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

Friday, September 30, 2016

Our Ancestors According to Genesis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As discussed here several times, proponents of microbes-to-metallurgist evolution have a mighty dim view of our ancestors. Evolutionists see them as brutish creatures that had been more like ape than man, with intelligence yet to evolve. Of course, this is all based on evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, not on evidence. (I wonder how many further assumptions were made in formulating the so-called "Paleo Diet"?) But when evolutionist try to slap leather with biblical creationists, they shoot themselves in the foot — nothing more humiliating than being shot with your own gun, but figuratively, that happens to them all the time. I'm saying that even according to evolutionary "evidence", archaic humans such as Neanderthals showed remarkable intelligence and culture. This is a mite disconcerting to Darwinists, to say the least.

Despite the claims of atheists and evolutionists, the Bible is written as history, and is constantly being verified by archaeologists. People overlook the intelligence of people described in Genesis.
De "Weinig" Toren van Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563
It's been said that archaeologists use the Bible as a source book so they can get an idea where to start digging. Although I can't verify that, I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, since archaeologists keep confirming the Bible, and do not refute it. (Watch out for the foolish argument from silence that basically goes, "Archaeologists haven't found a certain thing, therefore, it didn't happen".) Joshua's defeat of HazorTel Rechesh site near Mount Tabor, the riot in Ephesus described in Acts, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt — the list is actually much larger that this here sampling.

As an aside, did you know that there are no atheists described in the Bible? They proclaim themselves as intellectually elite because they are "freethinkers", unshackled from "religion", but people in Genesis knew full well that God exists. Later, false gods appeared so people could avoid the true God. Psalm 14:1 says that someone who says, "There is no God" is a fool, but look closely: it's someone who says it in his heart. While it fits the relatively modern phenomenon of atheism, it also describes people who live as if God is irrelevant.

Bible-believing Christians take Genesis as actual history. Why? Because it's written as history, not as poetry or allegory. (I'll allow that there are some poetical sections that state history, such as in Genesis 4:23-24, but for the most part, it's written as a straightforward historical narrative.) Henry M. Morris III was talking about ancient humans in a podcast. He pointed out that the Bible talks about people who are skilled at making musical instruments, working with metals, and keeping livestock (Genesis 4:20-22). Conversations were sophisticated, not a series of grunts, such as evolutionists would have us believe; they didn't spend thousands of years trying to evolve language. They built cities, spoke, wrote, recorded their own history (it's possible that Adam wrote the opening passages of the Bible in a book, which was later taken onto Noah's Ark), and so on. 

You see, Adam and Eve were created very good, not brutes that were limited in their abilities to think. Their descendants were intelligent. It should not be so difficult to understand that Noah built the Ark, or that Nimrod built the Tower of Babel (imagined in the picture above). Abraham's hometown, Ur of the Chaldees, had an extensive library

Evolutionary thinking has caused historians and some archaeologists to be baffled by the skill and intelligence of the ancients, such as the construction of Stonehenge and of the Egyptian pyramids, out-of-place artifacts, and so on. Instead of admitting that evolution, long ages, and materialism are dead ends, they cling to their false beliefs, even invoking "ancient aliens". The facts remain that God is the Creator, he made us recently, he became man and died on a cross for our sins but bodily rose on the third day, and he makes the rules.

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

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Scientists Doing Philosophy, Not Science

Some people have the notion that science is an unbiased method of interpreting the evidence, but that's not what happens. Science does not happen by scientists collecting data and then making dispassionate conclusions. They have their own beliefs, vices, ambitions, and presuppositions. Many times, they go beyond the reasonable boundaries of their disciplines and pontificate on philosophy that sounds scientific, but fails in several areas. Especially evolution.

Scientists venture into philosophy far too often, especially regarding evolution. They need to learn about logic, and also do real science stuff.

Many of these owlhoots get the bit in their teeth and run at a gallop by working their naturalistic philosophies into their speculations. Somebody holler, "Whoa!" They need some basic lessons in philosophical thinking, especially that branch of philosophy known as logic. From there, maybe they can humble themselves and get actual wisdom from the Creator.

Some secularists seem to have been smoking the wacky tobaccy, or is it the people who pay them? Speculations that nothing is real, we are living in a computer simulation — not a shred of anything resembling evidence, and yet, the simulation thing seems to be a topic worth debating. Mayhaps a more productive debate would be among science fiction writers on how to best present that as a plot.

In this exciting episode, we see scientists making nonsensical philosophical pronouncements about the fate of the Earth, when life should emerge, confusing artificial selection (which is actually a form of intelligent design) and new species, how orangutans mimicking speech relates to human origins, and more.
An undergrad philosopher could make mince meat out of some scientists’ claims.

They used to be called natural philosophers. Now, oftentimes, “scientists” (a label concocted by William Whewell) learn little about philosophy in their training. Science is supposed to restrict itself to observable, testable phenomena in nature. Like everyone else, though, individual scientists develop strong opinions about things, leading some of them to go far afield of observation. Scientists need to be careful with their pronouncements, because they speak with the presumptive authority of science. Here are some recent news items that illustrate the problem.
To finish reading, click on "Scientists Can Be Inept Philosophers".

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Water in the Rocks

While we depend on the hydrologic cycle of snow melt, rain, evaporation, and so on for much of our water, there is also quite a bit of water in rocks.

