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, April 30, 2015

Don't Let the Bat Bug Bed Things Bite

Bedbugs have been a nuisance for a long time. We hate them today, cowboys hated them, and archaeologists have evidence that ancient people hated the awful blood-sucking things millennia ago. Itches, pain, rashes, psychological difficulties, resistant to most pesticides — but at least these tiny critters don't seem to spread disease like malaria-bearing mosquitoes. If you're afflicted with bedbugs (it's nothing to be ashamed of, most people are likely to have the problem at some point), you may get some useful information at the US Environmental Protection Agency, click on "Bed Bugs: Get Them Out and Keep Them Out".

Scientists are claiming that bedbugs show evolution in action. Not true. They see natural selection and variation, yes, but not Darwinian evolution.
Image credit: CDC/ CDC-DPDx; Blaine Mathison
Moving on to the purpose of this post, some scientists are claiming that there is evidence for evolution. Not hardly. Yes, they probably began drinking the blood of bats, and then varied into the version that afflicts humans. That's not evolution, Edna, that's variation and natural selection. For that matter, it's suspected that we're seeing a loss of genetic information.
From the DNA of bat-biting and people-biting bedbugs, researchers from Tulsa to Prague have demonstrated that bedbugs are still bedbugs. In fact, despite their disturbing resurgence in domestic dwellings, bedbugs are showing no sign of becoming anything else, other than more-difficult-to-eradicate bedbugs. Genetic analysis supports the hypothesis that today’s common bedbug originated in bat-caves and, having transitioned to cave-dwelling people, then developed populations with a preference for people and people’s houses. But is that a model for Darwinian evolution?
The rest of this article has some interesting analysis of the claims of evolution, history, a bit of creationist theology, and more. To see the whole shootin' match, click on "In Bedbugs, Scientists Don’t See a Model of Evolution".

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

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Another Icon of Evolution Takes a Shot

Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for the medical community. It has also been erroneously — and often disingenuously — used as an icon evidence for Darwinian evolution. This happened because people illogically conflated observed natural selection and unobserved evolution; bacteria remained bacteria and didn't bother to evolve into something else.  A study of well-preserved dental tartar in ancient humans revealed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which threatened the "evidence" icon

By the way, don't get the notion that all bacteria are bad. They were created for a purpose, and are essential for life.

Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for the medical community. It has also been erroneously — and often disingenuously — used as an icon evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Interaction of a white blood cell with MRSA
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Evolutionists still cling to their cherished icon, but a new problem rode into town. Seems that a tribe in a remote part of Venezuela had visitors on missions. One was a missionary group who wanted to share the gospel and do good things for them, the other wanted to study them from a Darwinian perspective. Turns out that these people also have antibiotic resistance, and scientists are mighty bothered by it.
An isolated tribe in a remote place in Amazonia has antibiotic resistance genes in its gut bacteria.

An icon of evolution is antibiotic resistance. Supposedly, after the introduction of antibiotics in the 20th century, bacteria “evolved” the ability to resist their toxic effects. Since some antibiotics are synthetic, and the body still develops resistance, the story is that evolution is quick to evolve resistance by natural selection.
To see what the ruckus is about, read the rest of the article at "Antibiotic Resistance Is Ancient". 

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

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Further Adventures in Evolutionary Atheist Morality

Angry evolutionists and atheists try to justify their rebellion against God, but are poor in logic. Ironically, they admit that God exists when they want to judge him by their own "moral standards".

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Evolution is a foundation for atheism as well as liberal Christianity. So it's not really a surprise when intolerant fundamentalist evolutionists want to slap leather with uncompromising biblical creationists. They want us silenced. We know they are busy with using the courts, such as the atheistic freedom from letting people think for themselves foundation wanting to sue because Eric Hovind had a recent debate in a public school.

My focus today is regarding another way they try to silence us. This is done through bullying, harassment, ridicule, misrepresentation, straw man arguments (attacking a position that the other person doesn't hold, including putting words in his or her mouth), outright lies, and more.

My posts and articles get circulated on Twitter under my monicker for The Question Evolution Project, and I was presented with this gem the other day:
Original screenshot here (unless he deletes it, they do that sometimes)

There are several things wrong with it (some briefly summarized on the image).
  • First, there is no such "meme" that "atheists have no moral foundation". So, that statement was the opposite of the truth. 
  • Second, I made no such claim in the first place. Now, atheists can be moral, most people acknowledge that. But the contention among Christian apologists is that they have no consistent moral standard.
  • Third, he's using a straw man argument to justify his rebellion against God, claiming that the Creator is immoral for judging the world. By what standard? His own opinion? Is God subject to this guy's judgement? Not hardly!

  • Fourth, he hates God (Romans 1:18-22) and wants to justify himself by condemning God (as in Job 40:8 NKJV), but is ironically admitting two things: God exists, and the Flood happened. Many atheopaths do this, "allowing" God to exist when they want to indulge in hatred, but pretending he doesn't exist at other times. Those owlhoots must have dreadful cognitive dissonance. 
  • Fifth, he is showing his naturalistic presuppositions. Yes, atheists and evolutionists have many presuppositions — everybody has them comprising their own worldviews.

