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

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Evidence of Evolution — SERIOUSLY?

Not too long ago, I was fond of the "reality shows" that dealt with the paranormal. The investigators would look for natural explanations of phenomena before they would entertain a paranormal explanation. The door opens by itself? Yes, and opening a door down the hall would create a kind of wind effect, plus the weak latch — no spirits here, Bruce. 

Similarly, critics of creation science create a straw man based on prejudicial conjecture: that creationists simply write everything off as "GodDidIt", and that do not want to know anything that is actually scientific.

Yet, evolutionists will look for "EvolutionDidIt" as the first explanation.

Sometimes they do this despite evolutionary mechanisms that are postulated, and despite empirical evidence! In fact, they are guilty of circular reasoning, because they allege that many things, despite alternative explanations, are considered to be evidence of evolution. People believe things like this with no evidence because they want to — it keeps them comfortable with their fundamentally flawed worldviews.
Some things in nature get attributed to Darwinian evolution, but might be better seen as manifestations of design or other alternative, non-Darwinian mechanisms.
Deterministic Evolution
In “Predictable Bacterial Diversity,” Nature highlighted some experiments that showed bacteria converging on the same mutations when exposed to identical environmental stresses.  “They found many similar and a few identical mutations that underlay the evolution of diversity in the three experiments,” the article said. “The findings suggest that this evolution is a predictable processthat is driven by natural selection.”  The story is based on a paper in PLoS Biology that was summarized in on Science Daily, which said, “Any evolutionary process is some combination of predictable and unpredictable processes with random mutations, but seeing the same genetic changes in different populationsshowed that selection can be deterministic.
This claim, however, runs contrary to the unpredictable, contingent nature of Darwin’s theoretical mechanism.
You can read the rest of "This 'Evolution' Is Not Darwinian".

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Darwin and Racism

"Although atheism might have been
logically tenable before Darwin,
Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist."
— Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

New Guinea Aborigine added to Darwin picture. Darwinism has given a kind of false respectability and "scientific" justification for racism.

Darwinism has given a kind of false respectability and "scientific" justification for all sorts of evils in the world.

"How can you say that, Cowboy Bob? Evolution is a biological theory."

A biological "theory" with cooperation from several scientific fields, and extended into social sciences. Evolution has been used as a support for communism, Nazism, abortion, eugenics, racism, and more. Racism has existed for ages, we all know that. People will always find an excuse to hate someone they do not like, or is different (and then justify themselves).

But racism is strongly supported in evolutionism, and can be found in Darwin's own plagiarized ideas. Radar has an article showing this, and his article continues into another article, "Did Darwin Promote Racism?", which shows how evolution and racism are incompatible with biblical creationism and Christianity. Here is the beginning:
Another "accomplishment" of Darwinism was to give racism the excuse of being supported by science.   This reprehensible result of his assertions was the murder and imprisonment of many people whose "crime" was to have darker skin.  With all the racism already in place in the world and an African continent where black and Arab tribes were raiding and selling members of other tribes to slave traders before Darwin published his books, evil men needed little encouragement to take advantage of others anyway.  

Who do you suppose wrote these words in a book entitled "The Descent Of Man", Darwin as quoted from the book.

Darwin on human engineering - “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man............hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” Pages - 138-139

(Radar - By the way, the Nazi propaganda machine converted some of this exact language into their films denouncing Jews and people with medical problems).

Darwin on monkeys and Negroes- “For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions” Pages - 642-643

(Radar - well now here in America we have abandoned decency and practice infanticide without remorse.  So Darwin may well have been haunted by the results of his books, in fact, in later life he fought depression over this very thing).
You can read the rest of "Darwinism - the so-called 'scientific excuse' for racism!", here

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Appalachian Mountains and the Flood

The large system of mountains know as the Appalachians is considered to be quite old by uniformitarian geology standards. However, they show features that are "young".

