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

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Evolution, Aircraft, and Equivocation

Did you know that computers, legislation, automobiles, bicycles, airplanes, and so on can evolve? Sure, no problem! It is legitimate to use the word evolve in these situations, but the problem is, evolve has many definitions. (One definition is so vague, it's almost useless: change over time.) But Darwinistas play fast 'n' loose with the definitions.

Equivocating on definitions of "evolution", one propagandist says that the evolution of the airplane is like biological evolution. Oh, please!
Yours truly in front of a MiG-21 at the Kalamazoo, Michigan air museum, about 1998.
One tinhorn laid down some pictures of similarities in the development of airplanes, correctly used the term evolution, and then conflated that use of the word with biological evolution. This involved arbitrary assertions, personal preferences, and a bit of emotional manipulation by claiming that biological evolution cannot be denied by "reasonable" people. Well, no, we'd better believe it, don't want people thinking we're not reasonable, do we? Never mind that his explanation is not the only one! The better explanation is that similarities in organisms (as well as mechanical devices) occur because of intelligent design, and our Creator made things according to his design plans.
Did you know airplanes evolve? A 2014 research article titled “The Evolution of Airplanes,” written by Duke University’s distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering Adrian Bejan, makes that very claim. He begins with all the visible differences between a biplane and a jumbo jet. Airplanes have gotten bigger and faster over the decades. We could say airplane design evolves in the sense that it changes over time.

A second look reveals some common features like engines and wings. What is the best way to explain both the similarities and differences at the same time? Are we seeing a core common design enhanced with many ingenious variations? Or did all modern airplanes descend from a common, primitive airplane ancestor, evidenced by similar ancestral traits but with new features adapted to new conditions? These questions sound a lot like those asked by evolutionists and creationists about living creatures. Bejan wrote his article to supply those answers.
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Berra's Blunder".

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

Friday, April 29, 2016

How Are Water Gaps Formed?

If you saddle up and ride in some mountainous areas, you may come across a notch where water is flowing between parts of the range. Ever see one form? Me, neither. Nobody has. Old Earth advocates will tell you that the water carved it out, but that doesn't square with the geologic evidence. For one thing, simple physics tells us that water flows around barriers instead of up and over them.

Glen Helen Gorge image by NASA'S Eric Christian. Water gaps (notches between mountains where water flows) are not adequately explained by standard geology. The best explanation that fits the evidence is the Genesis Flood.
Glen Helen Gorge image credit: NASA / Eric Christian's Field Journal (use of image does not imply endorsement).
One tale they tell is that the river was there already, and the range uplifted, so the water carved out the gap. That may be remotely plausible if there was just one instance, but that explanation doesn't hold water when it happens a heap of times. Then there's the lack of scree (rock debris) that should be there if it took millions of years to happen. It didn't happen that way, old son. Uniformitarian reasoning fails here, too. The most rational explanation to fit observed evidence is the Genesis Flood.
Why does the Finke River at the Glen Helen Resort flow straight through the range, forming Glen Helen Gorge? Geologists call this a water gap. In Central Australia the Finke River flows across the grain of all the McDonnell Ranges and water gaps are common. In fact, water gaps are a global phenomenon, with more than 1000 across the earth.

No one has ever seen a water gap form, so stories that attempt to explain these unexpected geological features are conjecture. The rims of at least three of the ranges that the Finke River flows through have been ‘dated’ by evolutionary geologists as some 400 million years old. How erosive processes could have continued for so long defies belief. For example, using standard uniformitarian geology, it would only take about 17 million years to erode a whole continent.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Glen Helen Gorge, Australia — How did it form?"

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

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Intelligence, Neanderthals, and Celebrating STDs

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Hat tip to Doug McBurney for giving some inspiration for this article.

The atoms-to-acrobat evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have the view that people were stupid way back when. It's consistent with their philosophy, since we supposedly came from minerals, fish, animals, and up the ladder to where we are today. So, we're wired to be the best, right?

According to evolution, we're wired to be the best, and smarter than Neanderthals. From the way society is going downhill, one wonders who is smarter after all.
Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak
We're created in God's image but are in rebellion against him, so we're a mix of good and bad. Technological and medical advances, taming animals, the ability to compose music, write literature, and do all sorts of things that are not possible for animals to accomplish. We can also do something else that is unlike animals: self-destruct, whether individually, culturally, or destroy millions of our fellow beings in a short time. Also unlike animals, we can celebrate our downward spiral.

We've made same-sex marriage not only legal, but want people to celebrate it; the tiny minority is dominating the huge majority, even though marriage has been between a man and a woman for millennia, ever since God ordained it. Humans are happily killing our unborn children, and even celebrating murder for convenience on social media.

Our lusts continue. The Evo Sith are desperate to find ways to do away with God, and presenting the idea that monogamy is the result of germ avoidance. Love has nothing to do with it in their view. Right. Norman and Nellie Neanderthal figured out that they won't get sexually transmitted diseases if they stay faithful to one another, right? Amazing bit of guesswork there presented as "science".