After I had this here article all writ up and ready to go, another tinhorn helped support what I'm saying. He was supporting his religion of Scientism, illustrating the incoherence of atheism, and exhibiting his inconsistent epistemology:
"Fair Use" for educational purposes. In this case, his bad logic and bigotry.
He made several unsupported assertions that were based on prejudicial conjecture and blatant untruths. Note the abusive ad hominems as well. If he had bothered to do the slightest bit of research, he'd have learned about how Christians and creationists have been involved in science, past and present, and that creationists have made accurate predictions. No, this was just hatred and bigotry. Another bit of irony is that people like this often claim that they are doing "good" by attacking creationists and other Christians. Later, another one came along with, "Of course there isn't [a war between science and faith]. Science won a LONG TIME AGO." Heil Scientism! And atheists wonder why they are not trusted and so disliked.

I reckon that militant atheists and evolutionists detest biblical creationists for several reasons, two of which are that we will not back down on our consistent standard, and that the Noachian Flood models from creation scientists explain geological features far more effectively than secular uniformitarian views. Attacks from angry atheists and evolutionists help illustrate the bigger picture, that the origins issue is a matter of biblical authority and sinful man's rebellion. The answers to origins questions exist, but some people do not want them.

Sorry if this article is a bit disjointed. It's a mite difficult to concentrate when Basement Cat is snoring behind me.

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

Monday, April 27, 2015

Kicking Dust on "Little Foot" Dating Methods

The australopithecene "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where it was found. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws.

Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags looking for solid evidence to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils.

All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work.
Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological promethean namesake by offering humanity an appropriately mythological gift, the gift of identifying our oldest hominid ancestor?

Little Foot’s age has been a matter of great debate since discovery of its nearly complete skeleton buried in a South African cave in the 1990s. Research we reported here one year ago aged Little Foot significantly by showing that the fossil was the same age as the breccia (a kind of conglomerate rock) in which it was buried and not the flowstone insinuated later amongst its pieces.
To finish reading, click on "The Latest on “Little Foot’s” Bid for Status as Humanity’s Most Ancient Ancestor". Also, you may want to check out a related (but shorter) article that focuses on cosmogenic nuclide dating, "Myths Dressed as Science".

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

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Creationist Scientists Dismantling Uniformitarian Paradigms

Generally speaking, particles-to-paleontologist evolution requires long ages. Secular geologists (and some compromising Christians) accept faulty justifications for claiming that the earth is very old. Part of this is uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past, processes that we see now are constant). But geologic explanations based on uniformitarian assumptions seem to be mostly appropriate for telling shaggy dog stories around the campfire while riding the Owlhoot Trail. That is, they're interesting stories, but don't match up with observed evidence.

Evidence for old-earth geology and uniformitarianism is being chipped away by observed evidence. Creationist scientists are accelerating the process.

They tend to reject the Genesis Flood and explanations from creationist scientists who offer differing explanations of observed evidence regarding geologic history — no catastrophism allowed here, Hoss. (Despite their biases, some geologists do allow for some catastrophes in Earth history). The huge catastrophe of Genesis Flood actually fits observed data far better than the offerings of secular scientists.

Research by the Institute for Creation Research further undermine uniformitarian geology.
ICR’s ongoing Column Project (an analysis of over 500 drilling-core and outcrop samples from across North America) has revealed surprising results that smash entrenched uniformitarian thought. The rocks continue to support the biblical account of one worldwide Flood.

The main area of interest concerns the six megasequences that comprise most of the fossil-bearing strata on Earth. Megasequences are defined as packages of sedimentary rock bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom (deposited first), followed by shales, and then limestone at the top (deposited last). The corresponding size of the sedimentary particles is also thought to decrease upward in each megasequence ... The megasequences are interpreted as representing the depth of the sea at the particular time each one was laid. The base sandstone layers of each megasequence are believed to represent the shallowest sea level, the shale a little deeper water environment, and the limestone the deepest water environment in each sequence. By tracking these changes in rock types, geologists are able to define each megasequence.
To drill down into this article, click on "Grappling with Megasequences". 

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

Friday, April 24, 2015

Scientific "Facts" Keep Getting Reversed

To many people, science is the ultimate source of truth. But scientific claims are constantly changing. The only real, ultimate truth comes from the written Word of the Creator.
What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim, consensus, or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people.

Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston, f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves.

Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "science" is touted by some tinhorns as a fact, yet scientists are constantly being surprised by findings (especially in astronomy and cosmology, it seems), the alleged transitional form called "Lucy" is about to be shelved, and scientists decide to rewrite evolutionary history — so much for evolution having the predictability aspect of a real theory.