"Such as the rocks that show up in your brain scan, Cowboy Bob?"

While those rocks are damp, I mean rocks beneath the surface. Many rocks are porous and permeable to some extent, so in the right environment, water can flow through them and even become embedded in them. Coffee isn't the only thing that percolates. Water does that as well, getting through sediments and into layers way down yonder; there's about as much water under Asia as in the Arctic Ocean. Our creator has made water accessible, even in places that seem unlikely.

There is a great deal of water in the rocks below. This has some bearing on the Genesis Flood, and also shows that our Creator wanted to make water accessible, even in places that seem unlikely.
Image credit: Freeimages / Damian Searles
This has some bearing on the complicated process of the Genesis Flood, and especially afterward. Much of the water flowed into the oceans, but also into aquifers.
Rain and rivers are essential to life on earth. But what about life in earth’s arid regions, where rain rarely falls and rivers are nonexistent?

God provides for life there as well. Beneath our feet flows a priceless supply of water, called groundwater. The Lord designed the chemistry of rocks and soil to provide us with a ready source of fresh water. The wells of Isaac are a good reminder of this blessing (Genesis 26:18), along with the artesian wells in Australia’s Outback and the lush, irrigated fields in North America’s High Plains.

People sometimes assume well water comes from literal caves or underwater streams, but that is not the case. It flows straight out of the soil and rocks.
To read the rest, click on "Water from Rock". There is a bonus of sorts, an easy experiment that you can do. One of the items to use is marbles, so people who have lost those are given other options so they can continue.

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Can a Mutation be Fixed?

Evolutionary scientists are baffled about a study where a mutation has seemingly been reversed, and that's not supposed to happen. Selective breeding yielded carp without scales, which made it faster and easier to get them onto the dinner table. Some of the critters got out of Dodge and back into the wild. The scales grew back in their descendants.

Evolutionists are baffled by an apparent gene reversal, and offer worthless explanations for what is observed. However, this adaptation fits biblical creation.
Lots of Carp 5 image credit: Freeimages / Gölin Doorneweerd - Swijnenburg
Note: this is not a picture of Polycarp, the church father and martyr
Did you know that koi and goldfish are carp?

The Darwinistas were resorting to the frequent empty phrase, "evolutionary convergence", but it really shows once again that genetics is not understood as well as some people may think. At any rate, the fish is still a fish, and are still carp. Adaptation? You betcha! God created things with the ability to adapt to changing environments, which is expected by biblical creationists. No need to applaud Darwin, he has nothing to do with it.
Back in the 1800s, Europeans bred carp until the breeders crafted a small population that lost all its scales. Carp without scales are easier to clean in preparation for cooking. In 1912 some of these scale-free carp were transported from France to Madagascar, which had no native carp populations. Within a few decades some of the carp escaped and colonized natural Madagascar waters. Then in the 1950s, remarkably, some of the fish began re-growing the scales their captive ancestors had completely lost. Scientists puzzled over how these fish were able to regenerate a supposedly erased trait. New genetic analysis tools should help collect answers.

French and other biologists recently sampled 686 carp from both farm stocks and the Madagascar wilds. They counted scales and ran genetic tests, publishing their shocking result in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The team's analysis revealed that most of the wild, scale-bearing carp had the same mutation that causes other carp to grow up without scales. During captivity, the mutation had disabled an enzyme normally required to develop scales. 
To read the rest, click on "Wild Carp Rapidly Regrow Scales". You may also like to see, "Selected Carp Devolved Rapidly to Wild Type".

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

Monday, September 26, 2016

Secularists Have Origin of Life Questions But No Answers

Every few years, the hands at the Darwin Ranch attend conferences about the origin of life. This is done because they bring along their materialistic presuppositions, ask a lot of questions, then look for materialist answers for those questions. Any success? That'll be the day!

Secularists have conferences on the origin of life, but have yet to come up with any answers. That's what happens when they assume there is no Creator.
Early Earth artist's conception image credit: Don Dixon / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
Since they have decided to leave the Creator out of the equation, they wind up with a passel of questions on how life began, it's evolvability, how it can emerge from chemistry and physics, and other details. Many questions, many scientists, many views. Creationists can sit back and watch them commence to shooting it out among themselves, and then we can pick up useful refutation material that they use on each other. They cannot get real answers because they start from atheistic presuppositions.
The Origin of Life (OoL) community aspires to discover chemical evolution or abiogenesis. This is the supposed historical, continuous, and naturalistic path from lifeless chemicals to cellular life, encompassing both genetics and metabolism. The gap between their aspirations and their OoL evidence is vast.
. . . 
Recent evolutionist conferences concerning Open Questions on the Origin of Life (OQOL) were held in Sicily (2006), Spain (2009), Leicester UK (2012), and Japan (2014). These conferences discussed possible scientific and philosophical explanations to dozens of vast gaps in understanding the OoL. Scientists can often be each other’s harshest critics. They critique each other’s research and theories by challenging unwarranted assumptions, poor experimental methodology, inadequate data analysis, and unjustified conclusions. We can accept the criticism OoL researchers shower on one another without accepting the incomplete evidence they may provide for their own competing, naturalistic explanations of the OoL. Though I did not attend these conferences, the work presented at OQOL conferences is well documented in the peer-reviewed literature and on conference websites. The OQOL2014 conference in Japan addressed six OQOL selected from among fifteen OQOL by online poll.
To read the rest, click on "Open questions on the Origin of Life in 2014". 