Did you know that April is STD Awareness Month? Sure, and we can go to social media to brag about having a disease! Then they wonder why there's claptrap about a new super strain of gonorrhea going around. Helpful hint: heterosexual marriage and faithfulness, the way God intended it, then you won't have to worry so much (or have cause to celebrate the consequences of your lack of control).

I started out by mentioning ancient humans and evolutionary bias. According to the Bible, man was created in God's image, and wasn't a stupid partially-evolved brute that took millions of years to form. Yes, Neanderthals existed, and they were fully human, as the DNA and interbreeding indicates. Their cave paintings were too advanced to satisfy evolutionists (by the way, the dating methods caused them problems), and they did a lot of other things like us reg'lar folk. Of course, the facts don't interfere with fundamentalist evolutionists from clinging to their blind faith and telling amazingly silly stories about early man.

The Neanderthal people were smart, despite Darwinist protestations. Did they indulge in self-destructive behaviors? No records of it that I'm aware of. I can't imagine that they would use their version of social media to brag about perversion, getting a sexually transmitted disease, or abortion. We're going downhill rapidly, and it's accelerating. It's the result of sin. You know, I wonder who are really the smarter ones.

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

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Stable Stars and Extraterrestrial Life

On one hand secularists are searching for signals from intelligent life forms in outer space (which does not seem to be an intelligent use of time and money as far as I reckon). And on the other hand, the numbers game that there must be life out yonder is getting worse all the time because the right combination of conditions have to be in place.

Searching for habitable planets elsewhere in the universe is getting more difficult since the right conditions are not being found. Secularists need to admit that life was specially created, and we were given the necessary condtions.
Image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
They look for the habitable zone, where a planet is the right distance from a star so it doesn't freeze or burn. In addition, the planet has to be the right size and composition. Does the planet have a magnetic field to help protect it from the solar wind? Stars tend to be unstable, and the planet can't have that, either. There was speculation that κ1 Ceti was comparable to our own sun because it's young in evolutionary years, but it's as unstable as a cyberstalker. If our sun was that obstreperous long ago, there would be no life here. These people need to cowboy up and come to terms with the fact that our planet, sun, and everything else was created especially for life right here — and created thousands, not millions of years ago.
Astronomers have a keen interest in finding earth-like planets orbiting other stars. Their hope is that earth-like planets might harbor life. This hope is based upon the belief that life arose naturally on earth, that is, without a Creator. This worldview assumes that there is nothing special about the earth, so life probably develops wherever the conditions are right. Therefore, life ought to be common in the universe, if the conditions are right in enough places.
To read the rest, click on "Was the Sun Far Less Stable in the Past?


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

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Glowing Reports from Chernobyl

Ever watch that television show Scorpion? It has a heap of "Yeah, sure!" moments, but it does have some high levels of suspense. When I watched "Chernobyl Intentions", I didn't realize a couple of things: the disaster happened thirty years ago today, and the episode of is based on current events. The part of radiation being a scary thing, yeah, I've known that for years.

  The disaster at Chernobyl should be a field lab for evolutionists, but things are not working out according to their expectations.  Image credit: NASA image created by Jesse Allen, using EO-1. The disaster at Chernobyl should be a field lab for evolutionists, but things are not working out according to their expectations.
Image credit: NASA image created by Jesse Allen, using EO-1. Use does not imply endorsement.
Chernobyl is in Kiev, Ukraine, near the Belarus border. On April 26, 1986, technicians of the Soviet Union-controlled area caused reactor four to explode. This killed several people at the time, released huge amounts of radiation, and displaced over 350,000 people to date. The most radioactive area has highly restricted access, and is expected to be uninhabitable for many years.

People who get their information about radiation from movies and such may be expecting mutations and people with super powers, and Darwinists have a field lab for their conjectures. But things are not going according to neo-Darwinism plans. Plants and animals didn't seem to get the "uninhabitable" memo, and some people have rejected it outright. They are living where they shouldn't, and seem to be thriving. Although the health risks from radiation are very real, it appears that the regenerative properties of DNA, designed by our Creator, have been underestimated.
Surprising scientists, both people and animals are doing OK around the world’s worst nuclear accident site.

Thirty years ago, on April 26, 1986, Russian government officials evacuated people living in 1,600 square miles around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after a meltdown sent a radiation cloud over a large area (see history of the incident on PhysOrg). The “exclusion zone” was deemed too hazardous for humans. Animals, however, were not evacuated; scientists feared a great die-off and ecological disaster. A new study, though, shows a big surprise.
To read the rest, click on "Why Chernobyl Neighbors Are Not Dying". 


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

Monday, April 25, 2016

Epigenetics Further Affirms Creation

Remember when particles-to-peddler evolutionists said that certain parts of DNA were "junk", and that was thoroughly refuted? Further research keeps showing inconvenient genome truths refuting evolution, such as the "epigenetics switch". The hands at the Darwin Ranch down at Deception Pass were embarrassed, and it's getting worse.