Recent news informs us about changing statuses of how salt affects our blood pressure, textbook theories of volcanoes, neuroscience, evolution of mammals, and more. To read about these, saddle up and ride over to "Scientific Claims Are Reversible". Scientific "truths" frequently change. Man-made science philosophies come and go. The only real, ultimate truth comes from the Creator in his written Word (Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 13:8), and that is where we should be placing our highest trust.

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

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Stars, Creation Week, and Scriptural Gymnastics

Some Christians seem to get mighty frightened by the pronouncements of secular scientists, so they tamper with the Bible. Especially when it comes to Genesis. Christians began ceding science to secularists, and it accelerated when Darwin, Lyell, and their ilk were convincing people that their views of long ages and origins were right. Wouldn't want people to say mean things about us Bible believers, would we? No, we need to appear "enlightened", and do scriptural gymnastics so the Bible doesn't say what it means. Then you get odd views like the Framework Hypothesis, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory, and so on.

Some Christians are intimidated by the pronoucements of secular science trends.Is it scripturally feasible to suppose that the stars were created before creation week? Not hardly!
Triangulum Galaxy image credit: NASA/Swift Science Team/Stefan Immler
Some people act like distant starlight is a smoking gun to discredit all of creation science, so they let the secularists lead their minds and spirits into the corral where they won't bother anyone. But scientists are not infallible, and some investigation shows that the dominant Big Bang theory has many major problems — including distant starlight and heat transfer.

Theologically, is it valid to reinterpret the Bible for the sake of current trends in science philosophies, saying that the stars were created long before the actual creation week? Not hardly!
Kenneth M. from New Zealand criticizes one of our classic articles, Morning has broken but when?, which refutes modified soft gap theories that make stars much older than the earth rather than Day 4 creations as God’s Word teaches. In particular, Mr M takes issue with the section, ‘Can stars be billions of light years away in a young universe?’ Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Were stars created in creation week?

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

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

New Creature Discoveries Testify of Creation

New creatures are discovered each year. This is of interest to creationists as well as their secular counterparts.

Thousands of creatures are identified each year. Some of these are known species that have been reclassified, and the majority of new discoveries are insects, but there are also mammals being found. Some are actively sought, but many are discovered by accident by people who recognize that they're seeing something special. These findings show that the world is a big place, and there is a great deal yet to explore. But also, they reveal that God designed a great deal of diversity. This is of great interest to creationists.
High in the Andes, a furry member of the raccoon family has lived quietly for centuries without detection. It is the first carnivore discovered in the Americas in more than three decades. Will it be the last? Why do creationists care?

“They stopped me in my tracks,” recalls biologist Kristofer Helgen about his surprise when opening a drawer full of mysterious, reddish-brown furs. Though housed in the Field Museum for more than 50 years, this species had never before been described in the scientific literature. He then led a field trip to Ecuador and confirmed they still live—the first member of the order Carnivora discovered in the Americas in more than three decades.
To finish reading, click on "Olinguito—The Last Carnivore?

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

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Body Types and Paleoanthropology

Most people have probably seen the classic evolution on parade pictures in one form or another. It starts with a monkey, then something slightly larger that is less monkey and more human, repeated several times, until you have the modern human. It starts from evolutionary presuppositions that have things getting larger as they became more advanced, and your alleged ancestors grew a mite bigger and were classified into groups. Body size and structure had a lot to do with the classifications. Of course, evolutionists conveniently neglect to tell you that "archaic" people were sometimes quite a bit bigger and stronger than modern people. Those changes are environmental, not evolutionary.

People come in a variety of sizes, but we're all classified as fully human. Some paleoanthropologists may be catching on to a commonsense approach, people in the past had diversity as well.

Years ago, I noticed someone who looked like he belonged in a textbook on evolution. His facial structure and jaw looked "primitive". For that matter, I've seen, conversed with, gawked at, watched pictures, whatever, of people that have a wide range of sizes, but they're all fully human. We have diversity now, I reckon that common sense should tell us that people had a variety of sizes in the past, since we were created to have variety. Some paleonanthropologists may be catching on.
People don’t all look the same today; body types vary tremendously. Why should we assume differently about the past?

You give it a name, say, Homo erectus, and the mind pigeonholes it into a category. All H. erectus are supposed to fit. But then reality hits; the boundaries between the pigeonholes are fuzzy, and may overlap. It becomes harder to pigeonhole each new fossil. Are the boundaries real? Are we deceiving ourselves with our own classification scheme?

This report should reverberate like thunder to paleoanthropologists: “Earliest humans had diverse range of body types, just as we do today.” That’s a press release from the University of Cambridge talking. The increasing realization that ancient humans don’t look like clones of each other threatens to unravel many assumptions about human ancestry.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Body Diversity Threatens to Undermine Paleoanthropology".

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

Monday, April 20, 2015

Horizontal Gene Transfer and Creative Reality for Evolutionists

In a series of comments on a post in a group, remarks were made to the effect that proponents of molecules-to-mechanic evolution have creative reality, and do not want to be confused with facts. We can see the truth of that, especially when those facts interfere with their preconceptions. Some Darwinist owlhoots make strong pronouncements of scientific facts that are nothing but conjecture. Unfortunately, people do not examine the material carefully, and think that an aspect of evolution has been proved.

