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, July 30, 2016

Whose Life Matters?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

I don't know about other countries, but America is very "race" conscious. Some ethnic groups claim victim status and persecution from other groups, yet little attention is given to the murders of their own "kind". We hear about the "Black Lives Matter" group, and somehow, it becomes almost acceptable in the eyes of leftist media for them to block traffic and murder police officers. A response is, "Blue Lives Matter", because we need the police to do their jobs. There's a whole heap of racism from whites, blacks, and other groups that you want to name. Somehow, the lives of unborn children are not important to many people.

Evolution and postmodernism have contributed to racial tensions; your worldview matters. Biblically, there are no "races". Here is some helpful material.
"College Liberal" "meme" inspired by comments from Doug McBurney.
This poor girl has been used in so many "memes", and was
probably just minding her own business when the picture was taken.
Did you know the word slave is based on the word Slav, as in Slavic people? They were taken to be slaves.  

Darker skin? We all have melatonin, but some are, shall we say, more melatonin enhanced that people like me who may be considered melatonin impaired. Postmodernism contributes to racism because of the absence of ultimate truth that postmodernism advocates. In addition, evolutionary thinking brought us "scientific" racism, which easily fed postmodern views. (No, I'm not saying that evolution or other philosophies are the cause of racism, that kind of attitude has been around a long, long, time.) Just study on it a moment: no ultimate truth, no Creator God, we're all just animals, survival of the fittest, do what you want to get some kind of fulfillment for yourself or your group. No ethnic group has a monopoly on discrimination. Just ask the Jews, as well as the Tibetans under Chinese occupation.

Contrast that kind of thinking to what is taught in the Bible: there are ethnic groups but no races, we are specially and separately created in God's image, Christians are to love one another and even do good to our enemies, protect the helpless, and so on. Unfortunately, there are professing Christian churches that are racist. I was going to post a link to an example, but I was too shocked by what was said there (and I don't shock easily), that I refused contaminate the site with that white supremacist nonsense. On the other side of the silver dollar, some versions of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement believe that "white" people are going to Hell. Our presuppositions make a big difference on how we interact with people, and how we view the world.

I have some material on racism and the violence that goes along with it. First, "Are There Really Different Races?" Second, "Why All Lives Matter". Third, "Racial reconciliation: The Gospel is the answer". Fourth, "The fallacy of racism". I hope what I've presented will be edifying for you.

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

Friday, July 29, 2016

Consider the Proportional Strength of Ants

It's easy to dislike ants, I'll allow. They get in the house, spoil picnics, crawl up your leg, and other nuisance things. Ever have an ant farm as a kid? I didn't. Anyway, many of us like to stop and watch them carry things that are proportionally larger than they are and wonder how they can do that — and maybe want that ability ourselves.Well, some people are using biomimetics and thinking that mayhaps they can get inspiration from ants for robot designs.

Ants can be very irritating, but also fascinating. Their amazing proportional carrying ability testifies to the wisdom of their Designer.
Image credit: Openclipart
There was a study on the things, and it was discovered that they their structure is conducive to carrying. Part of this is that since their exoskeletons are so light, they do not have to carry their own weight, so they can focus on getting something from here and bringing it over there. Of course, the study praised evolution, blessed be! What they should have done is realize that the evidence shows the skill of their Designer.
Now, I’m far from being an entomologist, but the diversity of designs in the insect world and their astounding capabilities have always amazed me. Recently, I stood outside in a friend’s driveway watching what struck me as both a funny sight to see, yet truly incredible: a tiny little black ant hauling a dead worm at least 20 times its own size across the driveway to the anthill on the other side. How can such a small insect haul such a comparatively large prize? Also, how much weight can an ant carry?

A recent study on the structure and mechanics of the ant neck joint showed that the neck joint of the ant species Formica exsectoides (Allegheny mound ant) can withstand up to approximately 5,000 times the ant's own weight, far exceeding even the research team’s own estimates of 1,000 times.
To read the rest, click on "Ants: the incredible heavy-lifting champions". 


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

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Hopes for Extraterrestrial Life Dimming

Every once in a while, we learn that particles-to-planetologist scientists will effectively say, "Hold up there, Luke. You're saddling up the wrong horse!" In other words, they'll realize that certain ideas they have should be discarded instead of making excuses and sewing on more patches. (Of course, they still cling to evolution itself.) It's nice to see some scientific integrity now and then.

In their efforts to find extraterrestrial life, scientists put forth conjectures, then have to put out still more conjectures. They refuse to realize that the best place for life is this planet, that God created for a purpose.
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech
The pseudoscience of astrobiology is a part of the search for life on other planets, and they come up with some interesting speculations. Later, those are replaced because the facts tend to be obstreperous. (For example, if a planet is in the "habitable zone", it's not necessarily habitable.) Space "weather" ruins chances for life out there, as well as radiation, and some exoplanets may look good, but they're still too hot. The simple reason that they're having such a passel of hassle getting any hope of finding extraterrestrial life is that God put us here, and set up Earth to be inhabited and protected. To learn more about some of the difficulties, click on "More Challenges to Astrobiology". 


