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

Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Angry Birds of Evolution?

My wife likes to feed the birds, hanging various feeders up on the patio as well as throwing peanuts to blue jays, red-bellied woodpeckers, and others. Sometimes they get on the prod, scrapping with their own kind. The hands at the Darwin Ranch commenced to studying testosterone and sensitivity.

Evolutionists foolishly tried to extrapolate testosterone in juncos as a driving force in their - and our - evolution. Fake science for Darwinoids.
Junco image cropped from Unsplash / John Duncan

This research was done on New World juncos, distant relatives of sparrows. These chirpers would get aggressive at times, which included singing songs that meant, "This patch of land ain't big enough for the two of us, old son". They also arbitrarily (read: statement of faith, not science) that testosterone is important to evolution. Not hardly!

While hormones do influence behavior, there is not much going for the idea that testosterone is married up with aggression. Gene expression and sensitivity were built into living things by the Master Engineer. Allegedly angry birds are not the products of evolution, and there is no indication of added genetic information. To extrapolate this testosterone for atoms-to-ornithologist evolution, along with the statement that testosterone is important for that to happen, is fake science.

“Individual variation is the raw material of evolution,” says Indiana University’s Kimberly Rosvall. “We report that free-living birds vary in aggression and the more aggressive individuals express higher levels of genes related to testosterone processing in the brain.” Rosvall’s study of wild junco birds demonstrates that individual variation in brain sensitivity to hormones, not the actual amount of hormone present, correlates with behavior. The study also uncovers a mechanism by which hormones like testosterone promote aggression. The researchers believe their results help explain the evolution of aggressive behavior.

To read the rest, fly over to "Angry Birds".



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

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Evolutionary Faith and the Cambrian Explosion

Way back when Charles Robert Darwin was popularizing his version of evolution, he admitted that a problem with his "tree of life" idea was the scarcity of transitional forms. He had faith that maybe someday these would be found. Then there was the insurmountable problem of the Cambrian explosion...

The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of fully-formed creatures, no transitional forms. It gets worse for evolution and supports the Flood.

By blind faith, evolutionists claim to have many transitional forms. These are disputed, and even the word transitional has been the subject of obfuscation. In Darwin's time, the Cambrian was known as the Silurian age. Instead of the orderly progression of fossils indicating simpler to more complex life forms, the Cambrian layer had complex life forms exploding on the scene without any signs of transitional forms. 

The fossil record is contrary to the evolutionary tree of life, and evolution's defenders have contrived many rescuing devices. For example, if creatures were considered extinct but later found doing right well, or have remained unchanged over the vast amount of imagined evolutionary time, they are called living fossils. Suddenly, the irresistible "evolutionary pressures" did not apply, so the critters were in "stasis". Also, when fossils were found in lower layers and then reappeared in higher levels, Darwinoids invoke "ghost lineages" or "Lazarus taxons" for those.

When all else fails, the old "Stuff Happens Law" kicks in. Personally, I prefer the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Isn't evolution wonderful? It can explain everything — so it actually explains nothing.

If you study on it a spell, you should see that evolution is based on blind faith. Dig deeper into the fossil layers, and it should become apparent to rational people that the evidence supports recent creation and the Genesis Flood, not deep time and gradual processes.

Evolutionists claim the Cambrian rock layers were first laid down about 540 million years ago. Highly complex multicellular creatures known as metazoans and a plethora of hard-shelled creatures suddenly appear in these sedimentary strata. Examples include clams, snails, horseshoe crabs, trilobites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, starfish, brittle stars, sea lilies, and other complex invertebrates.

Making this mystery even more evolution-defying is the fact that the rock layers below the Cambrian are devoid of invertebrates. While this was known in Darwin’s day, the mystery has never been resolved, and a 2018 study reported that a thorough re-analysis of the Precambrian Ediacaran sediments showed they are completely empty of evolutionary ancestors.

To read this article in its entirety, see "The Fossils Still Say No: The Cambrian Explosion". Also of interest is "Did 'Life on Earth' Ever 'Favour Evolution Over Creationism'?"



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

Monday, November 30, 2020

Trusting Eyewitness Testimony

For ages, eyewitness testimony was considered reliable in a courtroom setting and other ways. Some people began to think eyewitness testimony is not valid, and forensic evidence is more important. Such a claim is ineffable twaddle, and the sidewinders creating doubt were using spurious methods!

There are people who use self-refuting logic to say that forensic evidence is more reliable than eyewitness testimony. This is false and refuted.
Credit: FreeDigitalImages / IndypendenZ (yes, really)

From an evolutionary standpoint, the concept is self-refuting. We are all just evolved pond scum, so the brains of witnesses are unreliable because evolution, so it's better to trust forensic evidence about the past — and interpret the evidence with our faulty brains! Remember, evidence does not "speak for itself".