Evolutionists can get creative with their reality. Making things up about horizontal gene transfer does not affect the truth.

A recent study on horizontal gene transfer made such bold pronouncements, but hidden in the text is an admission that there is nothing there to hang your hat on. Further analysis shows that the research is fundamentally flawed. Y'all can't make assertions pretending that evolution is true and that the Creator isn't there, old son.
As the genomes of many new creatures rapidly fill the public DNA sequence databases, the problems for the grand evolutionary story are becoming overwhelming. One issue is the fact that different creatures have unique sets of genes specific to their kind with no apparent evolutionary history. To explain this glaring problem, evolutionists have resorted to the myth of pervasive horizontal gene transfer.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the process whereby genes are transferred from one type of creature to another without sexual reproduction. Earlier in my career, I participated in a study (published in the journal Science), in which we found that the pathogenic bacterium Wolbachia had transferred large portions of its DNA into the genomes of both worms and insects. The Wolbachia bacterium is able to do this extraordinary feat by targeting the cells of reproductive organs so that the transferred DNA is literally inherited in the host. However, we also observed that very few of these transferred genes were found to be expressed (turned on). They were clearly just genomic baggage. This is actually one of the few clearly documented cases of horizontal gene transfer showing that a specific type of parasite-host relationship is the mechanism for the foreign DNA importation to occur and be heritable.
To read more and discover the serious flaws in the study mentioned earlier, click on "Another Horizontal Gene Transfer Fairy Tale". 

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

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Ancient Documents Confirm Genesis Flood Account

Some scoffers claim that the Genesis account of the Noachian Flood are simply copies of other flood stories that were embellished by ancient Hebrew writers. Such views show not only an anti-biblical bias, but also poor reasoning and lack of knowledge of historical documents. For that matter, the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the ancient flood accounts supposedly the true source of flood legends) is markedly different from the Genesis Flood account. Even a casual reading shows that the Epic is mostly fantasy, with lots of polytheism and unbelievable material that probably wouldn't interest monotheistic Hebrews. When the flood account is inserted into the story, that part of it has a different tone, and shows similarities to the real Flood narrative in Genesis. For that matter, there are global flood legends around the world that have some remarkable similarities where the earth is covered by water and only eight special people survived.

Some scoffers claim that the Genesis account of the Noachian Flood are simply copies of other flood stories that were embellished by ancient Hebrew writers. There are several problems with such a view, including an older Flood account.
Pixabay / stux
There is another account of a global flood that is older than the Epic of Gilgamesh, and seems to have been overlooked by most archaeologists. It has more similarities to the biblical Flood account and predates the Epic. I reckon that some people don't want confirmation of the Bible, but maybe I'm just woolgathering there.
During the last decade of the nineteenth century, the University of Pennsylvania conducted a number of archaeological digs in the ancient Babylonian city of Nippur. Among the remains of the temple library, they found a tiny tablet fragment containing another account of the Flood.3 It was translated by Hermann Hilprecht, an expert Assyriologist, and was found to agree with Genesis remarkably in its details. It speaks of a deluge that would destroy all life, and how God commanded the building of a great ship in which the builder, his family and animals were to be preserved.
To entire article in context, click on "Genesis authenticated in clay". You may also want to see a similar article, "Genesis, Gilgamesh, and an Early Flood Tablet".

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

Friday, April 17, 2015

Evolution, Science Bias and Abortion

Much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront.

As we can easily see, much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront.

Evolution has been used to promote abortion, including the infamous fraud by Haeckel. It should not really be that much of a surprise, since morality cannot come from evolution (despite the claims of some adherents), morality comes from God. Evolutionists will even write abortion off not only as a result of natural selection, but even justify abortion for gender selection, which is usually to abort female babies. Seems like the ultimate punishment for the "crime" of being an unborn female.

I recommend that you read "Abortion 'Science' Shows Its Deathly Bias".

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

Cosmological Actors in the Cosmic Theater

It's amazing how people who believe in science will cling to their worldviews despite the scientific evidence (or lack of evidence). This is common in the religion of Scientism. Evidence against Darwinian and cosmic evolution ideas keep getting roped and brought into the corral (including the recent big claim of evidence for inflation), and many secularists continue to make excuses while clinging to their faith.

More scientific discoveries show major flaws in the Big Bang model. Cosmologists have become actors in the cosmic theater, playing a part that they should know is not real.
Credit for original image: NASA / ESA / S. Beckwith (STScI) and The HUDF Team
The Big Bang model for the origin and development of the universe has changed many times since it was developed. After discoveries revealed flaws in the idea, other ideas were worked in; the current model is substantially different from the original, and excuse-makers in cosmology are more like actors than scientists.