Genome research is continuing its hostility to Darwin. Epigenetics is adding fuel to the creation-affirming fire, and is more complex than thought.
Image credit: Freeimages / Rainer Berg
The more scientists learn about the genome, the more complicated it gets — including epigenetics. It seems that our functional chemistry can be changed, but the base pairs comprising the DNA code are unaltered. Changes happen through epigenetic switches and cellular machinery, and the whole thing is far more complex than ever imagined. This further refutes evolution and affirms the brilliant design work of our Creator.
In complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions, the language systems in the genome continue to reveal nothing but unimaginable complexity. As a news story on a recent discovery explains, "The world of epigenetics—where molecular 'switches' attached to DNA turn genes on and off—has just got bigger with the discovery by a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge of a new type of epigenetic modification."

One of the most exciting and rapidly expanding research fields in the study of the genome is the area of epigenetics. The term epigenetics is derived from the Greek prefix epi which means "on top of." In other words, this is an additional type of genomic language that overlays the DNA code which helps to control how genes are switched on or off. Epigenetics is one explanation for how our environment and behavioral traits, such as diet or smoking, can affect our genome and how many of these changes can even be heritable—affecting traits literally passed along to our children and grandchildren.
To read the rest, switch over to "Epigenetic Code More Complicated Than Previously Thought". 


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

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Darwin in Christianity

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Christians who take the Bible seriously have been alarmed at the increase in "seeker driven" churches, false religions, compromise, and outright apostasy in the church. A good part of this is because too many Christians are unaware that Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines, and have disdain for the authority of the Word of God.

Christianity held to a recent creation and global Flood throughout most of church history, including the Reformers. It wasn't until naturalistic philosophies of science seemed plausible, and Christians were buffaloed into compromising. Who wants to be considered stupid in the light of "science"? The compromisers were foolish, as evolution is based on many frauds and bad reasoning, and we need to show it for what it is (Eph. 5:11-13). 

Compromises included various ways to force millions or billions of Darwin years into the Bible, and the worst of the lot is theistic evolution. (For my detailed article on this, see the 2-part "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars"). Like disingenuous atheists change the established definition of their view from "belief there is no God or gods" into "lack of belief", theistic evolutionist owlhoots like BioLogos deceptively call their view "evolutionary creationism". Not hardly! Old Earth "creationists" and TEs are willing to join in with atheists in lying to promote evolution and malign biblical creationists.

The Christian church has been in a downward slide, and is apathetic to the authority of the Word and foundations of the faith in Genesis. Theistic evolution is a very toxic compromise.
Image furnished by Randy H.
Old Earthers and TEs undermine the authority of the Bible, and complain that those of us who believe Scripture are unwilling to compromise. Well, it's interesting that they never seem to compromise, but we are expected to! No, I'm going to stay with the truth (Prov. 30:6, Isaiah 40:8) and not changing science philosophies. Compromising is getting closer to atheism. They know the importance of Genesis, and that's why they attack biblical creationists with such passion. Interesting how C. Richard Dawkins has a dim view of theistic evolutionists:

No, we cannot compromise, and we must continue to uphold the authority and truth of Scripture. Here is a link to an episode of "Fighting for the Faith". Pastor Chris Rosebrough is doing reviews in the annual worst Easter sermon of 2016 contest, and Ryan Miller bows to the puny god of evolutionism. (I half expected him to have a séance and call up a demon pretending to be the spirit of Darwin to preach with him). You can get the free download for this episode here, and skip to the 43 minute 5 second mark. I'd be much obliged to you.

If you want some other apostasy after this (nothing more about evolution though), I suggest that you skip back to the 6 minute 40 second mark for someone who sounds spiritual and intellectual, but is harmful. If you're liking this kind of thing, go to the 1 hour 20 minute mark for the longest segment: Kerry Shook is preaching Gnostic and Pelagian heresies, so be glad you've got Pastor Rosebrough along for a guide. If you have time and are curious, hey, play the whole episode.

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

Friday, April 22, 2016

Created with Lost Abilities?

At the beginning of creation, everything was מאד טוב, very good (Gen. 1:31). There was no death, suffering, mental illness, disease, deformities, and so on. Creationists have speculated that, when we hear about people with amazing abilities here and there, Adam and Eve would have been created with those all at the same time. Pretty good for someone who was taken from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7) and the woman from the side of the man (Gen. 2:21), I think. But when Adam sinned, everything started going downhill (Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22). 

Special abilities in people here and there — are they scattered reminders of what Adam and Eve were like? Recent news reports show some amazing abilities and scientific enhancements.
Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
We were created in God's image, and amoeba-to-anthropologist upward evolution had no say in the matter. There are some amazing abilities in the human body that scientists are studying — and enhancing, in some cases. They're using their intelligently-designed brains to find out the whats and whys. Perhaps some of our abilities, even in our biology, are glimpses into the perfect past. Some people have mutations where they should be getting serious illness, but remain healthy; science may help the brain "rewire" after serious damage; our brains bypass supercomputers in some ways, and intuition is a part of it. 
Recent news about the body’s remarkable powers raise questions about why we aren’t better off.