Secular geologists have ideas on how the "old" Appalachian mountains show "young" features, but they are inadequate.
Image credit: morgueFile/youvebeenreviewed
There are several ideas put forth to explain the observed features, but they do not adequately explain these features, nor do they offer satisfactory mechanisms. The using the global Flood model, the data fit quite well.
An interesting article, published in GSA Today (a publication by the Geological Society of America) in February 2013, describes features of the landscape of the Appalachian Mountains. These are a system of mountain ranges in eastern North America, extending from around Atlanta, Georgia, north past New York, and into Canada (see figure left). The paper is entitled Miocene rejuvenation of topographic relief in the southern Appalachians.
This title would not mean anything to most people, because like most geological articles in geological journals this one is written in technical language making it difficult for a lay person to follow. So I’ll post the abstract below with my lay-friendly comments interspersed.
You can read the rest of "Appalachians eroded by receding waters of Noah’s Flood, new GSA paper shows", here. (Note in the comments area that some of Darwin's  Stormtroopers that police the Internet will attempt to put Dr. Walker in his place because he does not kowtow to their worldview, therefore, he must be wrong. Also note that the expected personal attacks are used. He responds accordingly.) Then, you can read one of the responses that was given its own post, here. Finally, a graphic illustration giving further evidence supporting Dr. Walker's statements.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Subatomic Bird Thoughts

morgueFile/ana_c_golpe (modified)
People have long wondered how birds navigate. Some travel huge distances, and they do it with precision. Perhaps they are able to do this at a subatomic level. At any rate, this is further evidence of amazing design.
Being called a "bird brain" implies that an individual is scatterbrained and flighty. Through the decades, however, ornithologists have grown to appreciate the amazing design and abilities of these feathered creatures. From their respiratory system to intricate vocalization patterns, birds reveal profound sophistication.
Smithsonian magazine recently featured a brief article on bird navigation. The opening statement reads, "Birds must be geniuses because they use quantum mechanics to navigate."
You can fly over to "Bird Brains and Quantum Mechanics" to finish reading this short article.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Whale of a Transition Tale


Big deal.

Although paleontologists expected to find transitional forms (and are looking to hang such a label on one of the creatures), they did not label any of the other oceanic life forms as "transitional". In fact, they found a lot of junk as far as evolutionary theorizing is concerned, since several other things were found that interfere with evolutionary conjectures, and excuses must be made to protect "science".

Of course, creationists do not have this problem.
Several fossil whale parts found in a southern California canyon are being called transitional forms in whale evolution.
. . .
What was actually found tells a more convoluted story.  Some 30 partial whale fossils were found in a Laguna Canyon road cut, including four newly-identified species of “toothed baleen whale—a type of whale that scientists thought had gone extinct 5 million years earlier.”
You can fin your way over to read the rest of "California Whale Fossils: Transitional Forms?", here

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Evolution Trickery, and the Age of the Solar System

Purveyors of evolutionism believe in their fatally flawed hypothesis despite the evidence, not because of evidence. The science is against it. Yet they deceive themselves, and are deceiving others, for a belief system that force-fits data into their presuppositions. When the facts interfere with their worldview, they perform feats of prestidigitation with "explanations" that should not convince (or fool) anyone. And call those of us who present contrary evidence, "Liars". Yet, the "theory" is still intact despite logic and science.

People need to put aside the propaganda and honestly look at the evidence. If they dropped their presuppositions, the data would make much more sense. But to admit that the evidence actually points to a Creator instead of supporting ever-changing naturalistic philosophies? Inconceivable!

The following article discusses the philosophies that keep people deceived about evolution. Then it goes on into another article with several evidences for a young solar system that are infuriating to evolutionary cosmologists. Why are they infuriating? Because Darwin's Cheerleaders demand an old universe so they can pretend that evolution actually happened. It won't work.
Charles Darwin could not conceive of the cell as more complex than all the factories and machines of his native England.   Most folks didn't know that Lyell and Haeckel were outright liars.   The 19th Century man did not have a huge accumulation of fossils nor did marvelous inventions like the electron microscope happen until generations later.   Ignorance mixed with hatred of God and the desire to have some kind of logical reason to reject Creationism was of utmost importance to men like Darwin and Huxley and they succeeded in pulling off a masterful con job on the world.   Perhaps the greatest folly is perpetrated by those who believe the foolishness themselves?   But after so many decades of being aware of the complexity of the cell, the magnificent coding of DNA, the interdependent workings of cell with DNA and ATP or even knowing all about the life cycle of the Monarch Butterfly?   No scientist in the world is innocent who perpetuates this fraud!

Yes, Darwinists now are much like magicians.   Magicians really don't saw people in half or make an elephant disappear or pull rabbits out of their hats.   They use sleight-of-hand and carefully crafted orchestration of movements and unseen mechanisms.  We have been tricked, as if by a magician, as Darwinism has called upon us to look HERE while the evidence is over THERE and it is fatal to Darwinism!  Not only is it a sad truth, it is an amazing one!   So many Darwinists have to realize the preponderance of evidence is against them and yet they persevere and continue to stick with their increasingly unbelievable attempt at subtefuge.  No magicians actually do magic and none of them believe that they do it.  We go to magic shows wanting to be fooled and believe what is incredible.