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

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Mosquitoes, Diseases, and Creation

While it's good to examine various creatures, whether in person or from some kind of monitor, to admire their specified complexity. I'll allow that I detest mosquitoes. Although only the female wants blood (and over forty species don't bother with it), they pollinate and drink nectar, and not all carry diseases, I'm not going to examine one to see if it's harmless. I smash it. Don't be giving me that look, you know you do it too.

Not all mosquitoes suck blood, and spread Zika and other diseases, but how can something that was created "very good" in the beginning be so bad?
Asian tiger mosquito image credit: CDC/ James Gathany
Aside from the itching bumps from a bite and wondering if the dreadful thing carried West Nile virus, the Zika virus, or something else nasty, some people are concerned about their effects on horses, cattle, and animals as well (see "The Ultimate Guide to Mosquito Management on the Farm"). Interestingly, their desire for human blood seems to be a comparatively "recent" development. But if God created everything "very good", how can these things be responsible for the deaths of millions of people? Creationists have some conjectures about this.
Mosquitoes (Family Culicidae) have been the scourge of mankind since the Fall. Although seemingly designed to inflict suffering and pain via rapid reproduction and formidable mouthparts, evidence mounts that this creature was not always the deadly vector it is today. Mosquitoes are currently and have always been pollinators. The majority of their lives they feed on plants, nectar, pollen, and microbes even in today's world. The Zika virus is but the latest of a significant list of pathogens spread by “the world’s most dangerous animal.” In the past, Christians have been involved in key discoveries linking mosquitoes to diseases.
This heavily illustrated and informative article by Dr. Alan Gillen (special studies in zoology and medical microbiology) and Mr. Frank Sherwin (M.A. in zoology with special study in parasitology) is definitely worth your time. To finish the article, click on "The Design of the Mosquito and Its Dangers".

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

Friday, September 23, 2016

Interfering with Brain Cells

Not too long ago, it was reported that scientists learned of something unthinkable: white blood cells working in both the brain and the immune system. Now this. Ever hear of interferon gamma? It would make for a lousy name for a horse, sounding like something from a Transformers movie. Researchers have unbridled a long-standing belief about the immune system that involves interferon gamma, so textbooks will have to be rewritten.

Yet another surprise with brain cells doing work that was previously unknown. Darwinists try to give credit to evolution for having wisdom and foresight, and are also wondering how this molecule evolved. It didn't, it was put there by the Creator.
Image assembled from graphics at Clker clipart
Interferon gamma changes from a giant robot into a yellow Camaro — I mean, this molecule has a purpose that was previously unknown. Scientists did some genetic interfering and engineered mice without this molecule (a pretty impressive bit of work). Turns out that the molecule affects social interaction as well as the immune system. What do evolutionists do? Not only do they wonder how it evolved, but they gave evolution that puny god status again: it can make decisions and foresee the future! But wait, that's goes against the nature of evolution. Instead, what they discovered and are trying desperately to avoid admitting is that this shows the foresight and wisdom of the Creator.
Until 2015, anatomy textbooks generally taught that the human immune system doesn't penetrate brain tissue. But that same year, University of Virginia neuroscientist Jonathan Kipnis and his team discovered immune system cells working in the brain after all. They immediately wanted to know why. The team's 2016 research revealed an unexpected additional role for molecules historically known only to target invading cells. They then speculated on ways this dual-function molecule may have evolved.

Kipnis' group tracked the immune system molecule, called interferon gamma, in mouse brains. They found that immune system cells produce the interferon, which travels through the meninges—three membranes enclosing the brain and spinal cord—to directly interact with brain cells.
To read the rest, click on "New Dual-Function Brain Cell Found".

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

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Emperor Yu and the Great Flood

One of the problems with the adoration of science and scientists is that people often take their speculations as something to write home about, even when they don't bother to do serious research. There's a story in China about an earthquake, a river drying up, a dam bursting, and Yu Xia helping the people to recover. He was called Emperor Yu the Great (or variations on the title), but since the events were to have take place quite a spell back, the flood story and even Yu himself were subjects of debate.

A legendary "Great Flood" in China seems to have been verified, but a geologist made horribly uninformed comments that *this* flood may have been the source of the Genesis Flood "legend".
Emperor Yu the Great by Ma Lin
It appears that the flood (that the Chinese referred to as the "Great Flood") itself has been verified. Geologist David Montgomery made an off-the-cuff speculation that legends surrounding this may have been the source of the Genesis Flood. [EDIT: I misread, he said that about the alleged Black Sea flood. My apologies.] There are serious differences between large, local floods such as the ones at Lake Missoula, the Black Sea, and others when compared to the historical details of the Flood account in Genesis.
In August 2016, a team of researchers led by former Peking University seismologist Qianlong Wu said a major landslide, triggered by an earthquake about 4,000 years ago, blocked the Yellow River at Jishi Gorge—about 1,600 km (1,000 miles) west of Beijing—eventually causing an enormous flood. The researchers propose that the landslide created a natural dam about 240 m above the present river level behind which a massive body of water built up, estimated at 12 to 17 km3. After six to twelve months the dam overtopped, releasing downstream a torrent of water, mud and debris. Sediments were eroded from the gorge by the dam outburst, transported downstream, and deposited in the lower Jishi Gorge and Guanting Basin. These sediments consisted of angular pieces of rock and other material that were eroded from the gorge. Sediment deposits at the mouth of the gorge are up to 20 m thick and include boulders with a diameter as large as 2 m.
Hey, Yu! Don't run off! To finish reading, click on "Chinese flood at Jishi Gorge is not Noah’s Flood". Another may be of interest, "Chinese Flood Legend Was Historic".

