Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Science Needs Serious Repair

When I'm discussing a repair with my favorite mechanic, I gleefully display my ignorance by asking questions that must seem ridiculous to him. Fortunately, we both know that I'm uninformed, and he likes to teach. I may ask if it's possible to make a repair in a certain way, and he'll tell me why it won't work. The science industry itself is in serious need of repair. Papers get published that are plagiarized, computer generated, the results cannot be reproduced, data is omitted, unethical activity, a blatantly leftist bias that belies claims of objectivity, faulty peer review, and more. They want the spotlight for sensational results, but failures are useful information as well; scientists need to know what will not work as well as what succeeds, see?

The secular science industry needs to be repaired and new standards are in place. No more of this partial reporting of sensational material, we need complete information and what does *not* work as well.
Image cropped from Pixabay / Skitterphoto
In addition, incomplete information is presented (a frequent occurrence among evolutionary scientists and their sensationalistic press pals), but there is a lack of follow-up. Scientists as well as us reg'lar folk need adequate information to make the best possible decisions, including what not to do. Someone wants to shake things up for the better.
A noted advocate of science integrity is leading a team of experts on a program to improve scientific practice and clean up serious failings.

The Stanford Medicine News Service has big news: “Researchers announce master plan for better science.” The initiative will be led by John Ioannidis, MD, DSc, professor of medicine and of health research and policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

We’ve heard from Ioannidis before. He shocked the research establishment a dozen years ago, claiming “Most published research findings are false.” More recently, he complained that “the scientific reward system needs to change”. Last year, his influence led to widespread recognition that “Widespread failure to reproduce research results has triggered a crisis of confidence in research findings, eroding public trust in scientific methodology.”
To finish reading, click on "Time to Overhaul Science".

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

Monday, January 30, 2017

Incompetent Objections to Flood Geology

Some owlhoots who profess to be Christians in the BioLogos gang (implied motto: "Jesus lied") have been riding with the hands at the Darwin Ranch in their continuing mission to slap leather with biblical creationists. For some reason, old Earth proponents (especially theistic evolutionists) elevate atheistic interpretations of science to the magisterial position over the Bible, which they claim to believe. Then atheists trumpet, "See? Even these religious people believe in evolution!", and then continue their perfervid denunciations of Christians, including their TE useful idiots.

Theistic evolutionists presented some material drawing from atheistic interpretations of science in order to refute the creationary Flood geology. The TEs embarrassed themselves.

François de La Rouchefoucauld (Frankie the Rock) had several maxims, this is one of my favorites. If you study on it a spell, most people will consider someone insightful when they are in agreement. Some will respect intelligent opponents who disagree with them, but those are in the minority. Here, BioLogos uses secular sources in their attempts to refute biblical creationists, but they failed to do their jobs properly: the material cited is not what they bargained for. In fact, some of the science supports the Genesis Flood models of creationists. 
The BioLogos Foundation has published a popular-level article by old-earth geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth presenting arguments for an old earth. One such argument involves counts of sedimentary laminations (“varves”) within the floor of Japan’s Lake Suigetsu. Their article claims that the very large number of Lake Suigetsu varve counts is strong evidence for an old earth. Creation scientists would argue that most of the lamination couplets are not true annual events. In fact, a plausible explanation for the couplets was presented in the young-earth creationist literature one year prior to Davidson and Wolgemuth’s article. Davidson and Wolgemuth, however, present a new “spin” on the argument: they claim that the correlation between these “varve” counts and radiocarbon dates (as well as tree-ring counts), proves that the Lake Suigetsu varves are true annual events, thus presenting an unanswerable argument for an old earth. However, careful examination of the papers they cite shows that this apparent agreement is the result of the typical uniformitarian circular reasoning. Furthermore, Davidson and Wolgemuth made numerous errors in their article (even within their own uniformitarian framework) which cause one to question whether they carefully read all of the technical papers they cited. Furthermore, they seem to misunderstand the recent results of the RATE research project that showed strong evidence of ubiquitous in situ radiocarbon within fossil specimens that should be radiocarbon “dead” by uniformitarian reckoning. Such results pose a serious challenge to uniformitarian assumptions underlying conventional radiocarbon age-dating methods.
This article deals with three scientific subjects used to old Earth proponents. Be prepared, it's rather technical, not an easy read, and rather long. Still, I reckon there are some people who will benefit from the material. To keep going, click on "Do Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Measurements Prove an Old Earth?"