But science is not like a magic show, at least it ought not be.   We should not expect to be lied to and fooled when we go to science to try to understand how things work.  So why should we stand for being lied to and fooled when we wonder where everything comes from and why?  You see, there is a place where science and philosophy are connected.  It is at the intersection of origins street and purpose avenue.   Where the Universe came from also comes with the question of why and not just how.   When we ask why we are here and how we came to be here, we find ourselves asking the scientist, the philosopher and the man of faith.   The man of faith in God has known that God created all along, the philosophers run the gamut from A to Z and the scientist?   The scientist once assumed that God created and investigated how the created things worked.  This is how science advanced from superstition and supposition to multiple disciplines of study and accomplishment.  Now we have scientists who assume that no God exists and irrationally seek order within a Universe they believe popped randomly from nothing for no purpose by no plan.  Evidence has been cast aside in favor of fairy tales.   So now the cultural myths of isolated third-world tribes make about as much sense as does Stephen Hawking and vice-versa.   Hawking is just as ludicrous as Mongo the Witch Doctor, only with better math skills.
You can read the rest of "Question Evolution Day Worked!!! Evidences for a Young Universe", in context, here.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Living Fossils — Keep the Change

When an organism is found fossilized and the living specimen is virtually unchanged, it is called a "living fossil". Such things are baffling to evolutionists (although Darwin's Uninformed Cheerleaders brush off the facts by saying, "Well, evolution does not require things to change"). To have so many critters in "stasis" in their ecosystems for alleged millions of years simply does not make sense and interferes with evolutionary theories.
Some folk just don’t see the significance of the myriad examples of ‘living fossils’. Following our interview with Dr Carl Werner on the topic, one evolutionist protested:
“There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
Evolution is about change, and putting ‘evolutionary’ in front of ‘stasis’, does not explain the stasis in terms of evolution.
However, as Dr Werner said in the article:
“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
Furthermore, some evolutionists have admitted that living fossils (‘stasis’) are a big problem for evolution. They have no explanation. This is not about suggesting that something has to go extinct if something evolves from it; that is not the point. The point is the lack of change, which is a huge problem for evolution, which is about vast changes. As high-profile evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge admitted, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”
You can read the rest of "Evolutionists Can't Dodge 'Living Fossils'", here.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Things That Are Not So Old After All

stock.xchng/fulco "Hall of Giants"
This audio and reading material combination further illustrates how uniformitarian presuppositions fail. The evidence points to a young Earth after all. The free audio downloads are in three segments, and the download links are near the title:

Friday, February 15, 2013

Water Bear - Evidence for Design

The "Water Bear" or "Moss Piglet" (Tardigrade) is an amazing, tiny and appallingly ugly critter whose picture can be mistaken for a vacuum cleaner bag, or even as a prank. Even so, its survivability in extreme conditions for long periods of time is pretty much unbelievable. 
Never growing more than 0.06 inches (1.5 mm) (smaller than the thickness of a quarter), water bears dwell in a diversity of environments, from the highest mountains to the deep sea. To survive these extremes, they have an amazing ability—they can enter a sort of hibernation. In this state a water bear is called a tun.
In this condition, they can survive being boiled in water and frozen to almost absolute zero (where all molecular motion ceases). Curious about the limits of their survivability, scientists discovered that water bears can survive pressure up to six times the deepest ocean trench’s pressure. When subjected to the complete vacuum of space and direct radiation from the sun, they lived. Water bears can even survive for almost ten years totally dehydrated. To resurrect them, all you have to do is add water.
You can read the rest of "Water Bear Wonder", here.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Evolutionary Scientists — Noble Victims

