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

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Adjusting Radiometric Dating Results

The owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch have realized that they don't have to play the cards they're dealt, such as doing a force-fit of recalcitrant data into their worldview. A part of this involves fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods giving results they don't like; there are wildly varying results, so just keep drawing until you get the card you want, and keep it up your sleeve until needed.

Radiometric dating is flexible in its discrepancies, just keep testing until you get the date you want. Except that footprints in fossils foul up the works and give trouble for dinosaur-to-bird evolution.
Adapted from images obtained from Clker clipart
Rock containing footprints was dated, the date was accepted and published. Uh, oh! Those footprints are identical to those of the sandpiper. Time to retest the rock. They obtained an acceptable result, but the footprints were still problematic, what with dinosaur-to-bird evolution and such, and there are more difficulties involved. And it's not an isolated case. If they were able to be honest about the data, evolutionists would stop being evolutionists and admit that science supports recent creation.
Using well-known radioisotope technology, scientists dated the Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina at 212 million years old. This happened to agree well with a nearby geologic formation that was also radiometrically dated. The radiometric date of the Santo Domingo formation also agreed with the dating based on fossil wood found entombed in the rock. This wood came from an extinct species of tree conventionally believed to have existed around 200 million years ago.

Well-preserved and abundant tracks were also found in the rock, similar in appearance to bird tracks. The scientists, who assert that the earth is billions of years old, concluded that the footprints must have been made by an unknown species of a small bird-like dinosaur, because according to Darwinian theory birds weren’t supposed to be around 212 million years ago. The results were accepted and published by the science journal Nature in 2002.
To read the rest of this scientific deck-stacking, click on "Radiometric backflip — Bird footprints overturn 'dating certainty'".

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

Monday, May 30, 2016

The Evolution of Beauty

Darwin's ideas, loved by many as a "scientific" justification for denying the Creator, are not beautiful by any means. Survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, evolution as justification for racism, murderous tyrants in the 20th centuryabortion — no beauty in evolution, Pilgrim.

Evolutionists fail in their attempts to explain beauty as based in functionality. Actually, beauty is testimony of our Creator's work.
Image credit: Freeimages / Eline van den Berg
While there is subjective beauty, such as seeing a piece of artwork that some consider beautiful but I think it would be good for target practice, there are other areas that are not quite so subjective. Darwinistas try to make beauty a utilitarian thing (everything must have an evolutionary function, you know), beauty itself actually defies evolution and testifies of the Creator, who put it here for our benefit.
Creation contains an astonishing abundance and variety of beauty that constantly surprises and delights us. Every individual tree is a work of art, yet trees come in an immense variety of sizes, colors, and shapes. Each day we’re barraged not just by beautiful sights of cedars, oaks, and firs, but by sundry smells of wildflowers and ripening fruit, or the sweet sounds of songbirds and rustling wind. The deeper we explore our world, the more beauty we find.

How did all this come to be? Understanding creation isn’t just about explaining matter or the complex moving parts of living things, but “added beauty.” Experience tells us that beauty doesn’t come by accident—it offers no obvious survival benefit, and many existing natural laws promote deterioration and decay. So what created and sustains the earth’s beauty?
To read the rest, click on "Beauty—The Undeniable Witness". 

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

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Evolutionists Use Contrary Data to their Advantage

It's a wondrous thing to watch unbiased, objective evolutionary scientists prove their points by using the complex scientific approach of Making Stuff Up™. Actually, they want to advance their beliefs so much, and are so unwilling to say, "Hey, this data refutes our position!", that they will find ways to say that data actually supports what they are promoting. Square peg, meet round hole.

Evolutionary scientists are far from being objective and unbiased, and will contrive ways to force-fit contrary data into evidence for evolution!
Modified from an image made at SignGenerator.org (link removed, site missing)
The link below will show you how they work with the sudden appearance of marine reptiles in the fossil record, the so-called evolution of the British, measuring the differences between apes and humans, contrived "explanations" of protein evolution, butterfly wing patterns, how homosexual behavior in beetles applies to the rest of the animal kingdom, and more. Darwinists pass this stuff off as "science" in their efforts to sidewind away from the evidence that clearly supports creation.

After the analysis, the author presents additional material for educational purposes and suggests, "Now it’s your turn. You’ve watched some Baloney Detecting on the above evolutionary claims; now try your hand at these others. Teachers may use this as a class assignment for middle or high-school grade levels. Demonstrate a couple in class, then assign some others for homework". This should be quite enlightening. To see "science" in action and then try your hand at Baloney Detecting, click on "Forcing Contrary Data into Evolution Stories".


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

Friday, May 27, 2016

Better Mining Through Fungus?

At first, I was going to start this article with "fungi to be with", but decided that joke is in spore taste.

"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"

Right, I'd better get on with it.

There's a ground fungus known as Talaromyces flavus that actually "knows" how to get what it needs when it encounters iron: it essentially mines it.