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

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Mutations — Not So Random After All?

The hands down at the Darwin Ranch are making a pretty good living by promoting particles-to-painter evolution as a series of purposeless, random events over a heap of time, so there's no need for the Creator. Oh, and they also believe in luck. Darwin didn't pay attention to Gregor Mendel's work, which became incorporated into evolution. But are mutations random, and if so, how much?

The dominant evolutionary view requires time, luck, and random mutations. It turns out that mutations may be programmed by the Creator, and evolutionists don't like that.
Image credit: Pixabay / blickpixel
Upon further study, Darwinists are learning that mutations may be programmed to happen. Well, that fits, since speciation and adaptation fit biblical creation models quite well. Evolutionists don't cotton to anything resembling design, because they're trying to distance themselves from the Creator. Ironically, they attribute characteristics of an entity to evolution, making it into an idol they can worship.
In the nineteenth century, biologists recognized that animals and plants possess traits that can be beneficial (e.g., increase strength) or detrimental (e.g., slower growth). Those with a beneficial trait may be more likely to survive, and those with detrimental traits may be less likely to survive. The essence of this paradigm has become known as natural selection.

Charles Darwin understood that sometimes the traits of various organisms can change. However, since his studies predated the field of genetics, there was yet no understanding of how these changes occurred. Instead, he attributed such changes to the effects of natural selection, as if natural selection somehow magically could cause traits to appear.

In fact, not bound by any laws of genetics, Darwin made a lot of assumptions. One key assumption was that there was “no reason to limit” how much organisms could change their traits.1 With no limits, he further assumed that such changes can dramatically transform fish into amphibians or reptiles into mammals. His presumptions provided the basic outlines of universal common descent—the idea that all life forms have arisen from a common ancestry.
To read the rest, click on "Just How Random Are Mutations?"

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

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Naturalistic Assumptions Hinder Science

Although I'm not too fond of repeating this, it's appropriate. There was a bumper sticker here in the US, "If it ain't country, it ain't music!" When it comes to secularists, "If it ain't naturalism, it ain't science!" Not only does such a worldview limit scientific investigation, scientists are unaware that they are hindering their own work. Plus, these owlhoots refute their own selves.

Some scientists are becoming aware that their naturalistic worldviews are hindering science. Unfortunately, they are unaware that they are refuting themselves, and they don't go far enough to discard their flawed worldview.
Graphic assembled from images at Clker clipart
We can see the trickle-down effect inherent in the naturalistic system with blatant anti-creationist bigotry, such as expressed when some learned about a creation science conference coming to Leicester, England. And horror of horrors, one of the subjects scheduled is "Creationism in the Classroom". Circle the wagons and load up the ridicule rifles since we can't defeat them with logic and science!

People like this assume the worst about us: creationists share their worldview, and either don't know what we're talking about (even though we often understand evolution and current science better than they do), or that we're simply lying. Sure, lying to get people to believe in the creator God who commands us not to. Makes perfect sense.

Leaving behind the materialistic village evolutionists, let's look at actual scientists and their presuppositions of naturalism. Some are catching on that they're making too many assumptions, but they don't go far enough and get to the root of the problem: evolutionary thinking and rejecting God the Creator.
The most dangerous ideology is the one that doesn’t acknowledge its worldview assumptions.

Several articles from the science news were partly successful noting the risk of assumptions in scientific theories. Unfortunately, none of them recognized the fundamental assumption of naturalism.
To read about several subjects, click on "Pardon, Your Worldview Is Showing".

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

Monday, September 19, 2016

Fulgurites Indicate a Young Earth

Creationists keep pointing out flaws in evolution and and old Earth, and advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution keep getting mighty riled. (Darwin needs a long time to work his magic, so they fight to keep the time frame.) While secularists like to use their contrived and cumbersome "proofs" of deep time that collapse under their own weight, they don't cotton to the numerous evidences that, even according to their methodology, indicate that the world is much younger than they want to believe. One of these young Earth indicators is fulgurites.

One of many but lesser known evidences for a young Earth is fulgurites (fossilized lightning strikes). Why so few?
Fulgurites image public domain, enhanced, original by Stickpen
Sounds like an insult, doesn't it? "Get out of the road, fulgurite!" Or maybe an engine part. The newest evil monster on Dr. Who. In reality, it's a fossilized lightning strike. Scientists calculated the rate of lightning strikes and determined that instead of being quite rare, if Earth were billions of Darwin years old, they'd be all over the place. Make the proper adjustments and the mystery disappears — the world was created, and created comparatively recently.
Fulgurites are fossilized lightning strikes. The intense energy from a lightning strike essentially melts the ground. Lightning strikes can fuse rock, clay, or sand into fulgurites shaped like irregular hollow glass tubes. Physicist Don DeYoung wrote in 2013 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly that after 4.6 billion years, at the current lightning strike rate, every square meter of land should contain far more fossilized lightning strikes than it can even hold. New fulgurite research updates the numbers to bring this fulgurite problem into sharper focus.