Biblical creationists and biblical inerrantists trust the eyewitness testimony of the Bible, and I reckon that this is one reason atheists and evolutionists reject eyewitness testimony. Nothing in the Bible, written by eyewitnesses, has been controverted by operational science or archaeology. Atheists reject miracles, divine inspiration, and other factors, preferring instead to rely on the views of humans that they know are fallible.

Witnesses as well as those interpreting evidence have their own perspectives at play. One of the primary rules in law enforcement and courtroom activities is to keep the witnesses separated. Discrepancies are actually a strength!

Someone could witness a traffic accident at an intersection and see two people get out of the red car, and one get out of the black car. Another witness sees three people get out of the red car, not two. Is one lying? In this scenario, the first witness had the wrong view, the wrong perspective, and could not see the third person. No lies here, Luke.

Now, if the witnesses got together to compare notes, their testimonies would be suspicious because there were no significant differences. In the Gospels, there are occasional minor differences in narratives. For example, the Gadarene demoniac. Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 mention one man, while Matthew 8:28-34 mentions two men. Is that a contradiction? Not hardly! Clearly, emphasis was placed on the more significant man. Also, there was nothing saying, "One man. Not two, not zero, not three, four is right out".

While doubt was cast on eyewitness testimony by alleged experts using devious methods and who apparently had their own agenda, that has been overturned. We can trust the eyewitness testimony of Scripture, and the account of Creation given at the beginning and affirmed in the New Testament. The Master Engineer created us with reliable brains and the minds to operate in them.

The biggest clash between creationists and evolutionists really has little to do with the evidence we possess. It has to do with how we interpret that evidence. This ultimately leads to a discussion of epistemology: how we know what we (claim to) know. Without getting tangled up in some of the hairsplitting details and in-house debates, what we can say very simply is that creationists base their knowledge and worldview on Scripture first and above all. Evolutionists work within a naturalistic worldview (the presumption that supernatural events can be disregarded or assumed not to occur).

You can witness the full article at "Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses".



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

Saturday, November 28, 2020

Darwinian Naturalism and Freedom for Evil

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As regular readers have probably observed, many of my articles were inspired by the work of others. This one from Revolution Against Evolution (a site which is blocked by Fazebook) was written in 2017, and is something that was useful for expansion.

It is not really such a puzzle how anti-Christian people rose to power in the past, and how they are gaining power again. It comes down to foundations.
Public domain image was modified, then the jigsaw effect came from Big Huge Labs
How can we reach a point where evil behavior is not only tolerated, but accepted and encouraged? Far too many people refuse to learn from history, and it is repeating itself today. There are many analyses of how Adolf Hitler came to power, but he was unlikely to have made it with a platform of exterminating Jews and other "races". It seems safe to assume that Eichmann, Göring, and his other henchmen would not have been given the time of day.


Small Beginnings

Hitler's book Mein Kampf was a diatribe against Jews, but the full force of those philosophies was gradual. Propaganda was utilized, one point being that they were the common enemy. Another tactic was concentration and repetition. Added to this is dehumanization, of which ridicule is an essential part. Also important for him and other totalitarians is control of the media.

People have willingly negated the lessons from history regarding Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and many others. Indeed, although communism and socialism have failed, people who want free stuff and resent those who have become wealthy believe propaganda from modern leftist politicians. Those people have also hated Judaism and Christianity. Now we have openly socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian politicians receiving adoration. Those who dissent are labeled, ridiculed, and dehumanized. Indeed, leftists in the formerly United States want to send supporters of President Trump to reeducation camps. The mainstream media is complicit, spreading false news, promoting leftist causes, and attempting to silence news that is not compatible with their agendas.

We don't have time to discuss censorship. There's plenty of information available on that subject anyway.

Have you ever noticed that most professing atheists are also leftists? Most Western countries were founded on Christian principles, and this was extremely obvious for the United States (and to some extent, the formerly Great Britain). Atheists and leftists attempt to rewrite history, changing successful economic principles as well as biblical truths. Further, fundamentalist atheists are becoming more militant, pretending to adore science and reason but showing contempt for both. Instead, they focus on dehumanizing Christians and creationists in their pursuit of suppressing the truth of God, and promoting things that are contrary to scriptural principles.


Eroding the Foundations

There was a time when schools and universities equipped students to face the challenges of the future. Now they have "safe spaces" so their delicate feathers are not ruffled by unpleasant facts or concepts that require actual thought. For ages, debate clubs existed, and forms of debate were utilized for the purposes of not only challenging one another, but sharpening each other.