The occasional genius surprises us, but maybe the surprise should be that so many of us are not that smart. Is the genius an atavism (throwback) to a period when intelligence was the norm? Those who are super-healthy among us raise similar questions about why so many are sickly and subject to genetic disorders. Look at these news stories that suggest remarkable mechanisms for repair and maintenance of the body. Are they hints of lost abilities we could learn to restore or augment?
Read about these stories and more at "Humans Could Be Much Healthier".

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

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Living Fossils Failing to Evolve

Those things called living fossils are animals, fish, plants and so on that were thought to be extinct for millions of Darwin years, and are discovered to be doing right well, thanks. They also look pretty much the way their fossilized ancestors looked. When some owlhoot evolutionists are questioned about why the things didn't evolve over all that time, they often give the ridiculous stock answer, "They didn't have to". This flies in the face of the way evolution is portrayed, as an inexorable force that has intelligence to select and modify.

"Living fossils" have been a problem for evolutionists since Darwin's time, and more are being found. Excuses as to why things have not evolved over alleged millions of years are irrational.
Raging Horn at Osprey Reef, northeast of Queensland, Australia
Image credit: Richard Ling via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)
So, they reckon we'll buy the story about no changes, no "environmental pressures", no "need to evolve" over all that time? No. The excuse may seem reasonable for one or two, but it's mighty poor in light of the many living fossils that have been found. The real explanation is simple: they didn't evolve because evolution didn't happen, and the Earth isn't that old in the first place.
The Deep Down Under project explores "relict faunas," living creatures with eerily similar counterparts among some of the world's oldest fossils. Deep-sea researchers used a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to look for life around Osprey Reef off Queensland's coast. They found some surprises including animals known only from faraway places and long-gone times.

The University of Bremen's Centre for Marine Environmental Sciences supplied the ROV, which took photographs, some videos, and even several specimens of the bizarre sea life in that region. Robin Beaman, Marine geologist from Australia's James Cook University, participated in the research. He told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), "We found coral reef fish that had only ever been found in Tahiti."
To read the rest, dive in at "Living Fossils Found off Australia's Coast". 


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

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Are Stars Forming — Really?

We frequently hear from secular astronomers about star formation in molecular clouds. No kidding? How long does it take? Oh, tens of millions of years if you accept deep-time cogitating. Fact is, nobody has ever seen a star form. That doesn't stop the cosmic evolutionists from stating their opinions as fact, thought. One creationist astronomer has the essential attitude of, "So what? Even if stars did form, they're using existing materials, and stars are not all that complex anyway". Seems reasonable to me.

Secular astronomers and their religious sympathizers claim that they can see stars forming. This involves massive conjecture, assumptions, and defying the laws of physics.
Circinus Molecular Cloud Complex image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / UCLA
The years have not been kind to star formation proponents. They still have to find ways to defy the laws of physics, and give some kind of plausibility for their uniformitarian ideas. Why is this so difficult? Because science does not support the Big Bang, deep time, or cosmic evolution. Instead, science supports recent creation.
In almost any standard university astrophysics text you will find a chapter on star formation. Stars are alleged to have formed, and still do form, from giant clouds of molecular hydrogen gas. That is the standard party line. Thus it follows from standard big bang thinking that they were not created by the Creator on the fourth day of Creation week as outlined in Genesis 1, but naturally condensed out of gas (and dust) under the force of gravity only.

Nowadays you can read about dark matter as the seeds of the formation of galaxies and hence stars. But dark matter is still just a hypothetical substance. So how does star formation stack up without invoking such stuff? What physics can explain the alleged collapse of giant molecular clouds (GMC) to form stars? What were/are the typical explanations for star formation when dark matter was/is not assumed? And what unprovable uniformitarian assumptions are required?

To discover the answer to these questions I went to (and hence I quote extensively from) a standard 1996 first year university astrophysics text “An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics” (1st Edition) by Carroll & Ostlie, hereafter referred to as Carroll & Ostlie. I also looked at what the authors might have added in terms of overcoming some of the problems for star formation, a decade later, in their 2nd Edition, and found no substantive improvements.
To finish reading, click on "Giant molecular clouds — A look at uniformitarian assumptions in star formation".

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

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

How Not to be Deceived by Evolutionary Material

When presented with materials used to promote amoeba-to-atheist evolution, people tend to be all impressed with the brilliance of scientists (especially when they use expensive words meant for experts in their particular fields). Using a bit of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies, you can see that things served up seem mighty tasty, but have no real nutritional value for the mind.

Evolutionists tend to serve up things that seem mighty tasty, but have no real nutritional value for the mind. Here is some information on separating real science from speculation and bad reasoning.
Generated at GlassGiant
A journal article about bilateral evolution seems impressive, but is saturated with fallacies, and it turns out to be nothing more than speculation. If someone is going to present conjecture, fine, but they should at least admit that it does not have any foundation in observable science. We all examine evidence and argue from our presuppositions, but at least biblical creationists let you know where they're coming from. Evolutionists tend to present their naturalistic viewpoints as proven science — after all, science is a philosophy of interpreting data.