Two Florida geoscientists collected and measured over 250 recent and ancient fulgurites from Polk County, Florida. In the online journal Scientific Reports, they published a way to estimate a lightning strike's energy by the dimensions of the fulgurite it produces.
I hope it strikes your fancy to finish reading this short article. Just click on "The Case of the Missing Fulgurites".


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

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Worldviews and the Origin of Life

Research scientist Jacob Haqq-Misra wrote an article that appeared in the Boston Globe on September 11, 2016 about the origin of life called "A better theory of intelligent design". (I wonder why something of this nature was in a newspaper like that instead of in a more specialized publication.) Makes it sound like something new and impressive, what with being written by a scientist and appearing in a prestigious newspaper and all. Not hardly. Turns out that it was actually a rehash of old news while slapping leather with biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.

The ideas of panspermia (simple life that came from outer space) has been around for a long time. Since goo-to-guru evolutionists cannot account for the origin of life (abiogenesis) here, it must have begun out yonder. Somehow, existing life in space hitched a ride on a meteorite or something and survived the flaming crash to Earth. Such an idea just won't work. That doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it back a ways. Worse than this, some even advocate directed panspermia, where aliens seeded life on Earth. That won't work either. Let's face it, both versions of panspermia are acts of desperation by people who want to deny the work of our Creator.

Cranky Alien image courtesy of Why?Outreach
The article by Haqq-Misra is loaded with logical fallacies, which are founded on the materialistic presuppositions that comprise his worldview. Expensive words aside, it means he has biased assumptions and works from there. In addition, he did not bother to do much in the way of fact checking. Haqq-Misra starts out by saying, "The public perception of intelligent design is that it is a scientifically specious, religiously motivated idea that seeks to explain away the notion of Darwinian evolution through magical thinking. Some incarnations of intelligent design can fairly be described as such." Fairly? No, this owlhoot is poisoning the well and using a straw man argument. (Also, did he survey the public himself, or used a legitimate survey? I doubt it.) Neither creationists nor ID proponents appeal to magic, and there is no legitimate way that Intelligent Design can correctly be called a creationist view.

The writer said it was a "better" view version of Intelligent Design, but it was only a presentation of his materialistic assumptions and biases: if it's not materialism, it's not science. He didn't bother to look at the science involved in either biblical creation science or ID, else he might realize that bringing back the idea of panspermia, which is only conjecture, is simply unscientific. Jacob Haqq-Misra made his guesswork-laden presentation from his worldview.

For a brief discussion on the article, you can read the third segment of "The Briefing" from September 12, 2016, download the MP3, or listen online.

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

Friday, September 16, 2016

Anthropologist Trippin' Out with Lucy

Advocates of atoms-to-Australopithecus evolution are great at telling tall tales and asserting opinions as facts, followed by the sensation-seeking press giving their stories credibility. Go to a museum to see Lucy, and you won't get the whole story. However, you'll see displays with the ape having very human-looking eyes, standing upright, and more. The rest of the story about how the bones were found scattered over a wide area (which should make anyone mighty suspicious), how not all the bones are found, disputes in the scientific community — you don't hear that so much. But if you deny that this was our ancestor, some atheists get mighty riled.

There's already a great deal of speculation (as well as outright fiction) passed along as fact regarding "Lucy" as our evolutionary ancestor. Things are getting more outlandish, and the science press is right there to support nonsense.
Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") public domain image
I suspicion that one of the hands at the Darwin Ranch has been into the peyote buttons or something. He had a vision of Lucy falling out of a tree, poor dear, and that might explain some of the fracture marks in the bones. Uh huh. Other evolutionists aren't buying the fantasy, though. But who pays this guy, and why? The science press goes with the unproven assertion that this ape was our ancestor, maybe that has something to do with it. What lengths people will go to for the sake of denying that we were created, and evolution had nothing to do with it.
Tell a tale, get media attention: did Lucy fall out of a tree, or did paleoanthropologists fall off an empirical limb?

“Lucy” serves a storytelling purpose. By giving a certain fossil a name, whether Lucy or Australopithecus (“southern ape”), Donald Johanson launched a storytelling empire. The interpretation of her bones continues to arouse debate between scientists, but the media love her. She is a folk hero around whom endless fables can be spun.

The latest fable is that she fell out of a tree. The media mostly treat this as a new fact, not an interpretation. It also gives them another opportunity to pound the drum of human ancestry from apes. Watch the level of certainty grow, while the meme about ancestry is constant:
To read the rest, swing on over to "Human Evolutionists Fall Out of Their Science Tree".

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

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Seeing a Little of the Light

When our eyes are accustomed to darkness, we are able to see a very small amount of light from quite a long way off. (Smart cowboys on sentry duty didn't smoke because the flame and the coal could easily be spotted. This is a "no brainer" for modern military personnel.) When in a dark room, people tend to look for the small bit of light that is coming in under the door or whatever.

The smallest part of light is the photon, and the human eye can see just one. Scientists use specially designed equipment in pristine conditions to marvel at evolution.
Image credit: Pixabay / Hans
It has been theorized for decades that the human eye can see a single photon—

"That's terrific news! Uh, what's a photon?"