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

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Flawed Cave Samples for Climate Research

One of the methods used to determine an old Earth as well as climate change is called paleoclimate research ("paleo", meaning, "way back when"). The procedure seems quite simple, get samples from caves, cart them back to the lab, and see what happens. In their efforts to prove the conclusions the scientists had already made, serious flaws were discovered in the techniques.

A method used to determine ancient climates and an old Earth is shown to be extremely flawed. Perhaps if they didn't presume consensus science, uniformitarianism and an ancient Earth, and took more care in their testing?
Image credit: Freeimages / Frank Müller
When the samples are moved away, changes begin to happen quickly, and the results are suspect. In addition, the samples vary between caves. This makes it mighty difficult to make projections about Earth's past climate, and to make projections about the future. Perhaps if they didn't presume consensus science, uniformitarianism and Earth being ancient, and also took more care in their testing? Earth was created far more recently than secularists want to admit.
Widely used to infer past climates, isotope measurements from stalactites and stalagmites in caves can mislead researchers.

They are among the most useful storytellers of earth history: speleothems, or cave formations. Scientists collect samples from stalactites and stalagmites, take them to their labs, and measure the fractions of stable oxygen and carbon isotopes found in their inclusions of crystals of calcium carbonate or calcite. From these crystal balls, the scientists look far into the past, envisioning climate change and long ages. What could be more straightforward? The data prove it.

A funny thing happens on the way to the lab. The isotopic fractionations become altered. Here’s what a team of speleologists (cave scientists) conclude from expeditions into a couple of caves in Hungary.
To finish reading, click on "Cave Climate Conclusions Compromised".

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

Friday, January 27, 2017

Irreducible Complexity Objection Refuted

An argument from the Intelligent Design people that creationists like to use is irreducible complexity. That is, components of an organism must be in place at the same time, or nothing would make sense, and even be harmful to the organism if they evolved piecemeal. There are many examples, including the hummingbird, bombardier beetle, and on the unseen level, the ATP synthase enzyme and the flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a strong argument for the skill of our Creator as well as a serious impediment for evolution.

Darwin's defenders object to irreducible complexity, which is a strong argument for the skill of our Creator. It is also a serious impediment for evolution.
Image credit: Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Darwin's defenders don't cotton to evidence for creation, so they attempt to "refute" things they dislike (such as dinosaur soft tissue and irreducible complexity) with such first water arguments as, "It's been refuted", or, "That's not true". Saying something has been refuted does not demonstrate actual refutation, nor do objecting or offering an argument become refutation. Some owlhoots need to learn this.

In an interesting exchange of comments about irreducible complexity, an atheist made remarks and was educated in both science and logic. To read it, click on "Irreducible complexity and cul-de-sacs".

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

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Cute and Curious Tree Dweller

There are some mighty interesting critters living in the jungles of Indonesia, 'Straya, and elsewhere. (Mind you, keep your distance and don't touch unless you have someone with you that says it's okay.) There are interesting things up in the trees, and I understand that some spent so much time way up yonder, people didn't know they existed. Same kind of thing happens with nocturnal animals as well. Reminds me of the colugo. But I'm wandering again.

An unusual and good-natured tree dweller is another example of God's creative abilities.
Spotted Cuscus image credit: Matt Francey / Flickr
One of these jungle tree dwellers is the cuscus. (Before someone commences to typo-pouncing, yes, it's spelled correctly.) This cute thing looks sort of like a monkey. In fact, it's a marsupial, similar to the opossum, which is the only marsupial in North America, and some folks eat possums. I don't. The cuscus is not fierce, so it has other continuance features that our Creator gave it.
Cuscuses are good-natured marsupials that roam the lush jungles in northern Australia and the Southeast Asian islands (Sulawesi, the Moluccas, and New Guinea). They’re also adorable. If they didn’t live so far off the beaten path, every child would want one of these gentle fur balls—with their big, round eyes and curlicue tails—as a pet. At least that’s what our family thinks!

Marsupials are mammals, many of which are designed with a unique pouch to rear their young. Cuscuses are Australasian possums. They look and act a lot like opossums in the Americas (except cuscuses are cuter), and they fill the same role in the wild. Cuscuses are gentle, quiet, odorless (well, most of them anyway), and quickly potty trained. That makes them perfect human companions. This peaceable companionship may have been one thing the Creator had in mind when He made them. But after Adam’s sin brought deadly dangers into the world, they had to develop specific strategies to thrive.
You can read the article in its entirety (or grab the audio version) by clicking on "Cute Clandestine Climber". Don't miss the short video at the bottom of the page! 