A lowly ground fungus has the surprising ability to obtain iron for nutrients in a manner surprisingly similar to mining operations that humans use.
Original image source: Clker clipart
The fungus uses acid etching and extraction techniques quite similar to those used by humans. It should be obvious that the Designer of all creation gave it this unique ability to survive. If the trait was a product of evolution, it would never happen because the fungus would be stopped in its tracks (so to speak) and die.
What happens when a soil fungus runs into a hard mineral containing precious trace amounts of nutritious iron? A poorly designed fungus might go hungry and languish like a forlorn noodle, but researchers recently found ways that a soil fungus conducts a miniature mining operation. The details reveal a well-designed suite of fungal features that need a reasonable explanation.

Chinese investigators experimented on the soil fungus Talaromyces flavus that came from a serpentinite mine in Donghai, China. They used various techniques to assess exactly what goes on when the feeding fungus touches a green mineral called lizardite—a unique mineral found in serpentinite rocks. The researchers published their finds in the journal Geology.
To read the rest, click on "Iron-mining Fungus Displays Surprising Design". This would be a good place for a joke on the subject, but I'm a little rusty.


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

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Evolution, Bird Diversity, and Noah's Ark

Even in upstate New York, we can see a variety of birds at the feeder on our patio. My wife likes to admire several kinds, and we have a bit of fun looking them up in books and online. She likes the two kinds of woodpeckers that drop in, and giving peanuts to the blue jays. Jays are smart, too, which fits because they're related to crows and ravens, considered among the most intelligent birds.

There are about 10,000 living bird species in the world today. How does such diversity fit into creation science and the "kinds" on Noah's Ark?
Malicious Advice Mallard is at it again.
In some ways, evolutionists and creationists agree about some elements of speciation. We disagree when it comes to how such varieties came about, and from where. There's no evidence that they came from a common ancestor, and the South American origin story is based on Darwinian presuppositions. We have our presuppositions, too, and believe that speciation of birds that were on Noah's Ark during the Genesis Flood is a better explanation of scientific evidence. This involves the study of baraminology or biblical kinds, terms held in derision by evolutionists because it does not fit their arbitrary, naturalistic classification system. They prefer the word species, but that is not as cut and dried as you may be led to believe.
Birds are remarkable creatures that capture the amazement of just about anyone who takes time to observe them. From watching an eagle soar to staring at a hummingbird hovering in front of a flower, the colors and behaviors of birds display beauty and complexity that bring awe to the observer. Almost everyone notices birds, but some people specialize in looking for birds. Bird watchers (also called birders) make time to look for birds in their natural habitats. Birders are known for keeping lists of birds they have seen, and enjoy going on expeditions to look for bird species not on their “life list” (birders have daily lists, monthly lists, and yearly lists too). My life list is relatively short, only about 150 different species, but I have a goal to reach over 200 by the end of this year.

Ornithologists estimate the diversity of living bird species in the entire world to be around 10,380. (I have a long way to go on my life list). That number almost doubles the number of extant mammal species (5,416) and is almost 3,000 more than extant amphibian species (7,509). The number of reptile species is the closest to the bird number with a current count of 10,272 extant species. Because most of these vertebrates are terrestrial, we have about 33,500 different species of terrestrial vertebrates on earth today. I am leaving out the aquatic vertebrates (mainly the fishes) because they would not have been represented on the Ark (33,200 fish species have been described, and the implications of that are important for creation scientists who are trying to model the diversity of all life from the Flood to the present).
To read the rest, click on "Bird Speciation from the Flood to the Present". 


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

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Evolutionists Boxed in with Pandoraviruses

One of the failures of evolution is where to place viruses on Darwin's fictitious Tree of Life. They are living things. No, they are not living things. But they have DNA. So, where do they belong in the alleged "descent from a common ancestor" motif?

Viruses have long been a source of trouble for evolutionists. The discovery of Pandoraviruses is a bigger box of trouble for them.
Pandora by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1879
To make matters worse, some large versions of the virus have been discovered. Are Pandoraviruses dangerous? After all, many viruses cause illnesses. But not all viruses do, even though the Pandoraviruses are more complex than their kid brothers. , They cannot be traced to any cell so (wait for the story) they probably belong to a separate tree of life. Yeah, sure. If anything, they've devolved, so like their namesake Pandora, they're a box of trouble for evolutionists. But when people insist on evolution and deny creation, science yields many troubles for them.
Viruses in many ways are an enigma to biologists. Debate has raged for years as to whether viruses can even be considered a life form. As they lack the enzyme and organelle ‘machinery’ that defines a living cell, viruses cannot carry out the necessary internal metabolism to sustain life, or to reproduce themselves. It’s true that they carry their own genes (the DNA or RNA ‘blueprint’ that codes for their construction). However, viruses can only reproduce by commandeering a suitable host’s cell machinery to do the job. Viruses therefore can in no way be presented by evolutionists as a transitional form (i.e. an ‘evolutionary intermediate’) between non-life and life, as viruses need to have fully-functional living cellular organisms already in existence! Viruses do not really fit anywhere on the evolutionary ‘tree of life’—they are very obviously not the ancestors of one-celled (or any other) creatures.
To read the rest, click on "Pandoraviruses: a Pandora’s Box of trouble for evolution".