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

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

The "Convergent Evolution" Evasion

Darwinists have a corral-full of rescuing devices to be utilized when observations do not fit their paradigm. One of these is convergent evolution, where different organisms independently evolved similar traits, even though there is no plausible mechanism or evidence. Some of these convergent evolution evasions are quite outlandish.

One evasion technique of evolutionists used when facts do not fit the story is "convergent evolution". There is a far better explanation.
Image credits:
Burmese python (top), Pixabay / skeeze
Emperor boa (bottom), Pixabay / sipa
There are distinct differences in critters, but since they have some aspects in common, it's "evidence" that they evolved from a common ancestor. It's disallowed to even consider the more reasonable explanation: they were designed and equipped by their Creator to diversify within genetic limits and fill ecological niches. (That's right, creationists do accept speciation.) A recent study of pythons and boas reached the stunning conclusion that, even though they diversified, they did not change into something else.
Convergent evolution is the idea that the same trait, or set of traits, in completely different organisms were somehow produced through independent evolutionary processes. Now a new study shows how two different types of snakes have adapted to a diversity of environments by expressing the same traits (skin color and skull shape), but the study describes no mechanism for it. The authors simply attribute the highly repeatable process to the mysterious black box of convergent evolution.

Although both constrictors, pythons and boas are two different types of snakes that evolutionists believe share a common ancestor in the mid-late Cretaceous about 63-96 million years ago during the last alleged age of the dinosaurs. Many creationists maintain that pythons and boas are simply different created kinds. A common design explains much of the same genetic programming for some traits since the snakes' lifestyles and habits are similar. However, there are many fundamental differences between them. For example, boas bear live young while pythons lay eggs.
You should be able to squeeze in a little time to read the rest of the article. Just click on "Convergent Evolution or Design-Based Adaptation?


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

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Playing the Odds in the Origin of Life

Ever hear of an oddsmaker? It's someone who predicts the outcomes of games, contests, and sets the odds for betting. "Ten dollars on Snorting Sally in the fourth at 8:5". If you go to a casino, spend some time beforehand and look up your odds of winning — usually quite poor. You may do better at poker because you have human competitors and can watch their "tells".

Before evolution, there is allegedly abiogenesis, the origin of life through materialistic means. Don't take the bet, the odds are getting far worse all the time.
Image made at Atom Smasher
Oddsmakers need information to work with, and there's math involved, of course. Many details need to be considered. For something to evolve, there needs to be something to evolve from. When it comes to the origin of life, the information is getting bleaker all the time. It comes down to the cells, and even further, to the genome. The minimum number of cells for an organism to survive needs to be known, which involves sequencing genomes, gene expression, and several other items. It's a losing gamble to even consider that chemical evolution is possible. The smart money is on the certainty that God created life, and he made it for his purposes.
Las Vegas, the lottery, and the origin of life. What do these three things have in common? The house wins. Las Vegas casinos have the odds stacked against you. Many people buy a lottery ticket, but most never win the jackpot (and those that do usually file bankruptcy). The origin of life is so unlikely that every evolutionist ought to consider gambling at the casinos and playing the lottery on a regular basis because those odds are significantly better than a random chance process. Instead of 52 cards or 6 numbers in sequence, the origin of life requires over 100 genes to work. The odds of this happening were recently heralded with the synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome.

Evolution Is Stranger Than Fiction
When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, no one knew what the unit of inheritance was. Ironically, genetics, the science that studies inheritance, was founded at approximately the same time that Darwin published his book. Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk interested in how different traits were passed on from generation to generation.1 With additional scientific advancements since Darwin, our views of inheritance and cells have radically changed. Today’s view of inheritance is based on the genes of an organism, also called its genome. Genome information exploded over the past five years with next-generation sequencing technology. But information doesn’t speak for itself. All scientists are human beings, and we all have a bias that we need to admit. I’m a biblical creationist, but let’s examine what the evolutionist says.
To read the rest, click on "Las Vegas, the Lottery, and the Origin of Life — How Many Genes Are Required to Make a Single-Celled Organism?


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

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Ancient Man and Genius Artifacts

As observed many times, people argue from their presuppositions and worldviews. We keep hearing about how archaic humans showed signs of intelligence and culture, but proponents of atoms-to-anthropologist evolution are continually baffled by this. Worse for them are the many out-of-place artifacts that show great intelligence from ages long past. The reason is that they are using evolutionary presuppositions, man had not evolved intelligence yet, so those artifacts are "out of place" and mysterious. Why do y'all think Chariots of the Gods and other "ancient alien" books were so successful? Man had to be stupid way back when, right? Not hardly!