As mentioned earlier, the media is extremely involved in promoting leftist and atheistic views. Sheeple listen to those news outlets instead of bothering to think critically. (Indeed, critical thinking has been fading from view for quite a spell now.) People do not ask others, or even themselves, how someone can make a claim, where is the support for it, and so on.

The Judeo-Christian ethic of Western nations was not destroyed by Taggart leading owlhoots a-ridin' into town, shootin', hollerin', and a-whompin' every value within an inch of its life. Instead, the foundations were eroded gradually and with subtlety.


Influence of Darwinian Naturalism

The foundation of almost every major Christian doctrine begins in Genesis, and atheistic naturalism (adherents make a priori assumptions that miracles are impossible and God the Creator does not exist) frequently utilizes the first lie, found in Genesis 3:1. The serpent questioned and misrepresented God's Word. Since people do not have high levels of trust for atheists (nor do they trust each other), the full-on assault approach they have does not carry much impact. Intelligent naturalists appeal to more subtle attacks on the truth.

Essentially, the attack is on the authority of God's Word. The media and atheistic propaganda are exceptionally hostile to it. Secularists not only hate God and his Word, but God in us (John 15:18, 2 Timothy 3:12).

I believe that the most popular attack is an appeal to science. Not actual observed science, but conflating operational science with historical science. People have a strange love/hate relationship with science and scientists. On one hand, depending on scientists to solve our problems, but also exhibiting suspicion. Since critical thinking is seldom utilized by the unwashed masses, people seem to be willing to accept what "scientists say" or what "studies show".

Scientists say that Earth is billions of Darwin years old, never mind that there are many scientific indications that it is far younger than materialists maintain. Further, scientists say that since the world is that old, there was plenty of time for life to evolve. Essentially, the Trojan Horse of false science was brought through the gate and the invaders wreaked havoc on theology, true science, and logical thinking.


The True Root Cause

People don't like to hear this. Maybe because it's too simple, or it could be overused. Still, the true root cause is sin. Study on it. All are sinners in rebellion against God, and we must humble ourselves and repent so Jesus Christ is Lord of our lives. That doesn't set well with human nature. We're proud. We're human. We're special (even though evolutionists say we're just modified pond scum that came on the scene by accident). We think and believe the right things because of what "scientists say" and follow the trends of godless societies.

Further, thinking deteriorates in proportion to sin (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Timothy 4:2). In theology, it is the noetic effect of sin. I have seen people who are cogent, but when they rail against God, their reasoning turns to trail dust.

God's Word says that he is the Creator and he makes the rules. Evolution may appeal to pride and the intellect through philosophy and pretenses at science, but it is a way to justify rebellion against God. It empowers sin. How can Hitler rise to power, and how can God-hating socialists come to today? Gradually, through sinful tactics and the rejection of God's Word. No wonder atheists, leftists, and totalitarians in general hate Christians. Biblical creationists are the worst of the bunch to them because we uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. Are you ready to take your stand against evil and to support the authority of God's Word?

The article that was the springboard for this is "License to Kill", and I reckon that would be worth your time.


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

Friday, November 27, 2020

Dingo Dilemma for Darwinists

Time to saddle up and take a ride down Australia way. See that dog over there? Sure does look like a dog, but you had best leave it well alone, and keep it away from young children. That is the dingo, the wild dog of Australia. 

The dingo is called Australia's wild dog, and is unique to that continent. It is frustrating to evolutionists. It may also be a unique biblical kind.
Who's a good doggie? No way! Think of it more like a wolf.
Credit: cropped from Pixabay / Michelle Maria
While they have a strong resemblance to dogs and can interbreed with them, dingoes have distinct differences and are unique to Australia. They are classified as placental mammals, and 'Straya is littered with marsupials. Meanwhile, the opposite is the case in other parts of the world where placental mammals outnumber marsupials (apparently, the opossum is the only marsupial here in North America). Dingoes are also troubling for evolution. 

Darwin's handmaidens are content to evosplain the dingo's existence with assertions, but have nothing plausible to offer. They are clearly of the biblical dog kind (or possibly even a separate but related kind), and the fossil record supports this fact.
Dingoes look like dogs, but evolutionists say they are not. Pat Shipman writes, “Without question, most people from outside Australia first see a dingo and think, as I did, ‘That’s a dog.’” A dingo looks like a dog, acts like a dog, and runs like a dog. But is not a dog – or so says Pat Lee Shipman in his American Scientist magazine’s cover story, “The Elusive Dingo.” What is it, then, and why is it one of the few placental mammals on a continent full of marsupials?