I reckon that it would be wise to get familiar with the material in the following article and learn how not to be deceived. Also, I keep insisting that learning to spot logical fallacies is relatively easy, and is very useful in other areas, including during election seasons. Watch out for theistic evolutionists and atheists pretending to be Christians while promoting evolution, they get mighty sneaky and manipulative. Still, every chance to learn how to spot deceivers is helpful.
This article takes a reasoned approach to identify the biases and fallacies within the subsequent mentioned paper, and extorts and instructs the reader to do the same, not only concerning the article mentioned but concerning all such scientific papers.

A journal article titled, “The Origin of the Animals and a ‘Savannah’ Hypothesis for Early Bilaterian Evolution,” postulates an evolutionary connection between and a pathway from “simple” biota organisms found in the Edicaran “period” rock layers, and the more complex bilaterian animals found in the Cambrian “period” (a.k.a., Cambrain Explosion) rock layers.
To keep reading, click on "An (Un)Reasonable Hypothesis for Bilaterian Evolution".

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

Monday, April 18, 2016

Of Age, Saturn's Moons, and Dinosaurs

Old universe advocates are getting a mite consternated about the rings and moons of Saturn, and cannot account for their apparent youth. They are proposing some very interesting ideas to deal with the idea that those celestial objects may be younger than the dinosaurs according to Darwinist years. But speculation is not the same as science, even if people have degrees and lab coats.

Secular astronomers are using a heap of guesswork to explain why, in their reckoning, the rings and moons of Saturn are "younger than the dinosaurs". Oh, boy.
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute
Their excuses are, to borrow from Chris Rosebrough, ad hoc ergo poppycock. There are too many maybes and no actual evidence to back up their speculations, which are based on their deep-time assumptions. Why are we paying these people? They should realize that their conjectures are becoming increasingly outlandish, and admit that evidence shows that the Bible is right: everything was created recently, without the use of cosmic or any other kind of evolution.
Stunning admissions show that secular astronomers can’t keep Saturn’s moons billions of years old.

Elizabeth Howell printed the shocking headline on Space.com: “Saturn’s Moons and Rings May Be Younger Than the Dinosaurs,” based on modeling done by the SETI Institute. David Rothery on The Conversation echoed the refrain, adding, “So could life really exist there?” His answer is maybe; more about this below.

Really, though, why the change in thinking? The SETI Institute press release explains:
To find out about the press release and read the rest of the amazing "explanations", click on "Are Saturn’s Moons Younger than the Dinosaurs?"

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

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Hummingbirds Fly in the Face of Evolution

Have you ever been around a hummingbird after seeing a Star Wars movie? Funny that their buzzy flying has a sound like a lightsaber. I almost expect to hear the bird say, "You should not have come back..." By the way, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if you don't want to poison the cute little things, clean your hummingbird feeders often, you savvy? Good.

Evolutionists cannot explain other-bird-to-hummingbird evolution, let alone full-fledged bird evolution. They are clearly the work of our Creator!
Image credit: Anna's Hummingbird by Alan Vernon, (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
These winged little marvels have been studied for biomimetics (where humans observe something in nature, claim it happened by accident, then try to intelligently design an application) for miniature flying robots. As if drones peeking in windows weren't bad enough. (For me, it's, "Mr. Drone, say hello and goodbye to Samuel Colt!" Privacy concerns, you know. But I digress.)

The hummingbird frustrates bacteria-to-bird evolution. In fact, it frustrates other-bird-to-hummingbird evolution because it has so many specialized features that are different from other birds. They are obviously the handiwork of our Creator, what with their specialized complexity and intricate design and all.
Who doesn’t pause to marvel when a hummingbird flies by? These tiny, colorful birds perform amazing aerobatic feats, and yet some very smart scientists insist that mere natural forces mimicked a real engineer to construct these fascinating flyers. Authors of a Nature paper on hummingbird flight wrote in 2005 that “the selective pressure on hummingbird ancestors was probably for increased efficiency.” They imagine that hummingbirds evolved from ancestors that could hover only briefly. But an examination of just a few key hummingbird features leaves no doubt “that the hand of the LORD has done this,” not natural selective pressures.
Take a gander at the rest of this short but interesting article at "Hummingbirds!". Also, you may want to check out how evolutionary biases wreck scientific research at "Flighty Evolutionary Speculations Taint Hummingbird Taste Study".

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

Friday, April 15, 2016

Evolutionary Research Resorts to the "DUH" Factor

When Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others insist that intellectual and scientific progress are only possible through belief in evolution, they are actually promoting the dumbing down of Western civilization. (Sure, look what atheism and social Darwinism have done for the culture and technology of North Korea, for example.) Several Darwinistas have been not only insisting on using natural selection as the means of evolution, but point at alleged "vestigial structures" as evidence of onward and upward evolution.

