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, March 31, 2016

The Beginning of Plate Tectonics

Old-Earth scientists insist that "the present is the key to the past". Except when it isn't. Since uniformitarianism has too many flaws, they will invoke rapid changes and historical catastrophes to explain some things — and then go back to their previous philosophies.

Plate tectonics probably began with the Genesis Flood
Image credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
It's been known for quite some time now that the continental plates are moving and colliding (hope we don't get whiplash). Scientists want to know how things happen, that's part of their job. Secularists have no idea how plate tectonics started, but decided to invoke a sudden change in Earth's past — they even have computer simulations. Biblical creationists have a very different view that works more effectively, but secularists don't cotton to the notion of considering the recent activity of the global Genesis Flood.
It has long been a puzzle to secular geologists as to how conventional slow-and-gradual plate tectonics got started. But recently a multi-national research team, led by geophysicist Taras Gerya at ETH-Zurich in Switzerland, has claimed to finally have a solution. Their co-authored paper was published on November 12, 2015, in one of the leading weekly science journals.

Solving a Problem
It is currently widely believed among secular geologists that early in the earth’s history the earth’s entire surface was covered by a thick, cold, and buoyant layer of basaltic crust that acted to keep the earth’s surface rigid and motionless. It has therefore been a puzzle how plate tectonics might have gotten started under these unfavorable, early conditions. By contrast, in today’s world, new subduction zones seem to be explainable through existing plate forces and existing zones of lithospheric (crustal) weakness. But in the scenario secular geologists imagine for the early earth, there are no zones of lithospheric weakness or any plate-driving forces.
To read the rest, click on "How Did Plate Tectonics Get Started on Earth?"

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

T-Rex Missing Link

The latest contestant on Darwin's Got Talent is singing an old song with a new verse tacked on. This time, the old song, "We Found a Missing Link!" has a new verse about a T-Rex link. The scientism press is delirious from the Dar-wine, and their intoxication shows up in the propaganda mill reporting. Naturalistic scientists aren't helping much.

Despite the science press going wild over a supposed T-Rex missing link, what they are reporting and the actual facts are entirely different reptiles.
Image incorporates elements derived from Clker clipart.
Fact of the matter is, that missing link is mighty cracked and blurry. Bones were found over a wide area for a period of years, so don't let someone fool you that they found an intact skeleton in one place. But not all secular scientists are singing the new verse to the song, as there's a heap of problems with this so-called link. Oh, but artists took the liberty of adding feathers so they can further the falsehood about dinosaurs evolving into birds, even though there were no feathers found. Sure are determined to pretend that evolution is true and that God didn't do the creating, aren't they?
From a few bone fragments and lots of imagination, reporters lit the fireworks and marching bands to spin stories for Darwin.

Whenever you see the phrase “missing link,” be prepared for a media circus. This time it’s about a horse-sized tyrannosaur fossil discovered in Uzbekistan. From 15 scattered bone fragments (7 of them vertebrae), Steven Brusatte and team have deduced it was a missing link. The find was published in PNAS; simultaneously, Brusatte crowed on The Conversation about his “Evolution Story” with a large banner of an artist’s rendition of the feathery monster walking on a beach. On cue, reporters started the drum roll and fanfare, prepared with artwork on their banners. The parade was on!
To read the rest of this revealing article, click on "Media Go Nuts Over Alleged Tyrannosaur Missing Link". Also, try "Tyrannosaur Ancestral Tree Remains Limbless".

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Science, Faith, and Reality

Atheists and evolutionists interpret scientific evidence from their worldviews, but many do not want to admit this fact. The biblical worldview is the only one that makes sense of reality.

Atheists and evolutionists don't cotton to the notion that they operate from their worldviews, which are comprised of presuppositions. Some will even claim that they believe in science, reason and reality. What they don't realize is that those are philosophical claims, based on their worldviews.

"Empirical science is the only way to learn truth and reality", some have said. This is a self-refuting statement, because no scientific method can make this metaphysical determination! To claim that reason and reality are based on naturalistic approaches is a question-begging presupposition as well. They have disdain for faith, but that comes from a faulty definition, along the lines of "believing something you know isn't true". Definitions matter. For example, this definition of "fundamentalist", which I have yet to find in a dictionary:

The atheistic and evolutionary worldview cannot account for logic, morality, reason, origins — and offers no real hope. Only the biblical worldview makes sense, and offers the ultimate hope.
‘Prove to me that God created everything!’ Have you had anyone say that to you? Or ‘Prove to me that God exists’? Have you ever tried to do that, but encountered a brick wall of resistance where the challenger dismisses anything you have to offer? Your friend might even say, ‘You just have faith, you have no evidence, I base my beliefs on evidence.’