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

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Sorry, No Twin for Earth

Secular cosmologists and astronomers are chomping at the bit to find a planet like Earth among the extra-solar planets. They get all agitated when something is found in the "habitable zone", but just because a planet is in this zone doesn't mean all that much because there is a heap of other factors to consider.

Secular astronomers and cosmologists keep hoping to find Earth's twin, but those hopes look increasingly futile.
Derived from materials available at openclipart
They keep dreaming big, but it seems more like stubborn rebellion against the reality that Earth was created and set in a special place, and not the product of the Big Bang and cosmic evolution.
The Kepler spacecraft has found 2,325 exoplanets so far, but there’s still no place like Earth.

Live Science chose to frame the news optimistically. Its headline reads, “9 New Habitable Zone Planets! Huge Haul of Worlds Found By Space Telescope.” Exclamation point, even. But it takes more than being in the zone to qualify as an Earth twin. Two other news sites show a sad face at the news:
  • 1st Alien Earth Still Elusive Despite Huge Exoplanet Haul (Space.com) 
  • More than 1,000 new exoplanets discovered – but still no Earth twin (Andrew Norton in The Conversation)
To keep hope alive, optimists say Kepler is not done yet (it may work into 2018). Sooner or later we’ll get lucky, Andrew Norton says:
To find out what Norton says and to read the rest, click on "Earth Twin Still Missing in Exoplanet Trove".

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

Monday, May 23, 2016

DNA, Creation Science, and Noah

Mockers sometimes say that the Bible is false because it contains miraculous events — especially that Noah thing. Oh, and Jesus rising from the dead. Can't have miracles because naturalistic presuppositions preclude such things. Then they may say something along the lines of, "But we have science, and DNA proves evolution is true and the Bible is wrong!"

A new study of mitochondrial DNA by a creationist scientist supports humanity's lineage back to Noah.
Noah gives Thanks for Deliverance by Domenico Morelli, 1901
Nice arbitrary assertions, but they're worthless. DNA mutates, as any evolutionist that won his spurs knows. But at current rates of mutation extrapolated backward, the human race can only be thousands of years old. What really gets Darwinists on the prod is when creationist scientists use data and confirm the Bible. A new study supports what biblical creationists have been saying all along. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
Evolutionary teachings hold that all mankind arose from a population of ape-like ancestors from which chimpanzees also evolved. But Genesis, the rest of the Bible, and Jesus teach that all mankind arose from Noah's three sons and their wives. A new analysis of human mitochondrial DNA exposes two new evidences that validate the biblical beginnings of mankind.

Mitochondrial DNA comes from mothers. Mother egg cells transmit their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into the cellular mitochondria of every child born. This unique annex of DNA contains 16,569 bases—either adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine (A, G, C, T)—that encode vital cellular information, like an instruction manual.

Scientists have been comparing the genetic differences between every major people group around the globe. How did those differences arise?  
How, indeed? To learn more, just click on "New DNA Study Confirms Noah" to finish reading.

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

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Getting Adequate Information

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

You're likely to hear people refer to themselves as skeptics, but they are probably using the word in its common form (needing evidence before accepting a truth claim) instead of identifying with the ancient Greek school of philosophy. Some apply the word skepticism to religious or supernatural views related to the irrational philosophy of agnosticism, while others could be termed hyper-skeptics, rejecting any and all evidence for God, creation, and so forth. (Kinda puts a burr under my saddle when they question little (if any) "evidence" for evolution while rejecting evidence for creation.)

People tend to get excited and believe things that are not exactly correct, especially in origins research. Healthy skepticism and fact-checking are in order.
Charles Darwin is in a tree near my apartment.
Being skeptical can be healthy. When someone makes a claim that a bit on the fantastic side, I reckon it's a good thing to want some evidence instead of being gullible. F'rinstance, here's Papa Darwin in a tree. Evolution be praised, blessed be! I proved my claim by putting a picture next to it. Actually, it's a psychological thing called pareidolia, which made the news when people "saw" a lady on Mars. By putting a picture of Darwin next to it, I can encourage others "see" what isn't really there. Maybe I could have "seen" a baboon or other ape in the tree as well.

Another example on the fantastic side is the claim that eight US soldiers disappeared when trying to remove a flying machine from an Afghan cave. This story has spread verbatim to several occult and UFO-related sites, but doesn't impress me. For that matter, I'm mighty skeptical when someone's source cannot be verified, or worse, "I know a guy whose brother has a friend in a high government office who spoke on conditions of anonymity, and he's using an assumed name because he's afraid for his life". Something a bit more substantial, if you please.

People get gullible when reading things on the Web, and I suspicion that they are fond of things with drama. Sometimes reports are made with the ring of authority and even seem plausible, but are actually made up. (Speaking of the "ring of authority", how often do people get malware and viruses because e-mail or a site insists that their software is out of date, there's a problem with the computer, or whatever, then they learn the hard way by clicking on said link? They can sound convincing.) The Web has made starting rumors, hoaxes, and outright lies much easier nowadays. Look for the Dilbert video excerpt about "Chronic Cubicle Syndrome", it's just over three minutes long. Want to check the link now that I obtained for you on the alert? Do a search for "Norton Safe Web", right-click the link information, copy it, then paste it into the Norton Safe Web checker. There are other tools if you want to search for something like "how do I know a link is safe?" The last few sentences have been a public service message from The Question Evolution Project.