Without getting too physics-al with you, light has puzzled scientists since way back when. Some theorized that light has a wave nature, others said it is comprised of particles. Seems to be both. A photon is the smallest possible unit, and they suspicion that it has no mass. For those who want more details, click here.

So anyway, a test has been done to show that we are able to see the tiniest known unit of light. Which is amazing, since the brain is a mighty busy place, and there are many possible ways to have false positive readings. It's also a wet environment at a decent temperature. Scientists used their intelligently designed equipment in special cold and dry conditions so they could experiment. Then those owlhoots had the nerve to marvel at how chance and random evolutionary processes could make the human eye and brain. Evolution had nothing to do with it. The specified complexity involved demonstrates the handiwork of the Master Designer. Sure wish you could see the light, old son.
How well designed is the human visual system? Biophysics researchers from the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology in Austria and Rockefeller University recently demonstrated that people can see just a single photon of light. This led them to ask how evolution could have crafted a visual system sophisticated enough to overcome the overwhelming problem of discerning single photons from the sea of electromagnetic, molecular, and electrochemical "noise" inside a human head.
To read the rest, click on "Human Vision Can Sense a Single Photon".


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

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Amphibious Fish, the Sonic Hedgehog Gene, and Evolution

It's said that people who catch fish have a story about "the one that got away". Purveyors of common-ancestor evolution go further, telling about the fish that climbed onto land, learned to breathe, and evolved into amphibians and (eventually) people — it's not the fish that got away, but the fish ancestor that never was. Evolutionists claim that certain characteristics in fish are convincing evidence for evolution, but that is not the case.

Claims that some fish have lungs and rudimentary abilities to move on land supports evolution. Also the Sonic hedgehog (SSH) gene has been tinkered with and allegations of evolution are given. But no real evidence.
Queensland lungfish image credit: Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 2.5
There are several species of fish that are amphibious, having lungs and the ability to "walk". Despite what Darwinian owlhoots claim, they are still fish and not in the process of turning into something else. Meanwhile, some evolutionary scientists are claiming by tinkering with the SSH (Sonic hedgehog gene), they can get clues about how we got our legs from cartilaginous fish. What they learned is that they can cause slight changes in organisms through intelligent human intervention. Sure, they have "evidence" — they have drawings and charts. Yee haw yawn. What they have is conjectures and opinions asserted as if they had reached conclusions through scientific research, cherry-picked data, inconvenient facts ignored. Fact is, there is no evidence of fish-to-fish farmer evolution because it didn't happen. The evidence shows that life was created.
Among the most iconic evolutionary fish stories is a tale about fish: once upon a time fish evolved lungs and legs, crawled out onto land, and evolved into terrestrial vertebrates. Fishy fables claiming that “gill slits” in human embryos show that terrestrial vertebrates recapitulate their evolutionary heritage back to a fish stage have been a long-standing (though often refabricated) component of this fairy tale collection. The colorfully named Sonic hedgehog gene’s similar functions in the embryonic development of chicken wings, fish fins, and human fingers livens the tale of our alleged ancestral relationship with fish. Living fish that do push-ups, leave the water, or have lungs or lung-like organs fuel this fantasy with tantalizing hints of what might have been.

Like Henry Limpet (Don Knotts) in The Incredible Mr. Limpet of fictional movie fame, evolutionists have illustrated charts depicting transitions from fish to terrestrial vertebrates like us. Despite their rampant worldview-based colorization of a black-and-white reality that demonstrates no such thing, evolutionists are confident that there really was a fish-to-walker transformation (not the zombie kind). The latest research claiming to shed light on life’s evolutionary leap to land includes a study cataloging land-loving fish, another peering into the pelvis of a blind cavefish, and a third using Sonic hedgehog to resurrect an evolutionary tale tracing our legs back to the gills of cartilaginous fish.  
Don't carp. You can read the rest by clicking on "Do Walking and Waterfall-Climbing Fish or the Sonic Hedgehog Gene Reveal How Life on Land Evolved?"

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

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Noah's Ark and Cartoon Caricatures

We want to teach our children Bible stories in Sunday School and have them grow up to be strong believers, don't we? Sure, so we make images of Bible stories that are colorful and attractive and talk down to them. That happens quite a bit in Western churches, but there are some serious problems involved.

Cute cartoon images of Noah's Ark do not aid in children's education or that of anyone else. In fact, those images are damaging to the truth.
Cartoon Noah's Ark, modified, original image credit Pixabay / sferrario1968
One problem is talking down to kids with over-simplified versions of the events described in the Bible — they're not stupid, but can get the idea that Bible stories are not narratives, but fictional stories. Then we have the unbiblical, or even anti-biblical, graphic illustrations of Noah's Ark that have almost nothing to do with the Bible's description. Some artists may mean well, but most illustrations fail. In addition, making cartoons is a long-established method of ridicule and misrepresentation — and we know how anti-creationists are fond of misrepresenting Genesis, God, creationists, and so on!