What is going on here? Your friend is beginning with a different worldview, an over-arching view of everything through which he/she interprets the evidence. The common non-Christian worldview in the West nowadays is secularism/atheism based upon naturalism. This has no place for a divine Creator and certainly not the One the Bible reveals, or the history of His works recorded in the Bible. Your arguments seem to fall on deaf ears.

The Bible says that such people have no excuse for adopting a view that excludes God. Romans 1:18 says that they are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness because God’s existence is evident from what He has created (vv. 19ff).
To read the rest, click on "Faith and facts — How a biblical worldview makes best sense of the evidence, such that the unbeliever has ‘no excuse’". Also, I recommend "Can atheists know meaning and purpose?"

Monday, March 28, 2016

Growing Gorillas on the Family Tree

The Evo Sith are getting a mite concerned about where to put gorillas on the family tree. Since gorillas and great apes have enough differences, they reckoned that there was branching way back on this alleged tree. Humans are supposed to be more closely related to the great apes, such as chimpanzees, but there's that little problem with the human genome similarity to gorillas. New problems have arisen.

The placement of gorillas on our family tree is causing difficulties for evolutionists. The "split" supposedly happened earlier, and in a different location.
Smirking gorilla image credit: Freeimages / brandon moats
Reassessment of dating is giving a new date to the branching off from the family tree, and Darwinists are none to happy about it, since it's much earlier and seems to have been in a different location than was previously thought. How do they come up with those dates, anyway? Assumptions, presuppositions, circular reasoning all help a heap. Whatever it takes to deny the Creator who made all things without evolution, and much more recently than evolutionist want to believe.
How much time separated the origin of gorillas and chimpanzees? Enquiring evolutionary minds want to know! Why? Because they think humans share the chimp branch of the evolutionary tree of life, and they want to know how long it took for humanity’s uniqueness to evolve.

Evolutionary opinions about how long each step in this process took have varied greatly. Even where they took place has been hotly debated, thanks to the dearth of ancient African gorilla fossils. The 8-million-year age now assigned to nine fairly modern-looking gorilla teeth found in Ethiopia’s Afar Rift, reported in Nature in February 2016, has fueled the suggestion that the chimpanzee-human branch diverged from its lineage shared with gorillas much earlier than previously thought—and that it did so in Africa.
To read the rest of the article, click on 'The Gorilla-Human “Split”: Where Do Gorillas Hang On Our Family Tree?'


Sunday, March 27, 2016

Resurrection Sunday 2016

Today, most professing Christians celebrate the bodily resurrection of Jesus, God the Son, the Creator (John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Heb. 1:2, Col. 1:16) from the dead (John 20:19-20, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). He died and rose, even for my own sinful self. My post for today is "The Resurrection and Our Broken Planet". 

On a side note, I kind of like this painting by Peter Paul Rubens. Jesus is very real and triumphant. Okay, so the wounds are not seen (John 20:19-20), and I don't get the symbolic banner he's carrying. But it's better than the goofy floating away ethereal Jesus of some paintings.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Genome Increasingly Unfriendly to Evolution

When using language, there are basic rules for proper communication, especially in written form. Using dialects, slang, idioms and such can make you mighty hard to understand when writing off a letter to greenhorns. Like so.

Computer languages are very complex and specific, and an error in coding can disrupt the entire process in some cases, or render something tedious at best, such as faulty HTML code. Computer languages are very linear, going in only one direction. What if a language worked in several directions, including three dimensions?

Evolutionists think DNA supports their view, but in fact, it refutes it. To make matters worse, the language of DNA was discovered to be even more complex.

Proselytizers of goo-to-geneticist evolution often assert that DNA proves evolution. Not hardly! Genetics research is not a good employee at the Darwin Ranch, contributing information that affirms creation instead of evolution. The genome is amazingly complex and structured, obviously the product of our Designer.
A recent press release from a prominent European research group started off with this amazing proclamation: “A new study from Karolinska Institutet shows that the ‘grammar’ of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world.” Such a statement could not be more true or refreshing. The evolution-dominated research community consistently downplays the overwhelming evidence of intelligent design found in the human genome.

Many different languages exist in the genome, just as many different computer languages exist on your computer. They all work together to provide meaning, context, and function to the physical hardware of the system. Without information expressed in programming languages, your computer would be nothing but an expensive paperweight. Complex encoded information with syntax, grammar, structure, and rules are required to run complex systems.
To finish reading, click on "Complex Grammar in the Genome Defies Evolution".

Friday, March 25, 2016

We've Evolved — Now What?