Moving on to something more prosaic (and coming down the trail closer to the point I'm going to make), it seems like gluten allergies have suddenly stampeded in recent years. Gluten is a type of protein, and the disorder that makes people sick actually affects a small number of people. See "The reason people go gluten-free isn't because they're allergic" and "The Real Reason Wheat is Toxic (it’s not the gluten)" for some interesting information. I don't endorse the sites, but they should be able to spark some thinking and further research — which is part of the reason for this here article. Edit: Just learned about this from Doug McBurney: "Gluten-free diet could damage health of people without coeliac disease, expert claims".

Evolutionists use many fallacies, but the pertinent one now is the fallacy of insufficient evidence. If you scan the articles on this site, you'll see a passel of complaints about something being promoted as "evidence for evolution", but Darwin's Cheerleaders conveniently ignore pertinent data that does not support their preconceptions. It behooves us (do people still say "behooves"?) to be skeptical of claims, use some logic (watching for changing word meanings, incomplete data, hasty generalizations, and so on), and take things slow. 

Now for the earlier examples. 

People get fooled by "faces" and such because they are led into seeing something (or mayhaps because they want to), sometimes encouraged into it like I did in my example. 

Eight Marines disappeared because they were on a secret mission (how do you know that?) to a lost cave (not exactly lost now, is it?) on a mission to find an ancient flying machine (they disappeared, the mission was secret, the cave is lost, so how do you know?), and "according to US scientists" it's trapped in a "time well". So why try to get it out? No, just settle down and think things through before spreading fantastic things.

Don't believe everything you read on the Web. There is a wealth of good information as well as useless stuff. Learn to check out sources. (No, I'm not advocating the genetic fallacy, which is usually based on prejudices, but when a source has a doubtful reputation, the information may need verififying.) We all make mistakes, but let's try to be a bit more careful on fact-checking, you savvy?

So you think you have a gluten allergy. Is it self-diagnosed through some cause-and-effect thing, where you ate certain wheat stuff and got sick, or did a medical professional do a thorough diagnosis? It may not be gluten per se, but something else that you're sensitive to. Or not. But the possibility that it may not be a gluten allergy may be worth checking out.

Whether it's extraterrestrial/occult activity, faces and things where they don't belong, spooky stuff that sounds more like rumors than actual news reports, healthy skepticism is very helpful. When it comes to origins research and the proclamations of Darwinoids, even more skepticism and critical thinking are needful.

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

Friday, May 20, 2016

Insects and Noah's Ark

A question from Christians and skeptics alike is whether or not Noah had insects on the Ark. It's a fair question. Some of us would rather he had left some things off, but even the most irritating insects serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things, including "services" that we may have never heard of.

A fair question from Christians and skeptics alike is whether or not Noah had insects on the Ark. The answer is a dogmatic "maybe".
Image credit: Morguefile / shanblan
Did Noah bring insects on the Ark? The answer is a most definite maybe. There are arguments both pro and con based in Hebrew language, biblical usage, and so on. But it's admittedly educated speculation, and nobody needs to throw down on someone else over it. Creationists have postulated models for how insects and animals may have conducted themselves on the ark. Many can survive without the protection of the Ark, but others probably needed shelter.
In Genesis 6:19–20, God commanded Noah to take representatives “of every living thing of all flesh,” including those “of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.” Where might insects be included in this list?

It may help to look back at creation. While plants were created on Day Three (Genesis 1:11–13), living creatures (Hebrew: nep̄eš ḥayyâ) were created on Days Five and Six (Genesis 1:20–31). Aquatic, flying, and terrestrial invertebrates, including insects, would likely have been included among them. In fact, the word typically translated bird in these passages (Hebrew: ‘ôp̄ in Genesis 1:20, 21, 6:20) is more literally “flying creature” and applies to more than just birds. The dietary lists given to the Israelites specifically mention bats as flyers (Leviticus 11:19; Deuteronomy 14:18). Flying insects are mentioned in these passages as a separate group—the creeping things that fly (Hebrew: šereṣ hā‘ôp̄; Leviticus 11:20–23; Deuteronomy 14:19–20), suggesting they were considered a particular grouping of flying creatures.

Insects, however, may be defined separately from most land animals in the Hebrew language. Consequently there are arguments on both sides as to whether insects were of the kinds that were to be taken onto the Ark.
To read the entire article, click on "Were Insects on the Ark?"

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

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Planetary Formation and Tall Tales

Evolutionary cosmologists have differing stories about the origin of the universe, stars, planets, and whatnot. That's because none of them actually account for the data and don't know what happened in the distant past for a certain fact. Although they erroneously claim that they see stars forming, they don't worry overmuch that their views defy the laws of physics. There are favored versions and alternatives, so when you see a fiction-as-fact documentary, remember that they're only presenting opinions.