Millions of years from the putative beginning were wiped off the stage, missing antimatter, desperate attempts to account for lack of lithium, the idea that the universe never had a beginning, and more problems plague the Big Bang. But will they scrap the consensus? Not hardly! If the scientists were being scientific, the accumulation of flaws in the Big Bang should have cosmologists stampeding away from their failed model and alleged billions of years. But the Big Bang won't be toppled because of evolutionary religious fideism, and they certainly won't give credit to the Creator.

To see what the fuss is about, click on "Cosmic Theater".

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

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Of Fish and Fingers

Purveyors of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution (and its subsequent variations) claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor. They insist that our ancestors lived in the sea, and everything developed from there. Using speculation and convoluted reasoning, they see that similarities are evidence of common ancestry, and that fins evolved into fingers. It seems they were studying on the wrong fish, and now think that clues to the fingers that I'm using to make tappity-tap on my unregistered assault keyboard came from the Spotted Gar. 

Darwinists are thinking that the Spotted Gar may give genetic clues to the evolution of fingers from fins. They're really reaching on this one.
Spotted Gar, US Fish and Wildlife Service
This fish is mainly found in areas around the Mississippi River, and may end up on "threatened" and "endangered" lists at some point, since its numbers are shrinking. Conveniently, Darwinists have classified the Spotted Gar as "primitive". There are lots of fish in the sea, so why this particular one with a limited habitat has genetic information that evolutionists need is a bit of a puzzler. After all, evolutionists claim that common features indicate common design, so shouldn't the genetic material be more common among the fishes? Meanwhile, Darwinistas do not see common features as evidence of common design from the Creator, oh no, can't allow a divine foot in the door.
Evolutionary efforts to demonstrate how genetic information to produce wrists, ankles, fingers, and toes evolved from the genes that blueprint fish fins “have fallen short,” according to ScienceDaily. That admission came as preamble to the announcement that this failure has resulted from study of the wrong fish. The fish harboring the genetic switch to flip on fingers, presumably retained over the eons, is the spotted gar.

Researchers in the laboratory of Neil Shubin of Tiktaalik fame report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that, by shifting their sights to the spotted gar, they have discovered the incipient genetic information that eventually produced terrestrial mammalian “autopods.” Autopod is a convenient catch-all word for the bones that make up either wrists-and-fingers or ankles-and-toes. The spotted gar, these evolutionists believe, is more primitive than most bony ray-finned fish and therefore retains in its genome a genetic switch very similar to that used for autopod development in mammalian embryos
Don't carp. You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Does the Spotted Gar Harbor a Fish-Finger Connection?"

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

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Evolutionists Hope to Find Change in Spiders

Spiders cause frustration to evolutionists because there is no sign of evolution, yet they have great diversity. They're still spiders, just as they were created to be.

Another passel of hassle for Darwinists is the evolution of the spider. The spider kind is diverse (including a range of sizes), from the tiny peacock spider to the jumping spider (in the "meme", above) to the goliath "bird eating" spider with a dinner-plate-sized leg span, but they still have eight legs and remarkable eyesight. 

Although there are comparatively few spiders in the fossil record, paleontologists can tell that these critters as well as many others are unchanged over alleged millions of years. The reasonable conclusion is that they were created to be just what they are, not changing from or into something else.
A University of California Berkley graduate student has discovered two beautiful new species of peacock spiders in southeast Queensland, Australia. The student, Madeline Girard, named the two colorful creatures "Sparklemuffin" and "Skeletorus," both of the genus Maratus. They are noted for their ornate mating dances that many viewers find amusing. Are these splendid specimens highly evolved species or have spiders always been spiders?

All spiders are designed with four pairs of walking legs. During a sophisticated courtship dance, the peacock spider male will raise a single leg, displaying it to the female. It is no wonder these creatures have been called peacock spiders with the black, red and blue coloring of the males. They are also designed with white hairs that can be folded. Such colorful designs are used for display during mating.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Spiders Have Always Been Spiders".


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

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Non-Evolution of Flight

When the big picture of molecules-to-musicologist is examined, it stretches credibility. Consider that everything supposedly evolved from a common ancestor, branching off the evolutionary tree in diverse ways. It may seem reasonable on the surface because evolution's proponents claim that common features show common ancestry — and that's before they get into the far-fetched tales where speculation is presented as fact.

Evolution from common ancestry strains credulity in the first place. Examining dissimilarities among living things, and remarkable abilities of even a few birds, make evolution sound even more ridiculous.
Laysan albatross, derived from photo by Michael Lusk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Although there is disagreement in the evolutionary community, many believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but there is no mechanism or plausible model. Similarities among living things? Fine, why can't I fly? There are more differences than similarities. There are fascinating abilities among birds, such as the abilities of some species of albatross to drink sea water, the arctic tern traveling pole to pole every year, the high metabolism of the hummingbird and its ability to detect the sweet stuff it needs for survival — too many differences to make evolution believable. I reckon I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution, especially since evidence and common sense reveal the design work of the Creator.
If an award were given to the bird with the most clumsy landing, there is little doubt which bird would win—the gooney bird. In the sky this bird is powerful and beautifully graceful. By skilful use of wind currents, it can glide over the ocean for hours without even a flap of its wings. But it often makes the proverbial three-point landing—two legs down and flat on its face! It has earned the nickname ‘gooney bird’ partly because of its clumsy landings.