Some people need to get out and experience life more. Especially those who are foisting evolutionary thinking on the rest of us. You see, they're spending so much paradigm time locked into a Darwinist mindset, they are presenting things that are mighty stupid. According to their timeline, humanity evolved, then sat around doing nothing for many thousands of years. Maybe that's why it's a "great mystery" when cities, artifacts and such are found showing not only intelligence, but ambition. Were they helped by ancient aliens? Not hardly!

Evolutionary theory fails civilization time
Assembled from images found at openclipart
Secular scientists tend to display a lack of understanding about human nature, especially the important part about being intelligently designed by God, who created us not so long ago. Our scientific and technological development ran at full gallop and we progressed a long way in a short time. But no, we were supposed to have sat around for a long spell. What for, waiting for our paint to dry?
Even stupid people don’t sit around in caves for tens of thousands of years.

Two evolutionists publishing in PLoS One need to take a refresher course in human nature. In their paper on “cultural evolution” and “technological evolution,” they posit two antithetical propositions: (1) that 100,000 years ago, human ancestors were smart enough to travel the world and share technology with other people groups, (2) nothing significant happened civilization-wise till a few thousand years ago. Science Daily describes ground zero for their story:
To find out their story and other interesting items, click on "Human Evolution Timeline Contradicts Human Nature". 

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Would Evidence for Radiometric Dating Stand Up in a Court of Law?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Forensic science is very important in obtaining evidence about the past. Naturally, the more recent the evidence, the more persuasive it is, especially in a court of law. To send someone to jail or certain other instances nowadays in American courts, guilt must be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt". In small-claims court, someone needs "a preponderance of the evidence". Good thing that procedures have advanced from the time of "Hanging Judge" Isaac Parker, who tried 13,490 cases his ownself and sentenced 160 who were convicted to death by hanging (but only 79 actually attended a necktie party).

Evolution and radiometric dating use forensic science, but we're not talking about what happened last week or a few months ago. Rather, these are the ultimate "cold case files", supposedly going back millions of years. Radiometric dating is a mite different though, since the measurements of parent-daughter materials are done in the present, but require several assumptions about the past.

Origins and the age of the Earth are forensic sciences. Would radiometric dating stand up in a court of law? Here is an imagined discussion, and then several links on radiometric dating for your research and reference.
Image composed of graphics obtained at Clker clipart.
So, I was spending some time thinking —

"I thought I smelled wood burning!"

We're getting close to the campfire — hey! Stop playing.

As I was saying, I was thinking about someone presenting radiometric dating to convince a court about the age of the Earth. Would a judge or jury be able to make a ruling? Dealing with matters of science in court can be a fiasco, as in the 2005 Dover case, but let's let the mustangs of our imagination run free for a spell.

"I would now like to examine the witness' evidence to support the validity of radiometric dating, if it pleases the court".

"What material do you test to determine the age of the Earth?"

"The best source material comes from meteorites."

"Meteorites? What on Earth for?" (Chuckling in courtroom at the play on words.)

"Because certain meteorites contain the purest substance from the formation of the solar system, and are uncontaminated."

"Can you support your assertion?"

"Well, we have several theories about the formation of the solar system after the Big Bang—"

"I'll take that as a no, then. How about the testing for radioactivity?"

"We have several methods, including potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and so on. We know the half-life of radioactive elements, Potassium-40 is 1.248×109 years, so we calculate how much potassium and argon are in the sample and use our formulas."

"How do you know the amounts of potassium of potassium and argon were there at the beginning?"

"Well, uh, we're scientists, so, it's complicated".

"In other words, you do not know how much was there at the beginning. Moving on, how do you know if the decay rate remained constant, and whether or not material was added or removed?"

"That's complicated, too."

"I see. You mentioned uranium to lead."

"Yes, there are several materials that we can compare."

"Do these methods agree with each other in the results?"

"No, they can vary greatly."

"So, what do you do when the results differ?"

"We choose the one that we feel is the most accurate."

"Rather subjective, isn't it? You're basing the results on presuppositions and assumptions. So far, we have a whole heap of assumptions, old son."

"Back off, man, we're scientists!"

"Didn't mean to put a burr under your saddle. Or did I? Anyway, what about other methods to determine the age of the Earth, aside from radiometric dating? These give results for a much younger Earth, don't they?"

"Yes, but those cannot be trusted because the results are much too young."

"What about Carbon-14?"

"That is useless for rocks because it only works on organic materials."

"Are the Carbon-14 results reliable? My mother-in-law has been carbon dated to 20,000 years, but I know for a fact that she is only 523 years old."

(Laughter in the court. Judge bangs gavel and demands order.)

"Seriously, though, are the results reliable?"

"Yes, reasonably accurate."