Ancient artifacts show ancient man intelligent
Antikythera mechanism fragment, image credit: Wikimedia Commons CC BY 2.5
I'm using the word artifact a bit loosely. Not only are there ancient computing devices, airplane-like gliders, batteries — and even cities. Biblical creationists should not be astonished that such things exist (aside from marveling at ingenuity), because we know that God created man intelligent from the get-go, not some stupid brute that had to gradually evolve into an intelligent being. When Noah and his family left the Ark after the Flood, they didn't begin at square one. It is possible that they had records of what had been developed before on that huge Ark. Then there's the dispersal of humanity at Babel that motivated these intelligent people to develop civilizations around the world.

Are any of the artifacts pre-Flood? Probably not, since the Genesis Flood was a violent, catastrophic event. I won't say it's impossible that some remarkable antediluvian objects have been found, but I will rule out the ancient cities. For more details, click on "Ancient civilizations and modern man — Were ancient cultures more advanced than many evolutionists believe?" You may also want to see "Why the electric battery was forgotten".


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

Saturday, July 23, 2016

More Deceiving for Darwin — "It's Just a Theory"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Returning fire with my unregistered assault keyboard. 

The militant atheists that hole up with the hands at the Darwin Ranch (down yonder at Deception Pass) don't quite live up to the "reason" that they claim to support. Logical fallacies abound, and some of their favorites are the ever-present ad hominem, the frequent circular reasoning,  the pernicious red herring (such as "the Ark Encounter money could have been used to feed the poor"), and the ubiquitous straw man argument such as this foolishness from L. Aron "AronRa" Nelson.(Ironically, the guy next to him in this picture advocates the teaching of critical thinking, which creationists have done for years, since critical thinking refutes both atheism and evolution). We'll focus on the straw man, but don't let the horses eat him, the straw is moldy.

A look at a brief anti-creationist article that uses logical fallacies to complain about our alleged logical fallacies. This is followed by comments about a theistic evolutionist's attack. If they want to shut us up, they should at least try to honestly present their disagreements.

Anti-creationists sometimes claim that our best argument against evolution is, "It's just a theory". I'll allow that some underinformed creationists have used that remark, but organizations advise that it is to be avoided by creationists. It's far better to say that evolution has not been proved. 

There's another problem, however, and that's the use of the word theory. Scientists use the word different from us reg'lar folk, they mean that a theory is an explanation of data is well-substantiated. (How many times do you hear someone say, or even do it yourself, "I have a theory about that..."? Not a whole passel of scientific investigation happening on the street.) Evolution does not qualify as a theory, but is at best a conjecture or hypothesis.

A short and unimportant post caught my attention. It was written by someone using the moniker "Logic vs Gods", and the post is useful to those of us who like to study logic. It is called "Creationists’ invalid excuse for rejecting evolution: ‘It’s just a theory’". He asserted using logic, then proceeded to fire off a volley of fallacies. The biggest problem is that he tried to dry gulch creationists by accusing us of relying on straw man fallacies while building his main premise on one of them his own self. I'll give you a few examples, but to see his embedded links, you'll need to visit the article itself.
It’s very easy to understand the reason monotheistic religions reject the theory of evolution. If evolution is accurate, the religions are inaccurate. . . And if evolution is accurate, our worst fears are realized — we are indeed mere mortals. 
The straw man begins with a hasty generalization ("monotheistic religions") and cherry picking. "And if evolution is accurate, our worst fears are realized — we are indeed mere mortals." Does the author know that atheists are way ahead of him on this? That subject should have been left out since it's not developed.
The problem creationists face is that there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution and less than none supporting Noah’s ark/flood. In my experience,creationists do not argue against the evidence specifically and facts individually (or they would lose and have lost historically), rather they straw-man it. . . they almost always revert to what they believe to be their best argument — evolution is ‘just a theory.’
The remark, "...they would lose and have lost historically" included a link to the ridiculous Dover case, which he uses to generalize against all creationists. Yet, creationary scientists have a difficult time getting evolutionary scientists to debate!

He asserts, "...there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution and less than none supporting Noah’s ark/flood". Creation science ministries have tens of thousands of articles on science refuting evolution, science about the global Genesis Flood, the veracity of Noah's Ark, and theology. The claim is fallacious because he makes an unsustainable assertion (but links to a couple of sites in the original to supposedly back up his points, but he clearly did not do his homework). "In my experience"? Well, his alleged experience should not be used to generalize a "fact" about creationists. 