If landing is not the strong point of this bird—properly known as the albatross—flying certainly is. With a wingspan that may reach three metres (11 feet), the albatross can spend months flying enormous distances over the seas. It sometimes may not touch land more than a few times in four or five years. It sleeps on the surface of the ocean, it drinks sea water, and it feeds on small marine creatures and garbage thrown from ships.

Mariners have long been fascinated by the ability of some species of albatross to zigzag across a strong headwind. These graceful birds will soar and glide above a ship for days, diving steeply into the water to claim refuse from its wake. The albatross is perfectly designed for flight.
To learn more about some amazing bird abilities, the lack of evidence for evolution, and why they can fly but humans can't, finish the article by clicking on "Created to fly! — Birds can fly, why can’t I?

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

Monday, April 13, 2015

Ice Age Climate Theory Wobbles

There was a consensus of sorts that orbital cycles of the earth were the cause of ice ages. New discoveries have had a chilling effect for secular "deep time" scientists because the prevailing uniformitarian view doesn't hold water; it's not "settled science" after all.

The Milankovitch orbital cycles of the earth were postulated, and used to explain ice ages. New evidence supports biblical creationists' models of a single ice age caused by the Genesis Flood.
Pixabay / tpsdave
There are some other items that put a burr under secularists' saddles. First, if the prevailing models about how the earth was frozen in the distant past are shown to be unreliable, then how accurate are their methods when they predict global warming? But even worse, the data once again fit biblical creationists' models regarding a single ice age resulting from the Genesis Flood. These findings should spur creation scientists on to further research in this area.
Orbital cycles do not cause ice ages, a new study suggests. Instead, the whole world experienced an ice age at the same time.

The leading secular theory for past ice ages has taken heat from a new study. According to the theory, orbital cycles called Milankovitch cycles take the earth on excursions nearer and farther from the sun, or on wobbles of tilt, forcing climatic swings. But a study published in Geology calls that theory into question.
You can read the rest of this cool article at "Orbital Ice Age Theory Melts".

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

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Flighty Evolutionary Speculations Taint Hummingbird Taste Study

As many people know, hummingbirds live off sweet things like nectar and special feeders with sugar water. (Be sure to clean the feeders often so that mold doesn't form and poison them — and you should avoid cleaning with bleach.) Research was conducted about the sense of taste in hummingbirds and other critters, especially about how these birds can sense sweetness.

Humans can generally taste a variety of flavors, sweet, sour, salty, umami, and bitter. Cats and other animals do not seem to have the ability to taste sweetness, but crocodiles have it. Some animals show no ability to taste anything at all. The "sense of taste" (taste receptors) are actually quite complex, and there is a great deal yet to learn about them.

Interesting research in the sense of taste, especially in how hummingbirds taste sweet stuff, is tainted by unwarranted evolutionary speculations presented as science.
Pixabay / luxlioness
The evidence plainly shows that the special taste apparatus of the hummingbird is the product of the Creator's design. Naturally, evolutionists were operating from their worldview and did some unwarranted philosophical wrangling. "This bird tastes sweet stuff? It's evolution what done it. Now let me offer opinion as fact about how dinosaur-to-bird evolution, and the sense of taste in dinosaurs". Not hardly.
Most birds are blind to sweets. They lack the taste receptor to detect sweet-tasting molecules. Yet hummingbirds—dependent on nectar to fuel their fast wings—are experts at telling what is sweet and even at fending off fakes1—non-nutritive artificial sweeteners. The unusual genetic basis for their ability, according to Harvard Medical School biologist Stephen Liberles and his coauthors publishing in Science, has pinpointed hummingbirds’ place in evolutionary history and suggests theropod dinosaurs had no taste for sweets.
After that sample, you can chew on the rest of the article by clicking on "Our Creator’s Sweet Design for Hummingbird Taste".

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

Friday, April 10, 2015

Rogue Data in the Gene Neighborhood

DNA studies are not helpful to the evolutionary tree of life. Instead of a tree, there is a mosaic, and data support biblical creation, not Darwinian evolution.
Operational science does not support eukaryote-to-engineer evolution — especially DNA sequencing, despite the claims of some evolutionists. Darwin's tree of life may have seemed plausible in the past, but rogue data in gene neighborhoods are not cooperating with evolutionary ideas.

Scientists using presuppositions, assumptions, cherry-picked data, evidence manipulation, and other unscientific methods attempt to preserve their belief systems; they present their stories as factual, even though they are what "could have happened", and not what can be demonstrably true. Other scientists are trying to re-draw the tree of life using microRNA genes. The results are still disappointing, as things refuse to fit the expected patterns.