"You said that Carbon-14 is only used on organic materials. I know that it has a half-life of 5,730 years, so there should be none found in old rocks and things. Yet it's been found in 'ancient' things like coal and diamonds."

"That's due to contamination!"

Kind of impugning the work of many scientists in many labs there, aren't you? So those results are rejected out of hand as unreliable when they conflict with your paradigm. In other words, you've already decided that the Earth is ancient. After all, when Kelvin told Darwin about his young Earth calculations, Darwin said, 'I am greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according to Sir W. Thomson, for I require for my theoretical views a very long period before the Cambrian formation'. Your cherry-picked results are selected to enable evolution to happen, which requires large amounts of time.

"Your honor, I recommend that this witness be disqualified, since he is biased and selects 'answers' according to his ideological preferences!"

That's kind of how I think it would go if someone were to present radiometric dating as evidence in court; even a hangin' judge would want better evidence and reasoning before rendering a verdict. 

 The public tends to believe what scientists say because they're scientists. Fact is, in many areas, they are full of the east wind. Biblical creationists encourage people to utilize critical thinking so they can see the poor reasoning used to support evolution and long-age thinking.

Radiometric dating is loaded with difficulties and assumptions, including cherry-picked data and biases. There is a great deal of evidence that Earth is young, created recently. Here are some links to give you further information — scientific things that the anti-creationists keep under wraps. These range from lay level to highly technical.
The links will take you to some reliable information, but feel free to search those sites (and this one as well) for further information on radiometric dating and other information on evolution and such.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Flighty Evolutionary Fantasies

Purveyors of molecules-to-mallard evolution believe they have some ducky explanations for the origins of flight in various creatures, but they have one small problem: the explanations are anti-science. Sure, they sound good to the uneducated and will satisfy True Believers®, but cannot withstand scrutiny.

Evolutionists present explanations for the origin of flight, but they are superficial, faith-based, and do not withstand scrutiny and reason.
"Swallow in Flight" image credit: morgueFile / AcrylicArtist
Evolution is supposed to be gradual and accidental, relying on mutations (with a bit of help from natural selection). When different creatures have similar abilities, Darwinists use the fact-free faith-based claim of "convergent evolution". What makes things worse for them is that for something to evolve the ability to fly, everything has to be in place at the same time for this to happen. Otherwise, nothing makes sense, and evolving the necessary apparatus for flight one piece at a time would be harmful for the organism; such specified complexity happening by time and chance is ridiculous. No, there's no evolution happening, old son. The Creator designed critters to fly, and they do it quite well.
Examples of complexity in the natural world are not hard to come by. Living creatures all are examples of irreducible complexity. This phenomenon is well known in design engineering and refers to the fact that there are mechanisms which only work when everything works together. This is certainly true in the natural world as many mechanisms right down to the molecular world show that this is the case. The cell will not work without all the DNA machinery being in place, as very ably demonstrated by Behe.1 One of the best examples of complexity which defies a series of “gradual” changes is flight. Dawkins2 sought to try to justify such an idea of gradually producing flight, but showed very little understanding of the fundamental engineering principles involved in aerodynamics and control. He even suggested there may be wingless ancestors that, living in water, raised their gills to make primitive sails which then evolved into the flapping wings of insects as they got lifted by the wind.3 Insect flight and flapping motion is far more than having appendages to the body, and all engineers know this.

For controlled, heavier-than-air flight, there are four fundamental requirements: (1) A correct wing shape to give a lower air pressure on the upper surface; (2) a large enough wing area to support the weight; (3) some means of propulsion or gliding; and (4) extra surfaces, or a means of altering the main surfaces, in order to change direction and speed.

Flight occurs in many groups of the living world: (a) birds; (b) insects—flies, bees, wasps, butterflies, moths; (c) mammals—bats; (d) reptiles—the extinct pterosaurs (e.g., pterodactyls and pteranodons).
To read the rest, wing on over to "The Intricacies of Flight in the Natural World".

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Can Animals Travel by Raft?

Sometimes, evolutionists want to throw down on biblical creationists by saying something like, "How did the animals spread all over the world after the Genesis Flood? Aha! I've got you!"

"No you haven't. There were land bridges, and some probably used rafts — "

"Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!"

One explanation for migration of animals after the Genesis Flood is by rafting. In fact, such behavior is observed today - in our debris!
Image credit: morgueFile / stickerstack
Naturally, there are plausible answers for animal migration, but tinhorns like that are more interested in ridicule than actually finding the answers that are easily found online, such as, "How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed?" Now, I don't reckon that they set up a great adventure like in an animated movie or anything like that. Some were probably accidental trips, whether long distances or short ones.