There are decent versions of the Ark that have been done in fine art form, but some are dreadful. I reckon that the artists didn't pay any mind to the text. Nowadays, there are full-size versions of the Ark. (The Ark Encounter is not the first, but it seems to have received the most publicity and hatred.) It's bad enough to misrepresent our opponents, but far worse to misrepresent ourselves to our children and to adults. Seriously, why should anyone with the brain God gave a gazelle take the Genesis Flood seriously after seeing such cartoon drawings? At least the secular 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica was reasonably accurate. Can we do no less?
A cartoon is a drawing in an unrealistic style, usually for satire, caricature or humour, and/or to appeal to children. ‘Cartoonification’ (aka ‘cartoonization’) is a recent colloquialism for the process of making something that’s real look ‘cartoonish’. I.e. drawing it in a (usually ridiculously) oversimplified, child-friendly or ‘delightful’ manner. Unfortunately, this has happened with Noah’s Ark, marker of one of the key events in biblical history. Most depictions of it have become thoroughly cartoonized!

Today’s common version of the Ark portrays it as a ridiculously-shaped small houseboat. It is mostly only able to carry a handful of the more well-known animals, with giraffes’ heads poking out of windows, and elephants’ trunks hanging down the side. This rather pathetic-looking, definitely non-ocean-going boat is featured on children’s books, celebration cards, novelty ornaments, and more. It has been made into children’s toys and, most disappointingly, put onto Sunday school walls.
To read the rest, click on "The cartoonification of Noah’s Ark — How such ‘delightful depictions’ downplay the Deluge—and Christianity".

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

Monday, September 12, 2016

Plants are Tree-Mendous!

The more that trees and plants are studied, the more scientist find out that there's much more to learn. They do us a lot of good, you know. Praise should be given to the Creator, not to evolution.

Did you know that coconuts float? One of those things I didn't know until recently. Okay. Did you know that structure of coconuts is being studied in a biomimetics effort to make building more sturdy during earthquakes? When you branch out with your studying, we can see that trees and other plants — well, there's a wagon train load of things we didn't know about plants.

The more that trees and plants are studied, the more scientist find out that there's much more to learn. They do us a lot of good, you know. Praise should be given to the Creator, not to evolution.
Coconut tree image credit: FreeImages / Srinivasan M.V
Trees seem to be able to grow out of some unlikely places, including what looks like solid rock. They have nutrient foraging strategies. Another function of trees is water transport, especially of snowmelt. Plants have complex chemical activities going on, including that good ol' photosynthesis. Evolutionists don't understand much about that and other things plants do (and admit as much), yet they commence to bowing down to Darwin, ignoring the amazing specified complexities, and refusing to give credit to the Creator. Yet evolutionism has nothing to do with what is observed, nor can it explain what's happening, why, or how.
You don’t have to be a proverbial tree-hugger to love trees and wonder at all the things they can do, and do for us.

India just broke a world record by planting 50 million trees in one day, National Geographic reported. Wow! Other countries are on the tree-planting binge, too. Why would people do such a thing? “Trees sequester carbon dioxide from the air, thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” but they provide many other benefits, too. Besides, they are wonders of engineering in their own right, and often beautiful.
To read the rest and get to the root of the excerpted article, click on "For the Love of Trees".

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

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Labels and Speech Control

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article is written for biblical creationists, so it is not going to be presenting evidence refuting common-ancestor evolution and affirming creation. That will resume tomorrow. Instead, I want to try to make an impact on creationists, and help motivate you — them — us to stand for God's Word, true science, and especially biblical authority. Genesis is foundational to all major Christian doctrines, and we can't be compromising on the truth.

While some labels are useful, people are afraid of being labeled in negative ways. These are manipulative, and even ways to control speech — and, ultimately, thought.
My picture merged with name tag made at Sign Generator
Let's saddle up and get to riding, there's some ground to cover.

People are fond of labeling others. Now, I'll allow that some labels are useful so you know where a person's coming from regarding discussions and that sort of thing. I reckon that we all use them in daily speech, to express our feelings (approval, disdain, or something else), and so on. I cannot advocate that we never use labels, sometimes they are useful and even accurate. A label can be a valid conclusion based on sufficient evidence.

Unfortunately, labels are a way of misrepresenting what someone says and stands for, and are used far too often as a way of pigeonholing and dismissing a person or belief as irrelevant. They are also used as a means of emotional manipulation. Adults are fearful, just like they were back in school days, of getting a label that will ostracize them. "You're a hater! Homophobe! Science denier! Liar! Islamophobe!" Another winner is bibliolator, the accusation that someone who takes the Bible seriously has turned the Bible into an idol. Indeed, people who reject evolution are labeled as "stupid" as well as "science deniers" — I have to be blunt that is a lie.

Some folks even use YEC as if it was a dirty word, even making up the word "YECism" as a pejorative. Many labels are simply loaded words used to provoke emotional reactions in a preemptive strike, but are actually meaningless — many are simply lies, such as calling a biblical creationist a "science denier" by someone who fallaciously equivocates evolution with science. (Ironic, since many scientific facts and methods have changed over the years.) Meaningless, dishonest, but such labels have connotations that can be hard to shake.

Labeling is frequently a part of political correctness. People say they oppose "hate speech", throw out an intimidating and manipulative label as a means of controlling speech. Although the United States and other countries formerly valued freedom of speech (with logical restrictions, such as advocating violence against others), it's come to the point that if someone claims to be "offended" because he or she doesn't like what you're saying, then you have no right to say it. Listen, it's not much of a stretch to wonder if the Thought Police are coming for you, since we will have no right to believe things of which those in power disapprove. Our views are wrong to them, and must be stopped. Sure, some folks will generously allow us to have our views and express them in our homes and churches, but seriously, will such "permission" stop there? Not hardly!