Star formation stories are outrageous enough, so to make things worse, naturalistic views on planetary formation are anti-science.
Nice artwork. Image credit: NASA.
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents.)
With universe and star formations, since they're having a fine time of it, may as well throw in more anti-science stories about the naturalistic formation of the planets as well. Sure, make it all worse. If you sit and cognate on it a spell, you'll realize that there are serious problems with the swirling hot gasses compressing into various kinds of planets scenario. The wouldn't have to spend so much time concocting tall tales if they'd admit that the evidence does not support any kind of evolution, but it does support biblical creation.
Attempts to explain how stars form naturalistically have encountered significant challenges because the known laws of physics indicate it is virtually impossible. There is a remote possibility for star formation via the mechanism of a nearby supernova, but dark matter is generally invoked as the ‘unknown god’, a ‘god of the gaps’ to make it work, because such events are extremely unlikely. Without this ‘unknown god’ in their uncreated universe, the formation of the star at the centre of a planetary nebula is essentially impossible. It also follows that planet formation has a similar problem. How do planets form in a nebula of gas and dust, which according to the known laws of physics cannot condense a star at its centre?

More importantly, how do you get a solar system with planets in habitable zones? Radiation from the newly born star would drive out any excess gas and dust from the path of the planets via photo-evaporation and stellar winds, making the formation of planets very unlikely. The planets allegedly condense via the core accretion model resulting in (in some cases) a habitable planet in the habitable zone, at the right distance from the parent star where water can exist in its liquid state. Then water is assumed to condense on the surface of that new planet—but by what mechanism? Ultimately this is a question about life elsewhere in the universe. But I digress.
If you want to commence to finishing this article, click on "Planetary system formation: exposing naturalistic storytelling".

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

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Wall-Climbing Cave Fish and Evolution?

The lack of transitional forms that Darwin predicted must be making fish-to-farrier evolutionists climb the walls, which might explain their seeing what ain't there with a newly-found cave angelfish from Thailand. It can move around on land a mite (so do some catfish), so there's speculation that this critter can give clues about the transition from fish to land animals.

Evolutionists are again using fact-free speculation to say that a fish that "walks" is evidence for evolution.

Of course, it would be mighty helpful if they didn't simply argue from their presuppositions, and if there was a shred of fossil evidence. But when scientists say something, Darwinistas run with it and proclaim it as scientific fact. Not hardly! Keep in mind the way these people think: they're opposed to admitting that life was created no matter what the evidence shows, and they also say that loss of features are evidence of upward evolution.
Scientists recently discovered another bizarre fish. This one has a pelvic girdle. Is it the missing link evolutionists have been searching for? The scientific name of this supposed "evolutionary relic" is Cryptotora thamicola. Those with a Darwinian worldview maintain Cryptotora gives us a hint of the water-to-land transition undergone by early tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates) some "400 million years ago." One reason for this speculation is because Cryptotora has a unique style of locomotion:
Here we show that the blind cavefish Cryptotora thamicola walks and climbs waterfalls with a salamander-like diagonal-couplets lateral sequence gait and has evolved a robust pelvic girdle that shares morphological features associated with terrestrial vertebrates.
To read the rest, click on "Wall-Climbing Cave Fish: Evolutionary Intermediate?"

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

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Secularists Complaining about Evolved Morality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

All right, I give up. I've been caught and have to admit that I've been deceiving all y'all for over five years, using thousands of articles and posts here and other places of my own and where I guest post. The evidence is conclusive (click for larger):

It would be ridiculous for me to try to withstand such logic and morality, since I am but dust and ashes, and he has the Mighty Atheist™ intellect. There is no need to cite more than the first sentence of this post's introduction, or examine the abundant material offered at the link. So, this is my last post. This site and The Question Evolution Project will be shut down, and I will cease my guest activities on other sites.

Now we'll wait for Haywire the Stalker to cherry-pick these sentences and find other ways to misrepresent me again. And why not? He's an evolutionist and a professing atheist (except for when he claims to be an agnostic), so he is acting in a manner consistent with his worldview. Still, being called a liar by a liar really burns my prairie schooner

What do these people hope to accomplish by demonizing Christians and biblical creationists? How does their activity solve any alleged problems, instead of simply making them look like angry rattlesnakes? They want to punish us and feel better, I suppose. They tell us we're wrong, won't listen to our side of the story, throw links at us from anti-creationist and atheopatic sites, and claim victory.

But wait! To biblically answer a fool according to his folly so he is not wise in his own eyes, let's go with it for the sake of argument. Suppose I did lie, and have been lying all along. I have challenged him (and others) to explain why it would be wrong for me to lie and do other negative behaviors that are common among modern atheists. In addition, I have pointed out that disagreements on the interpretations of evidence (and expressing opinions on the subjects) is not lying; science is supposed to thrive on challenge, not on protecting evolutionary dogma from examination, old son.

In our last exciting episode, the question was raised, "Did Morality Come From God or Evolution?" The answer is clearly not from evolution. If morality did evolve, then if I was lying (or stealing, committing adultery, coveting, a drunkard, etc.), then I'd be acting naturally and doing what I reckon is necessary to survive. Or it's because of global climate change, since that's a convenient "explanation" for behavior and other things, right?