Researchers in Sweden are showing blatant stupidity — and getting their "research" published. Not only are they uninformed about the differences between Salmonella and cheetahs, they "prove" natural selection by making things unfit. Then they ignore other evidence and explanations that they should have examined, even from a naturalistic standpoint. Worse for these tinhorns is that their conclusions actually support the work of the Creator through his design! While we try to keep in mind that there are evolutionists who are so indoctrinated that they are unaware of any explanations other than naturalistic evolutionism, it's a mite difficult when ideologues are so hell-bent on passing along "evidence for evolution" based on their faulty worldviews and bad logic.
A sadly misinformed press release tries to illustrate Darwinian evolution by breaking things.

Two scientists at Uppsala University make a big claim: “Evolutionary ‘selection of the fittest’ measured for the first time.” This is quite astounding on two fronts. One, that fitness could be measured, since it is merely a manifestation of the Stuff Happens Law. Two, that it took so long for someone to do it for the first time. Let’s see what this is about.
To see what it's about and learn about their serious affliction with the Galloping Stupids, click on "Proving Evolution Through Devolution".

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

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Fossilized Arctic Forest Explanations

Way up yonder in the Norway area is the archipelago known as Svarlbard, and the largest island is Spitsbergen. Interesting geology, and the ocean-influenced climate is not as cold in winder, and not as warm in summer compared to other polar areas. Still, it's plenty cold. A fossilized forest was found on Spitsbergen. Time to do some digging.

Secular paleontologists have data-omitting speculations about a fossilized forest in the Arctic. The best explanation is the Genesis Flood model by creation scientists.
Image credit: Pixabay / MartinFuchs
Old Earth paleontologists are having a bit of difficulty giving adequate explanations for what is found, especially since the trees are extinct. But that doesn't stop them from projecting their ideas into the distant past, even though they have no data to support their views. However, the Genesis Flood model gives a far better explanation for observed data, and for theories about what went on in the relatively recent past. After all, the world is not billions of years old; the evidence indicates only thousands of years.
The discovery of ancient trees fossilized in what looks like a forest is always big news. However, when they are believed to have been tropical trees and they are uncovered in what is now the Arctic, it is even bigger news.

According to articles in Science Daily and Geology, Chris Berry, of the School of Earth and Ocean Science at Cardiff University, and John Marshall, of National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, have identified a number of “fossil forests” on the island of Spitsbergen in the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of Norway.

The trees making up these claimed fossil forests are lycopsids. Such trees are not found alive today, but living relatives in the same class are the clubmosses. Twenty-six stems of these fossil lycopsids were found in three locations as vertical external molds and upright internal casts some 2–4 inches (55–95 mm) wide in dense strands spaced about 6–8 inches (~15–20 cm) apart. Whereas these upright fossil stems were found buried in a sandstone layer, their bases extended down into the underlying mudstone, which contains what have been interpreted as sub-horizontal roots.
To get to the root of the questions, click on 'Ancient Tropical “Transitional” Forests Found Fossilized in the Arctic'.

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

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Evolution, Genetics, and Bad Logic

Evolutionists have a habit of making assertions about the past from limited information about things not fully understood. When it comes to genetics, they're in a world of hurt. One of the hallmarks in scum-to-stalker evolution is bad logic, and they often resort to affirming the consequent. Basically, it goes like this:
1. If p, then q.
2. We have q.
3. Therefore, p.
Seems simple enough, but it leaves out the possibility of other explanations. As Jason Lisle illustrates:
1. If it's snowing, it must be cold outside.
2. It's cold outside.
3. Therefore, it's snowing out.
Not hardly!

Let's use this in a way that Darwinists do it:
1. If evolution is true, then DNA will be found in living organisms.
2. DNA is found in living organisms.
3. Therefore, evolution is true.
Evolutionists have a habit of making assertions about the past from limited information about things not fully understood. When it comes to genetics, they're in a world of hurt.
Made through the Chalkboard Message Generator at Add Letters
This leaves out pertinent data, which is something these owlhoots will do frequently. Take ERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses), for instance. Using a passel of assumptions and reasoning from evolutionary biases, we're being told that ERVs are junk, but since they're found in similar life forms, we must have a common ancestor. See how they reason? And they are the ones educating (indoctrinating) children at government-run schools.

Let's take a look-see at a bigger picture — which is something Darwinists really need to do so they won't embarrass themselves so often. Let's let a creationist provide more information.
If two students hand in an assignment containing exactly the same mistakes, their teacher will rightly suspect that one (or both) has been copying the other’s work. This is because the chance of them independently making the same mistakes is very small. Similarly, when an identical mutation is found in the DNA of apes and humans, evolutionists claim that the only reasonable explanation is that the mutation occurred in a common ancestor and was then passed down to its descendants.

There are many parts of our DNA that look like virus DNA, and some evolutionists argue that this shows that these parts of our DNA came from viruses. Our ancestors, they say, were infected by viruses which added DNA to our ancestors’ DNA, and this was then passed down to us. These short stretches of genetic material are often referred to as ERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses; see box) and are said to be ‘junk’ having no useful purpose. Since we sometimes find the same ERVs in the same locations in the DNA of apes and humans, evolutionists claim that ERVs provide strong evidence for evolution. The probability, they say, of the same viruses randomly inserting the same stretches of DNA in the same locations in human and ape DNA is negligible. It is far more likely, they say, that a common ancestor passed on its ERVs to both humans and apes.