What we do see is support for the Genesis account of creation, where everything is to reproduce "after its kind". After all, God did not command, "Go ye and turn therefore into something else over long periods of time". This research not only supports creation science, but should be another spur to the flanks of creationist scientists to find the genetic boundaries of the created kinds.
The ‘tree of life’ (TOL) popularized by Darwin and used as the inferred pattern of life’s history is the centrepiece of evolutionary biology. The molecular genetics revolution has presented many contradictions for the TOL and the modern Darwinian synthesis. Incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) is a discordant and pervasive outcome produced when constructing phylogenetic trees using homologous biological sequence data across all types of life studied. The ILS paradigm is characterized by segments of DNA that produce phylogenetic trees with different topologies compared to hypothetical inferred evolutionary trees. While ILS within closely related taxonomic groups can largely be explained by horizontal genetic variation and limitations on accurately sampling large populations, ILS across clearly different and unrelated kinds of organisms represents a mosaic of DNA sequence patterns that cannot be explained by common ancestry. Other ‘rogue’ genetic data that defy the TOL are microRNA genes and taxonomically restricted genes. MicroRNAs produce completely different trees compared to other gene sequences and appear unexpectedly in taxa. Taxonomically restricted genes also appear abruptly without evolutionary precursors, lack homology to other genes, and uniquely define taxon. Genetics research consistently reveals patterns of DNA mosaics that defy evolution and vindicate biblical creation ‘after their kinds’.
To read the rest, click on "Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life", by Jeffrey Tompkins (Ph.D., genetics) and Jerry Bergman (Ph.D., Biology).

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

Thursday, April 9, 2015

The Return of Thunder Lizard

The reclassification of dinosaurs to bring back the Brontosaurus raises other questions about scientific reclassification and revisionism.Back yonder in the nineteenth century, two scientists with mutual detestation, Cope and Marsh, were ambitiously trying to outdo each other in the "Bone Wars". That is, they spend money, time, and effort in trying to find and classify dinosaur bones. One of the most notable examples was the Brontosaurus ("thunder lizard", though much larger dinosaurs were discovered later that would have made bigger thunder when they walked than Bronto). But it had the wrong head. In 1903, the mistake was corrected and Apatosaurus ("deceptive lizard") was made. 

The story goes that the Brontosaurus never existed (for fun and more information on the Bone Wars, check out this yet-to-be-updated article at NPR). Funny how this is one of many things that evolutionists don't do very well in getting information to the public, since the Brontosaurus took a long time to fade from the scene — the US Postal Service issued a stamp of the thing in 1989. 

There are larger things than the Brontosaurus to consider, such as scientific classifications and labeling. A dinosaur isn't even a lizard (check the bodily placement difference between lizard legs and dinosaur legs, for one thing). Scientists dispute the definition of a species, and whether or not to classify something as a separate species. Now paleontologists are wondering about their systems of classifying genus and species in their work as well. Not that a dinosaur would care what you called it. I can call a standarbred horse an American quarter horse, but it won't change what it really is, and Silver won't care what you call him.

There may be some scientific revisionism in the air, though.
With the resurrection of Brontosaurus as a valid dinosaur name after a century of repudiation, what’s a kid to think? Thoughts on science’s arbitrary and tentative nature.

Eight-year-olds used to brag about correcting their parents who said “Brontosaurus.” The correct name is “Apatosaurus,” the kid would be quick to say. Now the parent has a comeback: Brontosaurus is a valid name for some of the members of the Diplodocidae, according to a new reclassification of the giant sauropods by a team led by Emanuel Tschopp from Nova University of Lisbon, according to Nature. His team studied all the known fossils of the beasts and concluded that Edward Cope’s name Brontosaurus (“thunder lizard”) is valid, because there are enough distinguishable traits to distinguish it from Othniel Marsh’s earlier find that he had named Apatosaurus (“deceptive lizard”).

Tschopp says he did not start out to resurrect Brontosaurus, but his team’s analysis decided enough differences warranted the reversal. “The Smithsonian Institution accused USPS of favoring ‘cartoon nomenclature to scientific nomenclature,’” Michael Balter writes in Science Magazine. “It didn’t help that the stamps were officially launched at Disney World.” The cartoonists may have the last laugh. Undoubtedly some parents will enjoy rubbing it in to their kids: “See? I was right!” dad will say. “We were both right!” may be the retort.
To finish reading, stomp on over to "Of Brontosaurus, Cartoons, and Revisionism".

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

Wednesday, April 8, 2015


Did you hear about the huge guinea pig fossil? They reckon that bad boy was about 2,000 pounds (907 kg). I'd like to say, "Bacon!", but the guinea pig is a rodent, not a pig. And they're not from Guinea. Darwinists have a thing they call "Cope's Rule", which is supposed to mean that things evolve to be larger (but this idea falls apart when the bad logic is exposed.) There are many large things in the fossil record, and creationists have speculations as to why they were bigger then, but critters just don't grow that big anymore. I suppose evolutionists will invoke "evolutionary stasis" or something.