Evolutionists proclaim a materialistic origin of morality. When they complain when someone steals from them, they are affirming biblical morality, not materialism.
Made from a template at SignGenerator.org (link removed, site missing)
Evolutionists are proclaiming their worldview as a natural thing, and yet they get burrs under their saddles when people act in accordance with their beliefs (see "Science Business Without God"), and fail to see the influence of religion in their own theories.

Science journals are mighty agitated because someone is making their material available online for free. Alexandra Elbakyan is using her own morality and doing what she believes is right. But when Big Science loses money, the publishers complain — and they're not being consistent with the ethical views they're promoting. Instead, they are supporting what God says, that he created us with knowledge of right and wrong, and of his existence in the first place.
Piracy sparks indignation among advocates of the idea that morality is an evolved trait.

Know the major science journals and you will know Big Science. That’s where the attitudes of the vested interests of this major cultural force are reflected. Nature, Science, PNAS and other journals decide what’s trendy, what’s important. Their papers filter down to the popular media, whose reporters translate the jargon into sound bites for the masses. And as the official mouthpieces of powerful scientific organizations, the journals importune governments to further the interests of their constituents.

Journal editors, on the other hand, love to promote evolutionary psychology. Mind, religion, altruism – these are mere Darwinian adaptations, outcomes of natural selection. Only simple-minded religious throwbacks pay attention to commandments of punishing gods who say, “Thou shalt not steal” (9/06/15). Nature, for instance, just printed a letter from correspondents in Poland who are very concerned about an “anti-science wave” there, including a rise in creationism:
You can read the rest of that article (and I hope you consider reading the others that were linked earlier) by clicking on "Evolutionary Morality Backfires on Big Science". By the way, that remark about the prairie schooner? I stole that from Chris Plante.

ADDENDUM (click for larger):


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

Monday, May 16, 2016

Did Morality Come From God or Evolution?

Based on naturalistic presuppositions (especially fish-to-philosopher evolution), scientists are attempting to account for morality. This is frustrating for them because not only is there no consensus on this, but there is also not a shred of evidence to support the conjectures of secularists.

Secularists try to account for morality via evolution. There are many problems with this concept.
Image from SignGenerator.org (link removed, site missing)
These owlhoots believe that belief in God is an invention of man, but if that's the case, what right do they have to complain about people being religious, since we've evolved that way? Try as they might to deny the Creator that they know exists (Romans 1:18-23), atheists and evolutionists cannot avoid the fact that God is the source of morality. If you study on it, you'll realize that they are tacitly testifying to what Scripture says, that God has given us not only knowledge that he exists, but that he has put a sense of morality within us.
I make no apology for saying this: your opinion on this issue doesn’t matter, nor do the opinions of the authors of any of these studies cited here. Neither does mine, but there is something that does. With so many complexities and differences of opinion on the issue, it should become clear that the answer is not to be found among humans—at least not yet. Where, then, is the answer? Ironically, many have come to the conclusion that the issue is not simple enough even to come to a conclusion. If there were no God, and there were no revelation about Him, it would be reasonable to come to the same conclusion—if reason could even be said to exist.

The issue of morality is tied up in many concepts, which doesn’t help make the issue any more comprehensible. Often the idea is presented more as the evolution of religion or the evolution of a concept of God (as if it’s fully out of the picture to acknowledge even the possibility of one that’s revealed Himself at all to us)—or even of altruism and social graces, cooperation, society, supernatural phenomena, generosity, and so on. Admittedly, covering all of these topics merit separate considerations, but there is a common thread that will be discussed in this paper.
To read the rest, click on "Which Came First: Knowledge of God or Morality? (Or Both?)". It's the right thing to do.

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

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Evolution and Elephant Tusks

In the book King Solomon's Mines, there's a violent scene about elephant hunting where one of the Zulu assistants was killed by an elephant that the group had been shooting:
Umbopa stood contemplating the huge dead elephant and the mangled remains of poor Khiva.

"Ah, well," he said presently, "he is dead, but he died like a man!"
What? What is "died like a man", other than a subjective opinion? They were killing for sport and for the ivory of the tusks. People had different views in 1907, but the international ivory trade is illegal for good reason! The character had a stupid death. That's my subjective opinion, anyway.

On a lighter note, Groucho Marx said something ir-relephant to this topic:

"Is there a point to this, Cowboy Bob?"

Actually, there is. Elephants are losing their tusks to some extent.

Elephants are losing their tusks, and evolutionists are claiming that this loss of a trait is evidence *for* evolution.
Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo
Because of hunting and such (a variation on natural selection), tusks are fading. Amazingly, Darwinists are claiming that this is evidence of evolution. Not hardly! Evolution is the acquiring new traits through added genetic information. Evidence does not support evolution, but what is observed supports what is to be expected from the biblical account.
Elephants’ tusks are getting shorter—with an increasing proportion of the elephant population even being completely tuskless—and it’s widely being heralded as ‘evolution’ and ‘Darwinism in action’.

Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins refers to the phenomenon in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth—the evidence for evolution, in the chapter titled “Before our very eyes”. The speed of the change has surprised many. Dawkins points out in that chapter that “Darwin himself picked out [elephants] as one of the slowest-reproducing animals, with one of the longest generation turnovers” and he opines that, in reference to the speedy reduction in tusk size, “We would not expect to see it within one human lifetime.”
To read the rest, click on "Why the elephant is losing its tusks (and it’s not evolution!)


