hardly! 

Evolutionists assume evolution and point to some biological similarities between animals and us. They ignore the stark differences, especially when it comes to accomplishments.
Credit: CSIRO / North Sullivan Photography (CC by 3.0)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
We have a great deal in common with animals, I'll allow, but there are vast differences. Not just physically, either. Consider what we do and what animals cannot begin to accomplish. Imagine if you will:

"Cap'n! Number One Chimp has been hit by a pulsar blast!"

"Get him into sickbay immediately and call the medical supervisor."

Not happening, not ever. Nor will animals learn to write and ignore the rules of capitalization in titles like I chose to do.

Materialists cannot accept the fact that we were made in God's image, and critters have not evolved, nor will they develop anything complex. Leave that to fantasy writers.
If we humans are not evolved animals, then we should possess abilities and features that animals lack. We will here consider six of these, which are also features of God. They are language, literacy, music, mathematics, creativity, and dominion.

These features not only make us special, they also make us accountable. We can use these features to glorify God or to rebel against His will—even to practise “the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
To finish reading, click on "What humans do but animals don’t".

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