"...they almost always revert to what they believe to be their best argument — evolution is ‘just a theory.’" Well, if my years of experience and been doing intensive creation science for quite a spell count for anything, I've seen few professing creationists use "it's just a theory" as an argument. Has this writer ever encountered any knowledgeable creationists, or investigated any biblical creationist sites?
But what if evolutionary theory did have as much weight as creationists apparently give ‘laws’ in science? Would they accept it?
Absolutely not! And I can prove it easily in one belief — miracles. Here we are in a universe acting perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics. We have no documented example ever in reproducible experiment of these laws being thwarted. But at will and on thousands of occasions, according to the holy texts, God has thwarted these laws of physics (and continues to do so every day). Every miracle, by definition, is a refutation of the laws of physics. 
Oh, please! He appeals to motives, makes another straw man (miracles, similar to another anti-creationist claim that we rely on "GodDidIt"), begs the question, and also commits the category mistake of subjecting the supernatural to materialistic methods. "Every miracle, by definition, is a refutation of the laws of physics." Another unsubstantiated assertion, and a gross disunderstanding of the way God operates. By the way, the fact that the universe follows certain laws is an argument for the existence of the Creator.
So if evolutionary theory did grow up to be a law — which of course it won’t by definition, that would that convince any creationist of it’s validity? No, again it’s just a straw man argument meant to denigrate the mountains of evidence science has discovered about the world.
There he goes again, making a straw man to protest the use of the straw man fallacy (I think this is the author getting a delivery). Plus, a question-begging epithet that creationists won't be convinced if evolution became a law. So what good is his hypothetical remark, other than to used biased language to sway his readers? Then he adds argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and implies the ad populum (appeal to popularity) fallacy with another bland assertion about "mountains of evidence".

Let's take a gander at something similar.

Unfortunately, there are some professing Christians that elevate current trends in science philosophies above the Word of God. Theistic evolutionists proclaim the glories of Darwinism and put God's name with evolution as if it was a sanctifying bumper sticker. (I believe that TEs are actually Deists because of their disdain for the word of God and the way they treat Bible-believing Christians.) Recently, a TE visited The Question Evolution Project on Facebook and attacked a post about the Ark Encounter. Ironically, it linked to an article I wrote about Ark Encounter and Darwin's Deceivers. For more about Theistic Evolution, see my article beginning with "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars".

He used the name "True Creation", and the diatribe was so biased and fallacy-riddled, I didn't see fit to spend my time on it. (Here's a screenshot for those who want to play "Spot the Fallacy". Click to make it larger.) However, I want to address a couple of things. First, it was specifically an attack on Ken Ham. (Ken and I are not best buddies even though he inspired me years ago, and I suspicion that he or a staff member took a dislike to me for some reason, but never mind about that now. I still support his work, along with that of several other biblical creation science ministries.) Like Bill Nye, the writer acted like Ken Ham is the only one promoting biblical creation, the Genesis Flood, and the reality of Noah's Ark.

He also used a straw man argument (as well as prejudicial conjecture) about the number of species in the world today, the number of species on the Ark, and erroneously concluded that evolution is the only answer. In addition, he brought up another falsehood, that "...they want this rubbish taught as a science in science class". Since he specifically maligns Answers In Genesis, I suggest that he round these AiG articles up for his corral: "Should Creation Be Taught in Public Schools?", and about species, a series entitled, "The Origin of Species After the Flood". For some heavy science, "On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity". At least he didn't use the "creationists argue that it's just a theory" stuff.

People have a great deal of faith in evolution, and hate creationists. But it would be helpful if they actually bothered to tell the truth about us, and to learn some critical thinking skills. We have both the truth of Scripture and the facts of science on our side.

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

Friday, July 22, 2016

Diamonds from the Basement

Most of us have ideas about diamonds, how they're valuable, look mighty fine, the hardest substance on Earth, made of highly-organized carbon, have industrial uses, and are even useful in superconductors. (Maybe the lethal satellite in Diamonds Are Forever isn't so far-fetched?) The ones you see in jewellery stores or up for auction are specially cut and polished, rough (or "raw) diamonds look quite a bit different, and don't fetch quite a high price. Secular geologists assign dates of somewhere around a billion years old, but since radiocarbon exists in them, they are actually thousands of years old. They're also a bit of a mystery.

So where do they come from?

Diamonds formed with Earth's basement rocks, and somehow made the long journey upward without breaking down. The Genesis Flood provides the right conditions and scenario.
Image credit: Pixabay / Aenigmatis-3D
Diamond deposits (and, naturally, diamond mines) are not everywhere on the planet. Also, they're unstable. They had to form way down yonder with Earth's basement rocks, and made the journey to the surface without breaking down into graphite. Creationary scientists have models involving the Genesis Flood that can bring diamonds from way down there up to where they can be reached without breaking down.
The clue to the origin of diamonds is their location. Diamond deposits are found in only a few isolated locations around the world. Historically, diamonds have been found and mined in southern and central Africa, where some 49% of diamonds originate. However, today large deposits are found in specific regions of Siberia, Canada, Australia, and Brazil.

The common denominator is unique areas of particular rock types known geologically as the “cratons.”1 Cratons consist of the foundational basement rocks of the continents, before they broke apart during the Flood and were covered by fossil-bearing sedimentary layers. These basement rocks were likely formed back in the Creation Week.

Diamonds apparently formed at the roots of these cratons. Why do we think this?

One clue is the radioisotope markers in the diamonds that match those of the basement rocks. (Based on occasional minute inclusions within them, diamonds are claimed to be 1–3.2 billion years old.2 While these secular dates are wrong, the relative radioisotope dating is helpful, indicating that diamonds were formed earlier than the Flood deposits.)

Another clue is that these craton roots are in the diamond stability zone.
You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on "Dazzling Diamonds by Special Delivery". 