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

Friday, May 13, 2016

Carving Out Yosemite Valley

If you ever find yourself out Carson City, Nevada way, you might want to consider heading a bit further west into California to see Yosemite Valley National Park. (Or if you're in California and want to get away from the big city stuff.) Saddle up a mule or a horse for a ride (or do some hiking), maybe take in some fishing, stargazing, camping, bird watching, and so forth. Better yet, you could take a Creation Vacation there. Study up on it a bit, and the article linked below can give you a good start.

How did the Half Dome and the rest of Yosemite Valley get made? It was a series of cataclysmic processes during the Genesis Flood.
"Half Dome" image credit: Pixabay / Unsplash
Sure is some nice scenery. We get a lot of that all over the world, what with mountans, valleys, and such. Too bad it's wrecked. That's right, what we're seeing is the result of the judgement of God on mankind from the Genesis Flood; we can't fathom how wonderful the pre-Flood world was, and it's mighty gorgeous even now. Those rocks didn't form from uniformitarian processes ("the present is the key to the past", slowly over long periods of time), but through rapid cataclysms as a result of the Flood. Lots of water, subduction, glaciation, sediment deposits — it was a busy time, old son.
As we travel to earth’s breathtaking landscapes, we often hear gasps of wonder, “What a beautiful world God made!”

Yes, it’s beautiful. The spacious skies and mountain majesties direct our thoughts toward our Maker. Yet none of these landscapes is the way God originally created it. The beauty resulted from catastrophic processes that reshaped the planet. So every time we see a majestic mountain scene or valley, we should take the time to ponder God’s dealings with human sin during the Flood and its profound impact on the planet.

Consider Yosemite Valley, one of the most popular tourist sites in California. This spectacular U-shaped valley is carved into the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 150 miles (240 km) east of San Francisco. It stretches 7.5 miles (11 km), with an average width of about 1 mile (1.6 km) and sheer granite cliffs towering 3,000–4,000 feet (900–1,200 m) on either side. Creeks cascade from hanging side valleys down into the main valley.

If God didn’t create this beautiful valley in the very beginning, how did it happen?
Dr. Snelling will tell you how it happened. Just click on "Yosemite Valley—Colossal Ice Carving". 


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

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Creationists Using Carbon-14 on Fossils

Carbon-14 is not supposed to exist in some things, so secular scientists are not interested in testing for it. But carbon-14 is being found, and creation scientists are doing significant research — upsetting uniformitarian views.

Ancient-Earth advocates don't cotton to using carbon-14 to date fossils, coal, diamonds and such because it has an upper limit of about 60,000 years according to their reckoning. Why test things that they "know" are billions of years old, since there won't be any found anyway? Arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions has hindered scientific research (such as claiming that the appendix is a "vestigial structure" leftover from our alleged evolutionary past, doing damage to people, then finding out that it's useful). What's interesting is that scientists have found carbon-14 in old materials.

Some owlhoots rush to say, "Contamination!", which not only impugns the skills of the technicians, but is also very unrealistic. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research have been doing carbon-14 studies, and are continuing their work. The results are promising, supporting the Genesis Flood model and causing consternation for uniformitarianism. After all, long ages are vital for evolution to work, and they can't have their foundation threatened, can they?
ICR researchers continue to look for radiocarbon in ancient carbon-containing Earth materials. Archaeologists commonly use carbon-14, or radiocarbon, to estimate ages for organic artifacts. No measurable amounts should exist in samples older than about 100,000 years because radiocarbon atoms would decay into nitrogen-14 before then. However, we keep finding carbon-14 in materials designated as tens or even hundreds of millions of years old.

ICR’s RATE initiative (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) revealed radiocarbon in coal samples and deeply buried diamonds deemed hundreds of millions of years old. Andrew Snelling later reported radiocarbon in supposedly 32 million-year-old wood from a Colorado mine3 and in a supposedly 116 million-year-old ammonite shell.
To read the rest, click on "Carbon-Dating Fossils". 


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

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Making Connections in the Brain

Once again, the more we learn about living things, the more there is to learn. Problem is, we don't rightly know what we need to learn. Especially the human brain. Noggin neurons are communicating, and some change as the need arises. Axons find ways to make connections and follow "beacons" to do so.

The specified complexity of connections in the human brain are becoming more difficult to fathom, making belief in evolution even more irrational.

Another interesting aspect is that messenger RNA gets involved in axon navigation. This specified complexity is further evidence of the wisdom of our Creator, and works against evolutionary paradigms. Evolutionists should use their intelligently designed minds, you savvy?
Scientists are beginning to be able to watch nerve cells reaching out and forming connections.

“'A day in the life of a synapse' reveals new facets of the adult brain,” a headline on Medical Xpress teases. Yes, even cells have a list of things to do today. Synapses are the gaps between nerves where the signal turns from electrical to chemical and back again. Why would nerves make that break instead of keeping things electrical, like humans do with their transmission lines? The answer may lie in a trait called “plasticity,” the ability to make rapid changes between connections.
To make the connection to finish reading the article, click on "Nerves Find Their Way in the Dark".