One of the great deceptions that evolutionists have used is that they are the victims, with "religion" and "science deniers" as their persecutors. This is not the case. Not only has evolutionary philosophy contributed nothing to scientific advances, but they are the ones doing the persecuting. They demonize those of us who know that the evidence points away from evolution and toward the Creator, refusing to understand the creationist point of view (how attacking a straw man or railing about a person's character flaws qualifies as "discussing science" escapes me). This is a deception that they have used for decades. And yet, Darwin's Stormtroopers go on the march, attacking people who dare to think for themselves.
Julian Savulescu’s recent commentssuggesting that parents have a “moral obligation to select ethically better children” were more than just another move in the on-going eugenics revival. The Oxford professor’s misrepresentation of the science, and castigation of opponents, was another entry in the growing list of uses of evolution’s Warfare Thesis which is at the heart of today’s culture wars.
In the nineteenth century evolutionists such as Darwin confidant Thomas Huxley, chemistry professor John Draper and Cornell University cofounder Andrew White constructed a false history, casting evolutionists as the latest in a long history of heroic truth seekers who faced religious intolerance and opposition at every turn.
History, as they say, is told by the winners. This is nowhere more true than in evolution’s contrived war between religion and science where evolutionists wrap themselves in virtue. Historians have long since recognized the Warfare Thesis as flawed, but that is for the halls of academia. In the real world the Warfare Thesis rhetoric has proven to be far too powerful to reign in.
Ja, das ist worth reading the rest of "The Warfare Thesis is Not Going Away", mein herr. 

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Science Will Govern Us

How would you like to live in a world run by "science"? Never mind that "science" is a philosophical concept and not a living entity. People have elevated scientists (the people who do science stuff) into a class of intellectuals who are unbiased and have the highest morals, so they are best suited to govern us, yes? Of course, those of us who know that the science does not support evolution would be considered "anti-science" (even more than the rants of Darwin's Cheerleaders would have you believe). Are scientists really suited to govern? We may find out, whether we like it or not.
The scientocracy C. S. Lewis feared is seriously being considered by left-leaning, abortion-promoting scientism communities.
Time for science to seize political power” blazes a headline on New Scientistby Michael Brooks.
In your wildest dreams, could you imagine a government that builds its policieson carefully gathered scientific evidence? One that publishes the rationale behind its decisions, complete with data, analysis and supporting arguments? Well, dream no longer: that’s where the UK is heading.
But why would they need to “seize” political power instead of use the methods of democracy?  Brooks used the either-or and loaded-words tactics of portraying anything but scientocracy as “hunch-based politics,” failing to define evidence in “scientific evidence,” a philosophically vexed notion.  His description of science fits the classic definition of scientism: the belief that the scientific method is the only sure pathway to truth.
Perhaps the food in the UK influences their thinking? Naw, Brits have a stable diet. Anyway, you can read the rest of "Scientocracy Is Coming", here. And then you might like to see this video:

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Video: Deny Evolution, Risk Your Career

To help celebrate Charles Darwin's birthday Question Evolution Day, here is a lecture by Dr. Jerry Bergman about how evolution deniers can lose their jobs and even have their entire careers destroyed. It's ironic, evolutionists feel the need to protect "science" (disingenuously conflating "evolution" with "science"), suppressing dissent against evolution in the scientific community. This is science? Even so, there are secular scientists that dare to speak out and risk their careers.

If you do not like Dr. Bergman's biblical message, just wait it out. The video is about ninety minutes, so get comfy. (The last half hour or so is a Q & A session that you could give a miss if you're pressed for time).

Monday, February 11, 2013

Protecting Evolution is Not in the Spirit of Scientific Inquiry

Question Evolution Day is February 12!

The biggest problem with evolution is that it is not scientific. Sure, scientists do science stuff to try to support it, but in the end, we have speculation, conjecture, wild guesses, tendentious "facts", bad science and even fraud.

Evolution is a pseudoscientific theory. Yet its adherents passionately (even desperately) try to defend it despite rational thinking and inchoate practices. I have inquired of atheists and evolutionists who attack The Question Evolution Project, other Bible-believing Christians, and me personally. They want to "protect" "science" from "religion". Here is one outstanding example with a Stalinist edge:
By the way, Twitter "Tweets" are public. Twitter said so. This is why they delete things.

Science does not need protection! Further, they conflate the words evolution with science, which is intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

The true spirit of scientific inquiry allows consideration of different points of view. Refusing dissent is against science.
One of the predictable rites of the biological establishment is the outraged, condescending response given to any criticism levied at the theory of evolution by the wrong group. There is no end of the amount of indignant spleen vented towards the supposed interlopers—pig-ignorant, fundamentalist, pseudo-scientific nuts—who dare contradict the most important idea in the history of science. Consider noted atheist and evolutionary evangelist Richard Dawkin’s statement:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
And yet, in two recent articles on pride and error in the sciences, a foundation is laid for even evolutionary biology to be more open to criticisms, without worrying from where these critiques arise.
In both Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong, by Ronald Bailey, and How Might Intellectual Humility Lead to Scientific Insight?, by W. Jay Wood, a strong argument is advanced for principled and unbiased humility in the search for scientific truth. After all, could it really be any other way? Why should Mother Nature or God favor a blindly biased cabal of “truth hoarders” arrogantly convinced only they intuit the secret nuts and bolts of the universe?
Intellectually honest people should read the rest of "Every Scientific Fact is Open to Reevaluation—Except Evolution, by Conservatives". But I admit that I do not understand what "Conservatives" have to do with the article.