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

Thursday, July 21, 2016

The Origin of Inspiration

Where does inspiration come from? Secular scientists have tried to deal with metaphysical questions based on their materialistic philosophies (such as free will, ethics, and so on) as if such things were a physical part of the brain. Not much success. Searching for naturalistic origins of imagination, inspiration, and so on are not exactly in their areas of expertise.

Materialistic evolutionary philosophies cannot account for imagination, creativity, and inspiration. Those are gifts of God.
Image credit: Freeimages / Keith Syvinski
There are different kinds of inspiration that people get, such as music, poetry, prose, the desire to get something accomplished, communicating a message, architecture, and so on. People have different motives, too, whether it's to impress others, problem solving, to give glory to God, and other possibilities. But getting an inspiration and using imagination involves knowledge as well. The design of life, the universe, and everything testifies to the brilliance of our Creator. So, how do we come into this? Ain't no way such things could have evolved, they are gifts from God.
The implications of the non-material inspiration and imagination of a design process are, arguably, a neglected area for theoretical science, though experimental scientists themselves exercise a similar process. This paper will by necessity examine only some aspects of inspirational and imaginative design, the sources for it and possible implications, due to the complex and subjective nature of human thought. Also to be explored is why designers’ thought processes are hard to quantify due to the irreducibly complex role of creativity-intelligence in design outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore the design process: creativity and in particular inspiration ‘leaps’ compared to imagination ‘steps’ in design. The existence of inspirational capacity poses a challenge to explanations regarding the origins of life that do not include a Creator. In the present observable world mere analogy does not explain why it is that designers who take inspiration from nature are seen as inventive and why, conversely, acts of inventive creation open new ways to understand the natural world.
I hope this inspires you to read the rest, just click on "The role of inspiration and imagination in design". You may also want to read about the "Golden Ratio".


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

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Science is a Beastly Business

It's one thing to learn about someone else by walking a mile in his moccasins, it's quite another to work at becoming an animal. A couple of scientists decided to get tax dollar grant money, live and eat like animals, and then writing books based on their "research". (Seems a bit nuts to me.) But they, or anyone else, cannot deny what they are created to be with mere assertion.

Scientists get wild by living like animals, then writing books. What do you expect from people who believe that we are just another animal? Your tax dollars at work!
Nebuchadnezzar by William Blake, 1795
Nebuchadnezzar, a king of the Babylonian Empire, lived the beast life in a much more impressive way — but not by choice, and not in a pretentious attempt at doing scientific research. Ultimately, he gave glory to God. These book-writing owlhoots had no intent at glorifying God. Such "research" is just plain silly, but fitting because secularists believe that humans are just another animal in common-ancestor evolutionism.
The AAAS endorses two books where researchers act like animals.

Thomas Nagel famously pondered what it would be like to be a bat, but he never jumped out of a belfry. In Science Magazine, published by the AAAS, Carolyn A. Ristau gave good reviews to two books by men who seem to have bats in their belfry. They took out into the wild to act like animals. Ristau begins by pointing to Darwin. His book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals began a tradition of turning people into beasts.
To read about these two wild books, click on "Scientists Become Beasts". 


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

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Modern Genetics Supporting Bible History

As we know, or should know by now, scientists do not go around collecting data and then seek to organize it. Instead, they have ideas and presuppositions; a "let's see what this does" approach can be helpful. Would a particles-to-pathologist evolutionist see if information supports the Bible? Not too often these days, old son.

Creation scientists have to do the work that secular scientists will ignore. In this case, DNA evidence supports what the Bible says, humanity is descended from the wives of Noah's sons.
Schematic representation of the human mitochondrial genome
Image credit: openi.nlm.nih.gov CC BY-NC 3.0 (use does not imply endorsement of site contents
A creation scientist saddled up and rode the Genetic Trail and had some very interesting findings. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data were downloaded from all major people groups, ran software, did other calculations — and demonstrated that ancestry can be traced back to the wives of Noah's sons! This supports the young Earth view of biblical creationists, and causes some consternation for evolutionists.
When research biologist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson plotted hundreds of human mitchondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences onto a tree diagram, the project revealed an obvious pattern: The mtDNA stemmed from three central “trunks” or nodes instead of just one. Three trends in Jeanson’s data suggest that the wives of Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth best explain this finding.

Mothers pass mtDNA to every new generation. It comes from the mother’s egg cell and contains 16,569 chemical base pairs—either adenine-thymine or guanine-cytosine—organized to encode vital information, like words in an instruction manual. Sometimes a DNA copying error, known as a mutation, leaves a different base in place of the original. Several empirical studies reveal that about one human mtDNA mutation occurs every six generations. When a mother’s egg cell mtDNA mutates in one place, the child conceived from that egg cell—plus, if the child is female, later descendants—inherits that difference. This leaves a genetic trail that can lead back to mtDNA ancestry.
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "DNA Trends Confirm Noah's Family". For people who want more technical material (it sure is beyond my ken), you can visit "On the Origin of Human Mitochondrial DNA Differences, New Generation Time Data Both Suggest a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model and Challenge the Evolutionary Out-of-Africa Model"


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

Monday, July 18, 2016

Conflicting Views and the Brain

Secularists are contradicting themselves by saying that there's a brain-based conflict"between "science" and "religion", and then try to find the source of free will in the brain, and also claim to know about ethics. Free will and ethics are spiritual concepts, and indeed, these naturalistic owlhoots conveniently ignore the fact that atheism itself is a religion, both legally and philosophically.