One bit of observed support for the rafting idea is from our own trash. Those are little ones, but larger makeshift rafts are made through natural processes. Migration and diversity are not evidence for evolution. In fact, they are evidence of our Creator's design process.
A research study about floating plastic debris illustrates how animals can cross oceans on floating rafts.

It’s a huge worry: plastic waste floating in the ocean is harming whales, dolphins and other sea creatures. But it can also serve as a transportation system for small animals. A press release from the University of Florida explains how various species can hitch a ride on barnacles and mussels that are able to fasten onto slick plastic bottles.
To finish reading, click on "Land Animals Can Raft Across Oceans".

Monday, March 21, 2016

Big Flood, Smaller Floods, and the English Channel

Secular geologists rely on uniformitarianism as a de facto explanation for many things. "The present is the key to the past", that is, present processes extrapolated backward give long ages. This is invoked to try and explain away catastrophism where the Genesis Flood is used by biblical creationists to explain what we see in land forms and such. When the evidence is overwhelming, uniformitarian geologists reluctantly allow that catastrophic flooding did indeed happen. Sometimes. They're riding the right trail, but refuse to admit that the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for observed evidence.

Secular geologists are reluctantly allowing that floods are explanations for many observed land forms and such. The Genesis Flood is by far the best explanation.
English Channel image credit: Pixabay / alexandria
Research in the English Channel and the rest of the North Sea is yielding evidence that massive flooding is the reason that the British Isles are separated from the rest of the continent. This is added to the list of other flooding explanations, including subglacial and the Lake Missoula flood, which are subsequent floods as a result of the Genesis Flood.
Recently the Brits have found out what really separated them from mainland Europe: catastrophic flooding! And not once but twice! Detailed studies of the bottom of the English Channel have revealed an ancient river valley that once collected the waters of the Thames, Somme, Rhine-Meuse and the Scheldt—rivers that all discharge today into the North Sea.

High resolution imagery of the seafloor has not only revealed an ancient river but also clear signs of large-scale flooding (megafloods)—signs like flat-topped, elongated and streamlined islands up to 10 km long and 4 km wide, plus grooves nearly 200 m wide, 2–3 m deep and 10–15 km long.
To read the rest, click on "Wild, wild floods! — North Sea Megaflood".

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Preserved Original Caddisfly Material?

Ever get bugged with a caddisfly infestation and have to call the exterminator? Not surprising, since there are 1,200 species in the U.S. of A alone. They're misnamed, since these moth-like creatures are of a different scientific order than flies. They live on land, but the larvae are in silk structures in the water. Caddisflies are good in their own environment, and even beneficial, but we prefer that they stay out of our homes. Also, they're often considered pests (including Potomac horse fever), and are pestering paleontologists.

The list of original biological material in fossils may increase yet again. The lowly caddisfly is a pest to many people, including paleontologists.
Platte River caddisfly image credit: Jeanine Lackey / USFWS
This is another life form that cannot be accounted for according to bacteria-to-bug evolution. Another living fossil, their alleged millions-of-years-old ancestors are pretty much the same as the ones we see today. A larger potential problem is that a jumble of terrestrial and aquatic fossils includes what may be yet more organic material of their silk, which cannot last for millions of years. The evidence continues to mount that Earth is thousands of years old and was deluged by the Genesis Flood.
Numerous amazing fossils supposedly millions of years old contain original, non-mineralized biomolecules like collagen, elastin, ovalbumin, DNA, laminin, melanin, hemoglobin, and chitin. A new study presents evidence suggesting this list should now include silk.

Brazilian and Polish researchers described what look like caddisfly larvae silk structures in layered shale rocks from southern Brazil. The white silk-like strands stand out from the surrounding dark gray shale. The authors' results appear in the online journal Scientific Reports. Known as underwater engineers, some species of caddisfly larvae spin special sticky silk homes to which they attach organic debris for camouflage. The fossilized caddisfly casings also had ancient debris attached to them.
To read the rest, click on "Delicate Silk Fossils Point to Creation".


Friday, March 18, 2016

Baffling Oceanic Life Form Supposedly Explains Evolution

From the "What is that?" Department, we bring you the enigmatic Xenoturbella (strange flatworm). It looks like abandoned footwear, or a deflated balloon, or a lost toy, or just some other piece of litter that sank to the ocean floor. Yet, it's a living creature that causes debate among scientists. Xenoturbella has genome bits from various creatures, and some scientists think it eats mollusks. But how? No innards to speak of for digestion, no brain, no backbone — I think I'm describing some of my stalkers too, but never mind about that now.