Friday, February 8, 2013

What a Long, Strange Trip for Pacific Salmon

Consider the Pacific salmon. Sure, most people know that they swim upriver to spawn. But the life cycle is a marvel, and a testimony to the wisdom of their Creator. They are born in fresh water rivers, change, live in the salt water, change again for fresh water and go back to the same rivers of their births.


Salmon begin their remarkable life-cycle from eggs which have been laid, fertilized, and covered with gravel (sometimes sand) in the upper reaches of a river or stream. Water must flow through the gravel to supply oxygen.

After incubation, tiny alevins (pronounced AL-i-vinz) emerge from the eggs. Alevins have a yolk sac below their bellies which contains sufficient nutrition for their early development. They do not emerge from under the gravel during this alevin stage, but stay there for protection against predators until their yolk sac is fully absorbed.

When they emerge they are 3-4 centimetres (about 1 1/2 inches) long, and are called fry. They make their way to larger freshwater pools for protection from sunlight and predators. The time which fry stay in fresh water varies with the species, and can be from two to 20 months.
You can read the rest of "Pacific Salmon — The Ocean's High Achievers", here. Addendum: This just in, a new study indicates geomagnetic imprinting in salmon!

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Dinosaur Tracks Trample Uniformitarianism

Uniformitarian assumptions such as, "The present is the key to the past", fossils (and tracks) take a very long time to form are being stomped on by a new study on dinosaur tracks. It is not time, but conditions, that explain most of the scientific data. (It's interesting how their fundamentally flawed worldview gives more bad science than good science.) In this case, the evidence further supports the Noachian Flood.
Casual observers are not the only ones who puzzle over dinosaur footprint origins. After all, other animal tracks in mud are not fossilized today because erosive processes rapidly erase them. If a rock layer requires thousands of years to solidify, then how were dinosaur tracks recorded in them?
A team of paleontologists specializing in "ichnology," the study of fossil tracks, just released a radically different explanation for the famous "dinosaur stampede" track ways in Queensland, Australia. Their analysis unwittingly confirmed a creation-flood explanation of dinosaur footprint formation that was first published in 1995.
Researchers had published a series of technical descriptions in the late 1970s and early 1980s of the tracks. The tracks are found in alternating layers of sandstone and thin clay, which appear to have been made by small theropod or ornithopod dinosaurs that took very large steps. In other words, the tracks showed long stride lengths for such small feet. The team interpreted this as having been caused by fast-running, stampeding dinosaurs.
Join the stampede to read the rest of "New Dinosaur Tracks Study Suggests Cataclysm".

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Solar System Conundrum

Titan image credit: NASA / JPL / University of Arizona 
So much space exploration, so much guessing. Planets and moons are showing signs of being "young", with short-lived phenomena. The evidence shows that the solar system is not really billions of years old, and fanciful "explanations" without evidence are put forth. After all, scientists demand an ancient universe and an ancient Earth to fit their evolutionary worldview. As usual, creationists do not have to resort to "explanations" that avoid observed facts.
Why are we seeing young phenomena in the planets if they are billions of years old?  Some scientists are abandoning uniformitarian assumptions and admitting we are lucky to be witnessing them in “rare moments of glory.”
In Nature this week, Maggie McKee interviewed scientists who are struggling with short-lived phenomena in the solar system.  The subtitle of her article, “Caught in the Act,” states, “We may be seeing some of the Solar System’s most striking objects during rare moments of glory.”  Her first two paragraphs elaborate why this is unsettling for some:
Ever since Copernicus evicted Earth from its privileged spot at the centre of the Solar System, researchers have embraced the idea that there is nothing special about our time and place in the Universe. What observers see now, they presume, has been going on for billions of years — and will continue for eons to come.
You can read the rest of "Planetary Scientists Admit Seeing 'Lucky' Circumstances", here.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Misrepresented Missing Link