As convincing as it sounds, however, closer examination reveals serious flaws in this argument.
To read the rest (and some interesting short technical short articles), click on "Mistakes about mistakes".

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

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

More Holes in the Evolutionary Tree of Life

The Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass has some gloomy faces these days. Not only do they have to deal with dem dry bones fouling up their human evolution timeline, but the "tree of life" that Papa Darwin tried to grow is rotting. The more scientists learn about life, the more God's creation is obstreperous regarding man's origin mythologies. If you want the truth, it's revealed in God's Word, and not in the ever-changing speculations of people who want to deny his creative work.

Darwin's fictitious "tree of life" is full of holes, and more are being drilled in it all the time. Here are even more findings recalcitrant to evolutionism.
Image based on that old fraud Haeckel's tree of life.
Some of the recalcitrant data include organisms having holes in the wrong place and at the wrong time, critters with big pointy nasty teeth, and genetic similarities that don't fit the tree of fiction. You can read about those and more by clicking on "More Holes in Evolutionary Theory". 

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

Monday, April 11, 2016

Bad Bones for Human Evolution

The human evolution parade is false, and evidence continues to build up against it.

When there's news that can be even be remotely construed to support Darwinism, the science press rides like a cavalry charge to spread their propaganda, but when the evidence piles up against evolution, they hole up in the bunkhouse playing cards instead of saying, "Hey, here's things the Darwinoids got wrong!" Nope, no money in that.

Case in point, the false evolutionary parade is getting mighty blurry because various bones are being redated. According to their own methods, the whole thing just doesn't work. May as well give it up and admit that the evidence refutes evolution, and supports what biblical creationists have been saying for years.
Textbooks around the world contain the well-known illustration of walking apes transitioning into a modern human. I recently heard a college student, raised in a Christian home, say these pictures convinced her of evolution. She probably represents countless others swayed by this simplistic icon. But those willing to question the concept that man descended from apes can welcome the recent study of a discovery from China. It adds to the list of important finds that refute human evolution and its illustrations.

Researchers from Australia and China analyzed a portion of a human femur (thigh bone) found in Red Deer Cave in Yunnan Province, China, during a 1989 excavation. The researchers noted the bone looks like Homo habilis and Homo erectus femurs found in Africa. Those presumed early versions of an evolving mankind supposedly went extinct over 1.5 million years ago, but evolutionary methods dated the Chinese cave finds to only about 14,000 years ago!

What does this mean?
To find out what it means, click on "Chinese Femur Refutes Human Evolution". 


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

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Dinosaurs Making Tracks on Skye

Finding dinosaur tracks has become somewhat commonplace (saddle up or take a hike at Prehistoric Trailways National Monument in New Mexico, for instance), but they're found in several parts of the world. Some dinosaur footprints are unremarkable, like they're going to and from the general store for supplies or something. Others, however, look like they're fleeing something.

Secular paleontologists are ignoring data and adjusting the facts to fit their story. Like other instances of dinosaur tracks, the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for the observed evidence.
Image credit: Bob Wick / Bureau of Land Management
Dinosaur tracks in Lake Quarry, Australia, had paleontologists giving weird cognations that the critters were fleeing a predator, but that does not hold up under examination. Same kind of thing happens with the dinosaur tracks on the Isle of Skye — relevant information is ignored, facts are pushed into an evolutionary worldview, and the best explanation of the Genesis Flood is rejected out of hand. Sorry, but uniformitarianism fails again. The Earth is far younger than you and Papa Darwin want it to be.
On Scotland’s Isle of Skye, researchers have discovered hundreds of dinosaur tracks. Based on the immense size of these tracks (the largest was 2.3 feet [70 centimeters] across), researchers determined that these tracks belonged to a species of sauropod dinosaur likely 50 feet (15 meters) long and weighing 15–20 tons. According to the researchers’ report in The Scottish Journal of Geology, the tracks have been “identified as dinosaur prints based on their consistent size [25–35 cm for the front foot print and 50–70 cm for the rear foot print], preservation of fine features, such as digits and claw marks, and their arrangement in orderly trackways.” The vast majority of tracks are sauropod tracks, and both front (manus) and rear (pes) footprints are commonly found. While individual trackways are orderly the tracks aren’t laid out in a uniform manner but instead show evidence of traversing over each other. While the average depth of the individual tracks is not given in the paper, it appears from scale that they are between 10–20 cm deep. Steve Brusatte, a paleontologist with the University of Edinburgh, says of these tracks, "There were clearly lots of sauropods moving all around this lagoon. They were at home there, they were thriving there. Looking at the chaotic jumble of tracks, it looks like a dance floor, like a dinosaur disco.” Since the 1970s it has been believed that sauropods were land-dwellers; however, because these tracks are interpreted as having been laid down in a shallow lagoon, the sauropod story is again changing to include some time spent splashing about in the water.
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Do Dinosaur Footprint Fossils Indicate Sauropods Splashed in Water?" Also, I recommend "Hundreds of Dino Tracks Found Eroding at Scottish Beach". Now if you'll excuse me, my Scottish heritage is urging me to listen to the pipes...