A strange creature in the ocean that baffles scientists in many ways is supposed to be able to tell us about evolution. Yeah, sounds silly to me, too.
"Newspaper" headlines and title generated at AddLetters.com.
Darwin's cheerleaders are committed to the cause can see evolution in practically everything, I'll allow that change happens, but something changing into something else has never been observed, you savvy? And these owlhoots are thinking that this critter that cannot be explained can help them pin down evolutionary origins. Not hardly! Although fascinating, Xenoturbella is not evidence for evolution by any stretch. (Mayhaps we shouldn't be surprised, since evolutionists pulled the same kind of stunt with the acorn worm.) Actually, I reckon that it shows the Creator's sense of humor, design, and is a reminder to pompous scientists that they really don't know as much as they seem to think.
Resembling a discarded purple sock, Xenoturbella has baffled scientists since its early 20th century discovery on the seafloor off the coast of Sweden. Its classification among the many creatures in the animal kingdom has shifted like the tides as each new bit of information about it has surfaced. Furthermore, Xenoturbella’s proper placement on the tree of life has long been a matter of debate among evolutionists. Now, analysis of four newly discovered species from the Pacific Basin has refined its taxonomic position and led evolutionists to declare with confidence that Xenoturbella can help us learn how animals and humans evolved their internal organs.
To read the rest, click on 'Do Deep-Sea “Purple Socks” Hold Early Evolutionary Secrets?' — if you have the intestinal fortitude.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Natural Selection Jabberwocky

I can't for the life of me figure out why the hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass get paid so well. They spread propaganda like a farmer flings fertilizer on the fields, but they lack understanding of evolution itself as well as their favorite excuses, such as endosymbiosis. Even though orthodox Darwinism's belief in natural selection as a means to get something to change into something else altogether, it's not happening. They really need to be more circumspect in their use of the term natural selection.

There are still Darwinists who believe that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. But they don't even understand what it is.
Sign assembled at AddLetters.com
While natural selection does occur because our Creator designed it, Darwinoids act like it's a sentient being that is able to guide the process. More than that, they are unclear on the term itself, and obfuscate natural selection along with artificial selection, and other "selections". Their reports make less sense than Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky".
If humans guide a process, that is not natural selection. Darwin’s idea had nothing to do with intention or morality.

Is it the reporters or the scientists at the University of Colorado who don’t get Darwin? A press release titled “‘‘Natural selection’ could lead to amazing new materials” gets evolutionary theory all wrong.
To read the rest, select "Misuse of Term ‘Natural Selection’ Continues".

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Stifling Creationists Through Misrepresentation

One of the foundations of atheism is fungus-to-philosopher evolution, and when logical, scientific, and theological arguments are presented against it, they circle the wagons to fend off the truth.

Both atheists and theistic evolutionists attack biblical creationists through various means. But God's Word is their only hope.

Although atheists claim to use reason and logic, they frequently fail at both; an evolutionary worldview is incoherent, and cannot account for science, morality, and other necessary preconditions of intelligibility. If we're just bundles of matter responding to our inner chemistry, there is nothing wrong when one bundle eliminates another bundle if it helps the first bundle's ability to thrive. That would be a logical conclusion to Darwinism. Indeed, they have no consistent moral compass when they say that something is wrong, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview, which can make sense of morality. The same with science. Without God the Creator as described in the Bible, consistency in laws of nature is impossible.

Posted under Fair Use for educational purposes. 
Bigotry, misrepresentation, prejudicial conjecture, ad hominem attacks, massive ego — no need for
me to spend serious time on this troll. The exchange was longer, but this screenshot give you the idea.
When people get like this, it's time to move on.
The atheistic and evolutionary worldview has no message of hope, just "blind, pitiless indifference" according to Clinton Richard Dawkins. You're here by chance (all the way back to the Big Bang), life has no meaning, there is no consistent standard of morality, you're worm food when you die, there is no ultimate justice or Judgement. No wonder they have more depression and a high suicide rate! Their only hope is in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23, John 1:12), and they hate him. Unbelievers are at enmity with God, even when they pretend God doesn't exist (John 1:10, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 3:10-18, Psalm 14:1, John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4). Being Satan's hand puppets, unbelievers team up with their useful idiot allies, the theistic evolutionists, to ridicule biblical creationists.

Why attack biblical creationists? Simply stated, we believe the Bible and offer the hope that they reject. Also, we uphold the authority of Scripture. I reckon that the theistic evolutionists, who have such a low view of Scripture, are actually Deists in many cases, so they get along right well with misotheists in attacking us. They utilize several tactics that are basically attempts to manipulate people emotionally into rejecting God and the foundations of Scripture found in Genesis. There are appeals to "what about the children?", simple ad hominem attacks, emotive name-calling (such as "Fundie", whatever that means to them), straw man arguments, false analogies, and more. Misrepresenting creationists seems to be a pastime, and some even make it their missions in life to "refute" us and present the unquestioned "truth" of evolutionism.