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

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Hello There, Honey!

Gotta admit that an article on honey didn't get my excitement meter buzzing, but when I read it, I realized that it was actually quite interesting.

"Oh, look! A bee!"

Yeah, I see it, too. One thing I learned is that there are about 20,000 species classified as bees, but only seven of them make honey. These bees eat nectar and pollen (performing a service by visiting a whole heap of flowers every day and helping pollinate), and they make the honey for surplus food during the off-season.

The honey-making process of bees shows the skill of their Designer, and gives a nasty sting to evolution. Also, honey has some surprising medicinal and other properties.
Image credit: Freeimages / MMNoergaar
The whole hive process should be the envy of manufacturing companies. They have many workers collecting the supplies (using efficient built-in navigation systems), returning back to the hive, making the honey, doing construction and other hive-related activities — the expression "busy as a bee" was probably concocted before it was realized just how busy they really are. This testifies of the Creator's design and stings bacteria-to-beekeeper evolution, since all the mechanisms involved have to be in place at the same time, or they're worthless.

Best of all, they make more honey than they can use, and we eat the surplus. But be careful, honey and some other consumables are unsuitable for infants under one year old. It's more than a sweetener for my morning cereal or afternoon tea, honey has some surprising medicinal benefits. Hey, did you know it never goes bad?
From the earliest post-Flood times, ancient near-eastern cultures believed that honey was a gift from the gods. These descendants of Noah were aware that honey had medicinal properties: surviving records show how the ancient Egyptians used honey to prevent and cure various diseases, and heal wounds.

The first known official recognition of the importance of honey dates from the very beginnings of Pharaonic Egypt—the use of the title ‘Sealer of the Honey’. Egyptians involved in honey production were also known as ‘Bee keepers/Honey gatherers’.
To read the entire article, click on "Honey — A healing gift from the Creator". 


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

Monday, May 9, 2016

Evolution and Making New Genes

Darwin's concept of natural selection bringing on new and improved life forms from a single common ancestor has been largely abandoned in favor of evolution through mutations. The hands working at the Darwin Ranch are in no danger of losing their jobs, though, they can come up with some mighty interesting tales on how genes form in the first place.

Evolutionists mainly rely on genetic mutations as the driving force for their conjectures, but their mechanisms are not supported by evidence.

Even though Darwin's Drones think it's all settled science and take what scientists say as ironclad truth, when given some examination, the mechanisms for mutation are implausible. Experiments show that at least seven mutations are needed to make a protein-coding gene change into a different protein-coding gene. And we have a passel of genes in us. Then you have the problem of defining "beneficial" mutations, which is often subjective. Evidence does not support evolutionary conjectures, but evidence does support the biblical creation model.
The evolutionary apologist Jerry Coyne describes Darwinian evolution as,
life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species.
Ignoring the nonsensical suggestion that a single molecule “lived,” Coyne illustrates that evolution requires some very elaborate and dramatic forms of change. Indeed, evolution claims that during the course of earth history invertebrates transformed into vertebrates, non-flying creatures developed wings and started flying, and marine animals evolved legs and began walking.

The Evolution Motor?

The standard scenario is that chromosomal DNA undergoes changes (e.g., mutations) that can eventually form new genes. These new genes can alter the physical features and abilities of an organism. Eventually, enough new genes can change a dinosaur into a bird. Thus, evolutionists conclude that “the birth of new genes is an important motor of evolutionary innovation.”
To learn more, head on over to "How Are New Genes Made?


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

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Encouraging Cancer Research Through Deliberate Mutations

Darwinists are fond of mutations, because they think that they are the main mechanism by which slime-to-sandblaster evolution occurred. They have a problem finding undisputed beneficial mutations, which are highly unlikely in their worldview of random, purposeless events. But there are beneficial, targeted mutations by design.

A new cancer treatment with a very successful initial test involves targeted mutations, and shows yet another failure of evolutionary thinking for the advancement of medical science.
"Digital Illustration Of Dna Structure" image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / hywards
We have a passel of cancer cells every day, but our immune system fights them off. Our system even sends special mutations of its own making to trouble zones, as it was created to do. When the system fails and cancer cells grow out of control, that's when the problems set in. New research involves taking out cells, doing intelligently designed mutations, inserting them back — and having a huge success rate of leukemia patients going into remission. And no, evolutionary "science" had nothing to do with this.
CBS News has reported on a new cancer treatment tried on 35 terminally-ill, advanced-stage leukemia sufferers. The disease went into remission in 94%, or 33 of 35 patients! Dr. Michael Grossbard, New York University's Perlmutter Cancer Center leukemia specialist told CBS News, "Oncologists are reluctant to use the word extraordinary. But these [results] are extraordinary. These are really remarkable findings..." Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart turns to RSR's targeted-antibody expert, Jonathan Bartlett, who explains both the molecular biology behind this new treatment and the worldview implications ahead of it. Bartlett also discusses the impossibility that an evolutionist faces in trying to understand such a treatment and why so many scholars are fleeing Darwinism.
To listen to the discussion (free to listen online or download), click on "RSR Explains Extraordinary Cancer Antibody Treatment".

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