The saga of puijila is not only a marvelous example of horribly misinterpreting data because of fundamentally flawed evolutionary presuppositions, but circular reasoning to "prove" evolution. Then, the desperate-for-evidence evolutionists and the journal Nature actually misrepresented the findings. They really otter know better. Of course, creationists do not have these problems, as the evidence fits the creationist worldview.
For 150 years, evolutionists had not been able to find evolutionary ancestors for the aquatic group of mammals called pinnipeds—the seals, sea lions, and walruses. This was odd because they had found well over 15,000 fossil pinnipeds but they had not found any land ancestors that were on the way to becoming a seal, sea lion or walrus. Their ‘oldest’ fossil, a creature called Enaliarctos, looked like a modern sea lion, with fully aquatic front and back flippers, not feet or even webbed feet. Such a wealth of fossils but no transitional creature fossils posed a conundrum for evolution scientists. For creation scientists, this was not a problem at all but the expected fossil pattern: Pinnipeds were created ‘as is’, and did not evolve from another animal, hence the missing links should not be found.
In 2009 Puijila darwini was announced as the latest ‘missing link’ found, a triumph of evolution. This was published in Nature, regarded as the most prestigious journal in the world. Richard Dawkins waxed lyrical about this fossil:
“Puijila neatly straddles the gap between land and water in the ancestry of pinnipeds. It is yet another delightful addition to our growing list of ‘links’ that are no longer missing.”
According to Dr Carl Werner… it looks like the authors of the Nature article seriously misrepresented and misinterpreted the fossils.
You are encouraged to finish reading "Another major ‘link’ fails", here. Interestingly, I found out that not only is today the anniversary of this Weblog, but it's the birthday of the author of the linked article! Happy birthday, Don!

Happy Anniversary!

Two years at my unregistered assault keyboard, selecting informative material that refutes evolution and affirms that the evidence best supports creation science.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Reloading the Silver Bullet for the Evolution Werewolf

stock.xchng/busangane (modified) 
The werewolf of evolution is dead. But it will not stay in its grave because acolytes of evolutionism keep giving it unnatural life. So, we keep taking it down with silver bullets of logic.

Evolutionists claim that logic and truth are products of the mind, and therefore, products of evolution. Anyone with half a brain will realize that this is absurd. Just ask any psychologist whether or not people have different concepts of reality and logic.

Further, brain chemistry changes. I am a diabetic, and blood glucose levels can affect my moods. So do the blood pressure medications. I used to be on antidepressants, and those things modify brain chemistry. The "logic" of a person with clinical depression or a psychotic disorder does not match with actual logic, it is ruled more by emotions than reason.

Sometimes it's hard to be a human.

So how can truth, logic, perceptions of reality, mathematics, morality and more be the product of chemistry? They cannot. And this is another silver bullet into the moldering hide of evolution.
Can Darwinian evolution explain the unchanging logic underlying our thought processes, and our universal awareness of truth?

To answer this question, let's first consider the brain itself. If Darwinian evolution is true, then of course logic and truth are "products" of the the material brain. In other words, logical thought processes must come from the brain. And awareness of truth must come from the brain.

And if logic and truth are unchanging and universal, it stands to reason that the very mechanism which produces them - the brain - must also be immune to change. But as can easily be demonstrated, this is simply not the case.

Consider the following ways that our brains, along with the way that we think, vary from person to person.
Read the rest of "The Silver Bullet — Reloaded". It's a howling success.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Armed and Dangerous Shrimp?

A fascinating fun fact is that the pistol shrimp actually shoots its prey. It has to do with the claw, compressed bubbles, amazing speed and temperature — and utterly baffling to the evolutionist. Like other critters, everything must be in place at the same time, or nothing works. Piecemeal evolution offers no plausible model or explanation.
Do you like shrimp for dinner? Well don’t mess with this pistol packing hombre! Despite being a diminutive 1–2 inches (3–5 cm) long, the pistol shrimp normally has one regular claw but also has an oversized claw which operates as an acoustic weapon capable of producing ‘gunshots’ reaching over 200 decibels (much louder than a jet engine!).
The violent implosion of this cavitation bubble produces the sound, the pressure of which is strong enough to kill small fish.
Unwary victims approaching within an inch or so (~4 cm) of this oceanic ‘bush-whacker’ may find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun that is literally cocked and triggered in a fashion reminiscent of a Wild West six-shooter.
Mosey on over and read the rest of "Pistol packing … Shrimp?!"