I recommend a rather long but very informative article, "The portrayal of creationists by their evolutionist detractors" for more information on how they operate. In addition, atheists will pretend to be Christians and attack us from the "fellow believer" approach. (I have experienced some theistic evolutionists who acted just like atheists in their vitriol and unchristian approaches, including an Anglican "pastor", as well as other tinhorns that I have discussed elsewhere.) It's amazing how some people who hate God, the Bible, and creationists try to educate us on what God says and means in his Word! In a letter to Creation Ministries International, someone claiming to be "Father" launched an attack on them. I think he was a faker and would have dismissed his rant out of hand, but Lita Cosner gave an excellent response.
We thought the following exchange would illustrate to readers the type of correspondence that CMI receives on a regular basis, not just from secularists, but from professing Christians. This priest's ignorance about what creationists believe illustrates exactly why ministries like CMI need to exist and, thus, need your support.
Fr Jason A. F. B. Ph.D. wrote:

Seeing that you people believe in Hell, how do you figure that your level of ignorance, bigotry, hate, corruption, and abuse to others (especially your own children) will provide any entry way into this mystical vision of Heaven that you are so keen on faithing into existence? You use every logical fallacy ever, and have even seen to invent new ones, purely to falsely assert your claims. Any and seemingly all "evidence" you provide is provided from similar pro-creationist sites, all of which take actual facts out of context in order to misguide people into your beliefs. As an actual holder of a doctorate (no offense to "plant grower" Dr? Batten), I find this entire site to be a mockery to Christianity, Jesus Christ's very own teachings, and a serious offense to God. You intentionally contradict the very faith you believe in, in order to attack non-believers (which you aren't very good at). By the way, my doctorates are in theological anthropology and in psychology (Fordham Jesuit University). It has always been somewhat of a joke in "actual" theological discussions that fundamentalist and creationists were egotistical "nuts" who have been brainwashed and are no better than terrorists. I can see (after thoroughly reviewing your site) that this is not the case. I would like to make a formal apolog…to the people I called rude for mocking creationism. After seeing this site, it has become abundantly clear to me, and others who I have forwarded, that these pages of "blasphemy and immoral substance" is a complete contradiction to God's wishes. Personal attacks are un-Christian, and it seems that this "debate" between Creationism and Science is purely has evolved into nothing but hate and intolerance towards human beings for reasons that are detrimental for both sides.
To read the rest of his diatribe and then the response, click on "Priest calls CMI heretical".

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Octopus Continues to Defy Evolution

One of many critters that cause consternation for Darwinistas is that eight-legged octopus. How did it evolve, and from what? "Well, we think maybe, perhaps, could be..." Never mind. Octopuses were created to be what they are, and they didn't evolve, same as their nautilus cousins.

Then you have the size range as well as variety. Octopus wolfi is about an inch (2.54 cm) long, and it has a cousin, the giant Pacific octopus, that has been measured at 16 feet (4.88 m) long. I bet those marine biologists get wrapped up in their work! It appears that all octopuses are venomous to some extent, but only the blue-ringed octopus is dangerous to humans. Just leave it alone and everybody's happy. Some new information has been ridden into the data corral, too.

Another critter that annoys evolutionists is the octopus, with its lack of evolutionary evidence, variety, intelligence — and genome.
Image credit: NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program
These cephalopods are intelligent as well as having unique survival abilities. Their genome was examined, and scientists were surprised to learn that its genome is long. In fact, it's about the size of the human genome.
The amazing octopus continues to astonish scientists and the public. Every facet of this invertebrate has surprised researchers, from its extremely rapid ability to change color and disappear into the background, to its amazing intelligence.

"Octopuses are highly intelligent creatures," says Claire Little, a marine biologist at the Weymouth Sealife Center in southwest England. "They're probably the most intelligent invertebrate that we're aware of. They are classed as intelligent as the general home pet dog."
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Octopus Genome as Large as Human Genome".  


Monday, March 14, 2016

Neanderthal Genes and Allergies

Can you imagine a cowboy working the Montana Territory with allergy problems? All that dust, animal hair, hay and such — may as well go back East. When you commence to sneezing, your immune system is trying to protect you. Sometimes it gets a mite overwrought and reacts to things that are not necessarily threats, and for some people it goes into hyperdrive with a severe allergic reaction. Where did this come from?