Secularists are showing bigotry, self-contradiction, and bad reasoning when claiming that there is a brain-based conflict between "science" and "religion".
Credits: Image*After
Scientists are mighty arrogant these days, making assertions about things that they really are only beginning to understand. There are naturalistic underpinnings in studies, contradictions, and problems with definitions (such as the key words here, science and religion, since science is a philosophy of interpreting evidence). Science gets presented in churches, that should cause a naturalist some cognitive dissonance. Further, Christians are commanded to love God with our minds as well as heart, soul, and strength.

Worse, bigotry rears up and, using convenient word games, insultingly asserts that biblical creationists have nothing to contribute to science. Some of the greatest thinkers have been Bible-believing Christians, many were and are six-day creationists. Meanwhile, atheists have been known to assert that they are by default more intelligent than Christians, and then promptly throw a passel of logical fallacies to "prove" it.
Since the “Decade of the Brain” in the 1990s, an increasing number of scientists and philosophers believe that there is no aspect of our lives that neuroscience cannot, in principle, help to illuminate. Unfortunately, and sadly, the interpretation of neuroscientific information about us is often surrounded by a fog of illogic and confusion. Clearing up the fog requires, among other things, careful scrutiny of the researchers’ basic assumptions; eradication of incoherent assertions, inconsistencies, and conceptual confusions; and an examination of conclusions and implications in the light of Scripture.

A case in point is a news article in the March 23, 2016, ScienceDaily. This article presents research results that purportedly found the cause for the conflict between science and religion in the brain. According to the article, it “is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.” In a nutshell, scientists discovered two networks or structures in the brain, one associated with analytical thinking and science (naturalism and materialism), and the other with religion (emotion and moral concern). These networks, we are informed, are in “tension” or “competition.” So when someone thinks analytically and critically about the world (i.e., scientifically) then the network associated with it “suppresses” the network associated with religious beliefs (i.e., religion), and vice versa.
To read the rest of Dr. Joubert's article, click on "Are Conflicting Beliefs Tied to the Brain?". You may also be interested in one of his related technical papers, "Scientific Evidence Indicates Natural Selection and Brain-Based Education Conflict with Human Nature". Of a less technical nature but still very informative, the 28-minute video, "Logic, reason and Christianity".


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

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Did Solar Flares from the Faint Young Sun Bring Life to Earth?

The hands at the Darwin Ranch down Deception Pass way have been hitting the firewater again and telling tall tales — and getting paid. Wild speculation has been recorded and presented as "science", but there's a bit of disagreement with someone spoiling the celebration by bringing up a few facts. Then some yahoo brings up a completely different idea. We have a pair of related articles on these matters for your perusal.

The cosmic evolutionary "faint young sun paradox" has a pair of speculations offered as solutions. One adds the origin of life on Earth. Neither bothers with actual evidence.
M6.4 class solar flare erupting, image credit: NASA / SDO
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
One of the oldest problems for evolutionists is the "faint young sun paradox". Basically, since everything is supposedly the result of the Big Bang, our sun was too cool to support life on Earth. Life couldn't evolve. But they insist on an ancient universe, so there's the "paradox". One Darwinista in the pseudoscience of astrobiology proposed a solution to the problem, but naturally, it involves a whole whack of assumptions and a stack of bleary-eyed, "Then this coulda happened, too!" concepts. So, the first article:
A major mystery for materialistic planetary science is solved—if you can swallow the miracles required.

For decades, evolutionists have faced a major obstacle in their story. Life is thought to have originated on the Earth within a billion years of its formation, but at the time, astronomers tell them the sun was fainter than it is now. It would have been too weak to keep water liquid in Earth’s orbit. A frozen Earth might never come out of its deep freeze even as the sun warmed. This “faint young sun paradox” has troubled many materialists wishing to weave a seamless scenario from big bang to man.

Now, Astrobiology Magazine has a “possible solution to the faint young sun paradox” (also posted on Science Daily). It’s possible, that is, if you can keep these factors happening in the right order in the right quantities:
To read the rest (and don't forget to come back for the next article), click on "Faint Young Sun Paradox Solved?"

So glad to have you back! Next up, regarding the yahoo that had the other idea: solar flares solve both problems. Right, the sun was too cool, but the occasional intermittent solar flare provided life-giving materials as well as enough heat too cause life on Earth. Problem is, these are the same people that say solar flares around other stars have ripped away other planets' atmospheres. Some other "science" involves speculation that other cosmic acts of violence may have cause life elsewhere in our solar system. In both of these stories, we have no evidence, contrary facts, and desperation to avoid admitting that the universe was put into place by an omnipotent Creator, and he did it far more recently than they want to believe. Here's the second installment:
A NASA scientist proposes that a period of superflares on the early sun zapped life into existence on the earth.