The fossil record shows that many things grew much larger in the distant past. Why don't we see things that big today? Creationists have some ideas about this.

Back to Ultra Rodent and His Stupendous Friends. Things were larger back then, even though Cope's erroneous "rule" is not exactly seen in action. What happened to the big guys?
As if living creatures don’t display enough variety in God’s creation, fossil forms bring that diversity to a whole new level. Consider the fossil skull of a guinea pig from Uruguay so big the living rodent might have weighed 2,000 pounds! Size estimates vary, but any rodent even close to a buffalo’s bulk attracts attention. Surprisingly, its largest modern relatives only reach about knee high, and the common guinea pig pets are no bigger than a rabbit. Why don’t we see buffalo-sized guinea pigs today? Examining the history of five other humongous or fearsome creatures may help answer this question.
It's not a big task to finish reading, just click on "One-Ton Guinea Pig".

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

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Cicadas Living and Dying in Unison

Cicadas are all over the world, but like many other living things, different kinds live in different areas. The "periodical cicadas" (also called Magicadas) are not found on a chemistry table of elements, so don't look there, Hoss. Those critters are mostly in the eastern part of North America. They're not a pest and don't seem to be much good (except as food for other things) and they make a lot of noise.

Periodical cicadas (Magicadas) are baffling to evolutionists with their timing to live, emerge, and die in unison. Also, they are beneficial, a product of the Creator's design.
Public Doman, from Insects, their way and means of living,by R. E. Snodgrass (Plate 7).
"Them's good eatin'. Do you want them deep fried or stir-fry?"

I'll pass right now, but you go right ahead, old son.

Periodical cicadas are baffling to Darwinistas because they live underground for years, then different broods appear in huge swarms. The adults live for a month, mate, and die in unison. (Sounds like it would make for a good country music song.) How do they know? Also, they seem useless at first, but they're actually beneficial.
They march out of the ground a mighty throng. In multitudes of more than a million and a half per acre, they reach plague-like proportions. Among the most familiar of all insects in eastern North America, they are the periodical cicadas.

Insects grab our attention for lots of reasons, both good and bad. Honeybees delight us with sweetness; butterflies entrance us with beauty; wasps frighten us with pain; lightning bugs glow in the dark; and praying mantises are just big, cool-looking predators.

What about cicadas? Well, they’re biggish bugs, but they don’t sting or glow or devastate crops or produce honey, and they’re certainly not rare. What’s fascinating about periodical cicadas is their sheer numbers and the mysterious timing of their emergence from hiding.
To read the rest, you can fly over to "Periodical Cicadas—Synchronized Swarming". In addition, here is some material on their math skills. And if you want to know when Magicadas are scheduled to appear in your area, click on this link to Cicada Mania.

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

Monday, April 6, 2015

Why do Biblical Creationists Emphasize a Young Earth?

There are supporters of old earth theology who insist that the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth. True, there is nothing explicitly saying that the world was created on 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC, or something similar. OECs (Old Earth Creationists) sometimes claim that biblical creation (YEC, or Young Earth Creation) is something new, and belief in an old earth has been the default position of Christians throughout church history. Not hardly. Belief in recent creation has been taught by the church fathers and the reformers, and getting an ancient planet or universe out of the Bible only comes through eisegesis.

Malicious Advice Mallard does not want you to learn from the sources.
Although church fathers and Reformers can help establish facts of history and offer important insight into Scripture, they were not writing Scripture itself. The opinions of people aren't as important as what Scripture teaches, and what can be reasonably inferred from the Bible. (Some owlhoots actually saddle up and ride with atheists in attacking biblical creationists! An old earth is essential for evolution. Then they claim that we are the ones being divisive for using a historical-grammatical interpretation. ) What does the Bible teach, and how should we respond to Christians who want to believe in an old earth, and claim that teaching a young earth actually interferes with presenting the gospel message?
While CMI predictably regularly receives feedback from sceptics criticizing our stance on creation, some Christians also write in who believe that creation is actually harmful to biblical Christianity. C.M. from the US writes:

The damage you people are doing to the credibility of the Christian worldview is simply incalculable. You are attempting to force upon intelligent people a false dilemma: either believe in the well-established facts of geology, or believe in YOUR unreasonable and incorrect interpretations of Gen1 and Rom 8:19–22. Correct Biblical interpretation requires that vague or ambiguous words and passages be interpreted using the light provided by clear words and passages. In Genesis chap 2 the word "day" clearly means "era." There is no sound reason to invent a DIFFERENT meaning for the same word in Gen 1. Similarly, you cannot ignore a biblical passage’s context & hope to arrive at a correct interpretation. Paul is speaking to humans ABOUT humans in Romans. What type of vicious God would punish poodles and potted plants for a human being’s sin? What kind of monster do you "Christian" saboteurs worship? May God forgive you the ENORMOUS damage you have done and will do.
You can see the response by clicking on "Does creation damage Christianity’s credibility?" In addition, I suggest reading "Is Biblical Creation a Distraction to Evangelism?" 

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