Our immune system was created to do a job and is not the product of random evolution. But why do we have allergies? Perhaps they have something to do with genes passed on from the Neanderthal people from way back.
Image credit: David Castillo Dominici at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Scientists aren't exactly sure how allergies develop and what can be done about them. They do know that we have two types of immune systems, the innate and the adaptive. A study was done tracing some genes back to the Neanderthals, which were passed along when these "archaic" but fully-human people interbred with modern humans. However, there is no rational reason to think that genetic information came about through the random processes of evolution. Our immune system was created to do a job.
Neanderthals are getting the rap for our allergies. Or rather the early modern humans who mixed with them are.

Recent data suggests that modern Eurasians inherited 1%–6% of their genomes from extinct people groups like Neanderthals and Denisovans. Are those genes a blessing or a curse? Two separate teams of scientists, led by Janet Kelso of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Lluis Quintana-Murci of the Pasteur Institute, have found that three of the genes that control our immune system’s first line of defense bear a significant footprint from our archaic human cousins.
To read the rest, click on "Is Your Allergy-Prone Immune System the Result of Neanderthal Influence?" Don't laugh, 'snot funny.


Saturday, March 12, 2016

Serial Cells Frustrate Evolutionary Ideas

Although biology is foundational to amoeba-to-man evolution, it is not supportive of the concept. Increasing knowledge of biological functions supports what biblical creationists have been saying all along: life was intelligently designed by God, who is revealed in the Bible, and evolution has no part in the matter.

Advances in understanding biology not only refute evolution, but support what biblical creationists have been saying all along.
Background texture from Image*After
Serial cell differentiation is a system-intensive process require a great deal of energy from an organism. This is to keep certain cells from proliferating too rapidly, and is a hindrance for mutations.
Single celled organisms replicate as fully functional cells, and they maintain cellular integrity through a system of direct epigenetic inheritance, or ‘cell memory’. Some tissues in multicellular organisms proliferate in the same way. However, the majority of tissues in adult multicellular organisms don’t.

Most tissues in mature multicellular organisms replicate via a method called serial differentiation.2 Cells go through a series of differentiation stages as they duplicate, ending in a fully differentiated cell, which eventually dies and passes out of the system, or is recycled by apoptosis (programmed cell death). There are three different types of cells in this system: stem cells, a class called ‘transient amplifying cells’ (TACs) and fully differentiated cells.
To read the rest, click on "Serial cell differentiation: intricate system of design". 


Friday, March 11, 2016

Born That Way? Not Scientific!

I was born this way, and have no choice in how I am. You must accept me. Can't help it if I'm a biblical creationist white heterosexual male.

Interesting how my claim does not carry any weight or is not considered to be true, isn't it? But gay rights activists claim that they have no choice in their sexual orientation, so we have to accept (and even celebrate) the approximately five percent or less of the population that claims to be homosexual. But there is no science to support this view. According to their own material, it's a matter of choice, not genetics. For that matter, if there was a "gay gene", it would be a mutation, and therefore, unnatural.

Gay rights activists insist that they have no choice in their orientation. However, science does not support this view.
Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart.
How did we get to this point? There has been no dramatic increase in those who claim to be homosexuals, despite the way news and entertainment media make it appear that they are about half of the population. Years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness, but psychologists changed their views. Why? There's the official story about psychiatrist Robert Spitzer believing that if they're happy, gay is okay. Further research shows that he changed his mind with the blessings of the American Psychiatric Association because of bullying from the homosexual rights activists.

Those of us who say that homosexuality is a sin and "gay marriage" is rebellion against God's created design are now the intolerant outlaws, even though we are staying true to God's Word. (When they disrupts the National Religious Broadcasters worship service and lie about it, nobody bats an eye. When a Christian says that homosexuality is a sin, everybody loses their minds!) For some reason, millennia of societal mores have to change to suit a loud minority. Born that way? Well, one thing's for sure: we're all born sinners and need of repentance.
Psychologist says there is little scientific evidence that sexual-orientation is biological, but two powerful men forced the sexual revolution on the country.

Medical Xpress posted a strange article. It’s clearly pro-LGBT, aimed at helping society accept the small minority of people with non-heterosexual orientations. Yet it makes a strong admission that undermines the whole rationale for giving homosexuals legal protection: the belief that gay people are “born that way.”

Patrick Grzanka and Joe Miles, psychologists from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, went about trying to decipher the source of anti-homosexual bias. They were surprised that the argument that homosexuals are “born that way” seem to have little effect. They wrote a paper “challenging the notion that the belief that people are born with their sexual orientation—a belief that has proliferated in the past 20 to 30 years, particularly among social and biological scientists—is the key to improving attitudes toward lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”
To read the rest of this extremely enlightening article, click on "Sexual Orientation is Not 'Born That Way'".