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

Friday, April 8, 2016

Evolution and Moral Relativism

When someone claims to not have a philosophy of life (worldview from presuppositions and axioms), just ask a few questions. You'll find out that yes, they do have a worldview. Everybody has one, even if they haven't written it down in a journal or something. A big part of that worldview is the question of right and wrong. An atheist or evolutionist cannot give a coherent reason for saying that torturing children for fun is wrong, but the Bible-believing Christian has a consistent foundation to oppose it. The atheopath who goes haywire with trolling and bullying biblical creationists on teh interwebs because creationists are "evil" and "liars" — that ornery cuss cannot say why his actions are "good" and creationists are bad, except for his opinion, culture, and relativism — a justification for "morality" that goes up in smoke.

Secular science approaches to morality is based on evolution and relativism, and is irrational. There is only one true source for a moral foundation.
Image generated at fodey.com
Secular scientists and their sycophantic press make proclamations about right and wrong, but contradict themselves with moral relativism. Notice that the secularists are trying to justify homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, and so on are using a leftist perspective? No room for the Creator who gave us the final source for morality in their paradigm! Trying to give a basis for morality from evolution, culture, societal trends, and so forth is ridiculous.
If morality evolves, then why do some scientists cast judgment?

Science reporters occasionally make the case for moral relativism: the idea that moral judgments can vary from culture to culture, depending on what the people in a culture were taught is right or wrong. Live Science, for instance, teaches that “Right or Wrong: How You Judge Others Depends on Your Culture.” But in other articles, they will promote abortion rights, gay rights and other moral questions in an absolutist manner. . .
To read the rest of this insightful but relatively short article, click on "Science Cannot Defend Moral Relativism". 


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

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Chinese Fossils, Facts, and Fraud

Interesting that there's a whole heap of fossils in the Jehol Group (northeast China), and that seems to be the biggest source of alleged bird-to-dinosaur transitional forms. Lots of nice sedimentary rock to find things in, and then they commence to re-dating the layers when the fossils don't fit their paradigms.

Have you noticed that Darwinistas don't let the facts get in the way of a one-sided propaganda rant? Those owlhoots don't just cherry-pick the data, they move entire cherry trees of data! Re-dating, a flock of fake fossils (notably, Archaeoraptor), secular scientists who think the whole dino-to-bird thing is garbage, evidence that interferes with their own theories — yep, the future is bleak for evolutionists. So, they deal from the bottom of the deck so they can claim they have the winning hand. Ain't happening. Creation still wins.
In recent years the Jehol Group of China has provided evidence of catastrophic burial that contradicts current evolutionary hypotheses. Instead of adjusting the hypotheses to fit the new discoveries, evidence has been forced to fit the prevailing paradigm, sometimes through misleading interpretations and occasionally through apparent fraud. The subjective evidence of feathered dinosaurs is widely promoted by the science media. The Jehol Group was originally dated to the Jurassic. However, it has recently been assigned to the Early Cretaceous despite the known equivocal nature of the biostratigraphic evidence that contains dinosauria from the Triassic to the late Cretaceous.
To dig in deeper, read the rest of the article at "Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group". 

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

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Rodents Gnaw Evolutionary Ideas

It takes courage to face the facts and admit that evolution doesn't work. Are you a man or a mouse? Come on, squeak up!

"That old joke isn't funny any more, Cowboy Bob!"

Yes, well, never mind about that now. Did you know that rats are very intelligent? And, like their arch-enemy the cat, whiskers are important for detecting the world around them, which is a good thing because their vision is not up to human standards. Domesticated rodents can be good pets, and can be affectionate; I had three rats one time. But the wild ones, all y'all should leave those well alone.

One thing for creationists to like about rodents is that they confound evolutionists on several areas.
Two Rats by Vincent van Gogh, 1884
Evolution does indeed have many problems getting support from actual evidence. Sure, anyone can spin a yarn and have people say, "Wow, scientists are clever, my, my!" But stories are not evidence. In the fossil record, rodents have always been rodents. Dating methods conflict, molecular clocks conflict with phylogeny — no, molecules-to-mouse evolution didn't happen. What did happen was that God created life, the universe, and everything recently, in six literal days.
Evolutionists claim rodents evolved from an unknown ancestor 60 million years ago. But when fossils are found of these placental mammals, they are always 100% rodents. They never show a transition from non-rodents. The evidence evolutionists use to support their contention is flimsy at best, and even they acknowledge the significant challenges in tracing the rodent family tree.
It is so uncertain where they came from that experts still dispute whether the South American rodents are more closely related to African or North American species.
If rodents evolved from evolutionary ancestors, clear evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships should exist between rodent groups. But secular scientists’ findings are inconclusive.
To read the rest, click on "The Rodent Record". 


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