When Charles Darwin visited Australia in 1836, he saw first-hand the ambiguity of the dingo’s origin. He wrote in 1868 the following, which expresses his instant confusion about this animal’s origin:

You can read the rest at "The Dingo Enigma". Also, you may be interested in a post about how they can be problems, "And Dingo Was His Name-o". The video that follows informs us of trial by media, massive incompetence and injustice, argument from presuppositions — and exoneration.



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

Thursday, November 26, 2020

Also Thankful for True Science Knowledge

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here in the formerly United States, there is currently a great deal of anger and violence happening. This society has been so secularized — indeed, paganized — that many have forgotten the many blessings that our Creator has bestowed. One of these is science.

One of the many things we have to be thankful for is science. We must be on guard against false philosophies that hijack true science for naturalism.
Made at Pablo
The American observation of Thanksgiving is not only unique, but is distinctly Christian. Why do you think secularists and atheists constantly attempt to rewrite history to remove God? Some have even taught in schools that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the natives. Not hardly! Edward Winslow wrote in 1623 that "...wherein we returned glory honour and praise, with all thankfulness to our good God".

As we have seen in previous posts and articles, our Creator has given us minds that he expects us to use. We draw inspiration from nature, use what has been given us for our bodily needs, and our thinking can glorify him through logic and science.

Unfortunately, there are many people who claim to have the definition of science, but that can get truly bizarre. In discussions, it is expedient to agree upon a definition of science and work from there, though not ceding to the dictates of a secularist who manipulates definitions for his or her own purposes.

People generally agree that science is the use of evidence so that what is observed in nature can be explained. That is an excellent description of observational science, and it also implies something upon which biblical creationists and secular scientists can (or should) agree: the origin of the universe and the origin of life are beyond the limits of observational science.

However, biblical creationists and others point out that evidence does not "speak for itself", it must be interpreted. People interpret evidence based on their experiences, training, and worldviews. Creationists see evidence for recent creation, but secular scientists are married to the atheistic philosophy of naturalism for the sake of their narrative.

We have science and technology, and are thankful that those are some of the abundant blessings that God has given us. Do not be deceived by false philosophies masquerading as knowledge.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defines science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” This definition suggests that evidence should be the foundation for science.

But exactly what is evidence? Depending on how it is used, evidence can be an equivocal concept. . . .

Evidence, as legally defined, can and many times does depend upon how the observer interprets what is seen or measured. By leaving out the subjectivity wrapped up in evidence, the NAS definition makes science seem more objective than it often is—especially when used to reconstruct past events.

Be thankful that you can read the article by visiting "Science vs. Falsely Called Knowledge".



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

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Dinosaur Tracks, Bright Angel Trail, and the Genesis Flood

If you take a notion to visit the Grand Canyon, you can also see smaller canyons and several trails. One of these is the Bright Angel Trail, which was set up by the Havasupai folks. After they were told to get lost, Ralph Cameron improved on it and gave it its current name. Wonder what he would have thought about those tracks.

Dinosaur tracks in the wrong geologic place further confound secular geology, defended by bad science. Especially since they support the Genesis Flood
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Jarek Tuszyński (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Just up yonder above the trackways, separated by fifty million Darwin years, is the Coconino Sandstone. Deep time believers cling to the uniformitarian narrative despite the startling hugely bigness of the flaws of wind-driven narrative. These include lizard tracks, mica in the sand, and more. In fact, biblical creationists have been pointing out this bad science for decades. But naturalists are like political leftists receiving fraudulent votes: if something appears to bolster something in their favor, no matter how absurd, they'll disregard the facts.

Something widely known in geology is that the Coconino Sandstone, discovered in 1508 by Salvatore Coconino —

"Stop it, Cowboy Bob! You made that up!"

Just seeing if you were awake. Moving on...

Widely known in geology is that Salvatore — I mean, the Coconino — sandstone has dinosaur tracks. These alone are convincing evidence for deposition by a watery deluge. However, a "recent" rockfall on the Bright Angel Trail revealed more tracks. In the "wrong" place. In the same style. Researchers have demonstrated that these were made underwater by critters fighting the current. Put the evidence together and you have even more support for the Genesis Flood.
Controversy has raged for decades surrounding mysterious four-footed (tetrapod) trackways preserved in the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon. Creation scientists have convincingly argued, going back to the early 1990s, that these trackways are strong evidence of the global Flood, rather than being imprints in ancient wind-blown sand dunes. Now, apparently as a result of a chance encounter with a rockfall, a highly similar set of prints has been uncovered—though this time from a layer below the Coconino.

To finish reading, stroll over to "The Bright Angel Trail trackways — Another set of arrows pointing to the global Flood".



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

Labels