Vladimir Airapetian, a solar scientist at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, thinks he can kill two evolutionary conundrums with one blast. “Superflares from the Sun May Have Sparked Life by Warming Earth,” Mike Wall writes for Space.com (a piece echoed by Live Science). Simultaneously, the flares produced nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, to keep earth warm when the sun was smaller back then, solving the old “faint young sun paradox.”
To read the rest of this "maybe" fest, click on "Life from Sun Flares?" Also, I recommend this 29-minute video, "The Probability of Evolution".


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

Friday, July 15, 2016

Neanderthals Bring New Meaning to "Man Cave"

Who were cave men? Men who lived in caves. Next question. Oh, too short? Okay. In the parlance of proponents of evolution from a common ancestor, our predecessors were stupid brutes that gradually evolved human characteristics, intelligence, culture, and so on. The Neanderthals were popular cave man icons because some lived in caves, but they were not only intelligent, but fully human — much to the consternation of some anti-creationists. It's kind of fun to learn about our distant fully-human cousins, and new discoveries keep on refuting evolutionary ideas. One reason is that we have a whole passel of information about Neanderthals to work with than the usual fragments of teeth and bones of our other alleged evolutionary ancestors. By the way, people in modern times have lived in caves, especially in hot climates.

Humans were created, they did not evolve. More news about Neanderthals further refute evolutionary concepts.
Image credit: Morguefile / richard_b
If you're not too bright and just trying to survive, or just passing through, you're not likely to gussy up a place too much. Neanderthals were putting a great deal of effort into making their caves into homes, including painting on their walls and so on. Back in the olden days in the one-room schoolhouse on the prairie (well, sometimes I feel that old), the teacher gave us a memory device: stalactites in caves are the things hanging down because they stick tight to the ceiling, just remember that stalagmites are the other ones.

Give some apes a package of Lincoln Logs, and watch nothing constructive happen. But if you do the same with humans, including children, things can get built. A certain Neanderthal cave in France took the expression "man cave" to a new level: they spent a great deal of time, effort, and skill developing an inner region of a cave — and use stalagmites as building supplies (maybe a forerunner of Lincoln Logs). When mankind was first created, men and women were extremely intelligent.
Discovery of man-made structures in an underground cavern has shown that Neanderthals could do a lot more than most folks have given them credit for. They appropriated a large, dark chamber, far from the French cave’s entrance, for their own use. They skillfully broke or cut available building materials to a precise size. And they executed an elaborate scheme of carefully crafted, geometric construction. Sealed since the time Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals populated Europe and Asia, Bruniquel Cave’s secrets were unveiled by spelunkers who dug through its calcite-coated, collapsed entrance in 1990, but the true nature of the calcite-covered, fire-marked semicircular walls and stalagmite stacks preserved there have only now been revealed.

Fully Human Neanderthal Behavior

In addition to demonstrating that Neanderthal intellectual abilities were equal to complex tasks, Bruniquel’s stone circles demonstrate that the Neanderthals who built the mysterious rings and mounds must have had a social organization and culture more complex than anthropologists (at least evolutionary ones) have thought possible. Thanks to evolutionary propaganda that painted Neanderthals as less evolved than modern humans, the very word Neanderthal once conjured up images of brow-ridged, grunting brutes. Anthropologists have continued to debate whether Neanderthals had the capacity for abstract, symbolic thought, although mounting evidence has long demonstrated that the Neanderthals behaved in many ways like modern humans. They made complex tools and jewelry, drew with pigments, cooked vegetables, used bitter medicinal herbs, cared for their infirm companions, and buried their dead.
. . . This is not the first time cave discoveries have shown that Neanderthals could organize their space. (See “Neanderthals, Like Other Humans, Heated Water, and Organized Their Homes.”) But it is the first evidence demonstrating that Neanderthals could not only explore deep inside caves—336 meters (about 1,100 feet) from the current entrance, far from any natural light source—but also conquer those deep spaces by filling them with light and their own neatly planned constructions.
To read the rest, click on "Building Project in Bruniquel Cave Reveals Neanderthals’ Modern-Human Ability". 


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

Thursday, July 14, 2016

We All Have Rhythm

In the 1972 classic movie The Cowboys, John Wayne's character had to use schoolboys for a cattle drive. They were unhappy being awakened in the 3 AM darkness, especially since their circadian rhythms were not accustomed to such activity.

Well, our inner clocks are none too fond of other disruptions, such as jet lag, adjusting to and from Daylight Savings Time, and unusual work shifts. People often have to use various remedies (such as melatonin) to adjust.