It's kind of frustrating that many of us have been emphasizing critical thinking and learning how to spot common logical fallacies, but people are being deceived all over the place. Labels are chock full o' fallacies, too. You get the basic ad hominem, plus poisoning the well, the genetic fallacy, and others. What are they thinking when they call names and label us like that? To negate what we have to say, make us undesirable, even silence us. But they are not offering valid counterarguments! Mockery is a means to shut down thinking and controlling thought. Watch for repetition such as used by Nazi propagandists. Ridiculing a creationist or a Christian does not make atheism, Scientism, statism, evolution, or anything else true.

I'm going to use a label based on something that I've thought out and documented: atheo-fascist. (See "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism" for more information that should alarm you.) We get people like C. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye and others telling the world that creationists cannot teach biblical creation to our own children. No, they want us to teach atheistic scientism, materialistic views — but no God. Nye says, "I find this troubling". Sorry, Willie, but your pushing of your own anti-Christian, anti-creationist agenda on us is what's troubling. Readers may agree that my label of atheo-fascist fits people like that. Professing atheists have no consistent moral standard, and they want to be in charge of society's standards of right and wrong.

If you read your Bibles, and I hope you do, you should know that we are in the world but not of it. Bible-believing Christians are to be pleasing God, not man (1 Thess. 2:4, Acts 5:29). The enemies of God are blinded by their father down below (John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4). They hate the light (John 3:19-21), and they hate us because of Jesus (Luke 6:22, John 15:18). Fellow believers in other parts of the world are suffering tremendous persecution. Our persecution in the West is more subtle, but I guarantee you that this trail we're riding on will get mighty steep and rocky. Until then, we need to proclaim the truth.

Here's a podcast by Matt Walsh that deals with labels and responding to them. Although he is a Christian, the podcast is more politically involved than things I do here. Still, I hope you'll spend a half an hour on "In Defense Of Hate Speech", especially on responding to labels beginning at the 12 minute 50 second mark. It's free to listen online, and to download it, you need a free Soundcloud account. Also, if anyone's interested in making comparisons, you may want to see my October 2014 article, "Don't Fear the Labels".

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

Friday, September 9, 2016

Details for an Eye

Charles Darwin was baffled by the complexity of the human eye, but as science has advanced, it is far more complicated and efficient than he could have dreamed. Darwinistas like to say that the eye was poorly designed, but such uninformed claims have been refuted. There are many amazing features of the eye of which we are unaware that were put in place in the beginning by our Creator.

Darwin was troubled by the complexity of the human eye, and the brilliance of the Creator's design has become more apparent in the intervening years.
Image credit: Clker clipart
There's an old expression about the eyes being the window to the soul. Maybe, but they're a window that my ophthalmologist uses to check on my diabetes and then sends his report back to the referring physician. In my line of work as a venomous snake wrangler at Pernicious Whatzit Widgits (come on, do you think I'd tell where I really work?), my eyes are always moving here and there. Lots of muscle coordination, not to mention focus on things at varying distances, the eye is continually washing itself, it is very much like a camera. By the way, only humans can cry tears from emotion, which is something that the facts supporting biblical creation probably provoke in anti-creationists who go haywire quite frequently.
The Bible tells us that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the things that He has made. One of the most obvious displays of His creative power is the human eye.

Even Charles Darwin conceded that “to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Nonetheless, having abandoned his Christianity, Darwin was obliged to appeal to the “absurd” to account for the origin of the eye by random change and natural selection.
To eyeball the rest, click on "The Seeing Eye".

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

Thursday, September 8, 2016

DNA in Seafloor Mud

Some of us remember playing in the mud and having to get cleaned up before supper. Scientists are not playing in it, but rather, are using equipment to gather samples and study it. Doesn't sound like much fun. However, they may get some pleasure in the joy of discovery. But then again...

Fossil DNA causes secular geologists to go into damage control because it's a million years old according to their circular reasoning. But DNA cannot last that long. There's a better explanation.
Seabed mud image credit: US Geological Survey, use of image does not imply endorsement of contents
DNA has been found in the mud that is supposedly over a million evolutionary years old. How do they know its age? Through the circular reasoning method of biostratigraphy. Now they're trying to circle the wagons and defend their long-age views with a passel of excuses and conjectures without evidence, since DNA cannot last nearly that long. If they'd drop their evolutionary assumptions, they'd realize that yet again, the evidence supports a recently-created Earth.
Scientists found DNA in two undersea sediment drill cores from the Bering Sea.1 The researchers thought the chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) must have come from near-surface light-gathering organisms like diatoms, and not mud-dwelling organisms like bacteria. Discovering cpDNA from dead diatoms near the top of the seafloor presents no challenge, but these researchers found it hundreds of meters down. Long-age believers insist that hundreds of meters of sediment require at least hundreds of thousands of years to deposit. Given that DNA degrades relatively quickly, the team faced the significant challenge of explaining how DNA could persist long enough to get buried beneath that much sediment.

In the journal Geology, the three scientists described the DNA samples that came from various depths. Other researchers gave each an assigned age of over a million years.1 DNA is not supposed to last that long. Not even close.
To read the rest, click on "Fossil DNA in Deep Seafloor Mud". For a bit more technical information, you may want to read "Fossil DNA Stuns Geologists".


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