All living things have important inner clocks called circadian rhythms, and they are found at the genetic level. Evolution cannot explain them, but the logical conclusion is that these clocks were put in place by our Creator.
Assembled and modified from Clker clipart images
These circadian rhythms are not just in us big folks. They are in all kinds of organisms, all the way down to the genetic level. Such clocks are essential for survival, and are impossible for evolution to explain. It is, however, to reasonably conclude that these important and widespread mechanisms were designed for us by our Creator.
Life could not exist without organisms’ engineered ability to keep track of time on a 24-hour day-night cycle called a circadian rhythm. Even sophisticated electronic machines such as computers or microcontrollers have a central clock or an oscillator. This critical design feature must be in place for complex systems to work on a schedule, interface with other system components, and interact with the environment.

The circadian clocks in plants and animals are far more advanced than those in man-made systems. These living clocks regulate many aspects of genetics, metabolism, physiology, growth, and behavior in numerous types of cells and tissues throughout the entire organism. In fact, animals typically have not only a centralized circadian clock in their brain but also many peripheral clocks in different tissues and organs. These peripheral clocks regulate temporal and spatial organization and physiology in whatever cell, tissue, or organ they are located, and they also keep systems in sync with the central clock in the brain. Clearly, a complex cellular communication network connects tissues and body parts within a time-based context—a phenomenon that still isn’t fully understood.
The rest of this article should take too much of your time, just click on "Circadian Clocks, Genes, and Rhythm".


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

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Secular Geomorphology Fails to Explain Landforms

Some things sound simple at the onset, and can be generally true. Suppose I saddle up the horse and want to ride 100 miles (161 km). I make it 20 miles (32 km) the first day. Simple math says I'll be done in five days, don't you reckon? But I assumed that, since I started on flat terrain, it would be that way the entire trip. No washed-out gullies to go around, no steep inclines, the horse doesn't go lame or get tired, and so forth. Also, I can't make a blanket statement that this distance can be traveled by horse in five days, because I'm assuming that the horse I'm riding would be typical of all horses.

Secular methods of geology fail to explain the shape of the Earth's surface. Creation scientists and Genesis Flood geology models handle the evidence far more efficiently.
"Mesa in the autumn", Lake Meredith, Texas image credit: US National Park Service
This is similar to uniformitarian assumptions. Watching a stream erode the banks and calculate, you can get a rate of erosion — but that has a whole heap of assumptions, including that the water flow does not change. Secular geologists like to use millions of years so they can make their assertions plausible, because millions of years are beyond the ken of most people. These long-age projections and assumptions show bankruptcy in secular geological methods, since there are landforms that geomorphology cannot explan, such as mountains, inselbergs, water gaps, and more. Genesis Flood models from creation scientists deals with the data far more efficiently — which indicates that Earth is nowhere near as old as secularists claim.
Geomorphology is a subfield of geology which specializes in studying and explaining the shape of the earth’s surface—its mountain ranges, plateaus, and plains. It includes study of small-scale features such as hills, valleys, slopes, and canyons. The individual features of the landscape within the field of geomorphology are called landforms. Geomorphology is a ‘gold mine’ of evidence for the Genesis Flood.

Geomorphology—a major mystery for secular geology

Although we all see and enjoy the beauty of the mountains, rivers, and valleys of the earth, it is amazing how difficult it is for secular science to explain their origin.1 Their difficulty arises because they begin with an incorrect assumption about what happened in the past. They reject the biblical Flood and assume uniformitarianism, which insists the earth’s rocks, fossils, and surface features may only be explained using present slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years.

Elevated flat-topped landforms such as plateaus and mesas are no less difficult for the uniformitarian to explain.
To read the rest, click on "Geomorphology provides multiple evidences for the global flood".

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

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Your God-Given Teeth and You

Do these crowns I own mean that I'm a royal personage? Probably not, they're all in my mouth. Bacteria gets in there, wreaks havoc, and I pay big money to get the crowns. Still, our teeth are very strong. Dentin, that stuff beneath tooth enamel, is actually quite durable. It has to be, since out teeth come into contact about 1.8 million times a year, and a bit is somewhere around 70 pounds per square inch (mainly in the back molars). A silverback gorilla bite at 1,300 PSI, and the saltwater crocodile chows in at about 7,700 PSI. Not important, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

We put our teeth through a great deal of stress, but they're surprisingly durable. They are a well-designed gift of our Creator, and are even being studied for biomimetics.
Image credit: Clker clipart
Scientists did a study on dentin, and were impressed at what what they found. In addition, they are hoping for biomimetics development so we can have replacement parts more along the lines of what our Creator gave us.
Aspects of human teeth appear over-designed for their function.

Apparently German scientists are less reticent about appealing to the supernatural in science. We’re saying this partly in jest, of course, because they did not really invoke spirits in the title of a press release from Charit√© — Universit√§tsmedizin Berlin, “Dentin nanostructures – a super-natural phenomenon.” They’re only explaining “Why it is superior to any synthetic filling material at making teeth last.” It’s super-human, perhaps.
To chow down on the rest of the article, click on "Your Supernatural Teeth"


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