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

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Creationist Shoots Down Old Earth Icon

Creationary scientists have to keep secular scientists honest. Or at least, to point out their errors. It seems that one of the guidelines for both common-ancestor evolution and old Earth concepts is, "If it supports our view, valid". One of the icons of uniformitarian geology used to support deep time is the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. The basic idea is that secular views of multiple ice ages in Earth's past were caused by changes in it's orbit and rotation over long periods. However, these owlhoots are assuming long ages to prove long ages, and making a passel of assumptions in the process. That's neither logical nor scientific, old son.

Since secularists won't do their own work, creation scientists have to do it for them. Here, an icon of uniformitarian principles is shown to be fundamentally flawed by Dr. Hebert of ICR.
Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart
Secularists ignore a wagon-load of evidences for a young Earth (they don't fit the paradigm), preferring dubious radiometric dating methods instead. Milankovitch's work has been used in support of not only their credenda for deep time, but also to support climate change. A scientific paper was used in support of Milankovitch's ideas was "Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages", back in December 1976. Dr. Jake Hebert of the Institute for Creation research gave this paper some serious examination, and found it to be fundamentally flawed — it should have been discarded long ago.

In three rather technical articles. Dr. Hebert explains the Milankovitch theory, how the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for the Ice Age and Earth's magnetic field reversals, and more. He also furnishes links to his very technical articles on the "Pacemaker" paper.

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Unjunking More "Junk" DNA

Years ago, the human genome was ineffectively sequenced. Toplofty scientists, reasoning from their molecules-to-molasses preparer evolutionary presuppositions, determined that the things they didn't understand were "junk" from our alleged evolutionary past. Using more advanced equipment and using due diligence, most of the things that were labeled as non-functional have been both embarrassing and surprising, since they do have functions, some of them very intricate. Herein lies an example of how evolutionary thinking hinders science. If the previous sequencers had assumed instead that life was created, and what was found was there for a purpose, there would not have been so many delays in scientific advancement.

The idea that some DNA is "junk" (useless leftovers from our evolutionary past) has been refuted many times. Amazing discoveries keep on rolling in, showing the brilliance of our Creator.
Image credit: “Dna” by renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
I'll allow that it's difficult to find something that is difficult to see, and further discoveries were practically hiding in plain sight. They're small, but have vital roles, including finding damaged DNA, performing "triage", and then stepping back when DNA repair help arrives. We continually see the specified complexity from the brilliant work of our Creator.
Molecular biologists are finding a universe of functional small proteins and RNAs that were considered junk or not even known to exist.

We often hear that 98% of the human genome is “noncoding” for proteins. This may be a very misleading statistic. Actually, most of the genome is transcribed into RNAs, whether or not those result in the large proteins we know about. Hidden in those transcripts are small molecules known as micro-RNAs, and some longer ones known as “long non-coding RNAs” (lncRNAs) that are increasingly seen as vital in gene regulation. And now, scientists are beginning to uncover transcripts that are translated into protein fragments. Too small to be called proteins, these polypeptides also play vital roles in cell health. The genes that program these small molecules, once dismissed as “junk DNA,” are revealing more sophistication in the genome than previously thought.
To finish reading, click on "Small Molecules Play Key Roles in Cells".

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

Monday, January 23, 2017

Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children

Back in 2010, an atheopath on Twitter made a comment along the lines of, "Creatures are born atheist", which is similar to the mantra, "Children are born atheist, it's the default position". I challenged him that his statement is an unprovable assumption. (The truth gained me a stalker for a few years until he passed the baton to another.) Shortly after, we learned that children are born believing in God! This supports what the Bible says.

Children are born believing in God, but secularists want to counteract that by brainwashing them into evolutionism as soon as possible.

But like any totalitarian knows, gotta get 'em while they're young and get that brainwashing going! Even though dust-to-Dawkins evolution is untrue, unprovable, untestable, unrepeatable, is a hindrance to science, is ignored in biological sciences, well hey, it must be taught, children must believe in evolution. Why? My answer is that these Darwinista owlhoots want more recruits in their rebellion against the Creator, so they are getting more aggressive and Machiavellian in their tactics, including "reeducation". Interesting that the atheistic Soviet Union not only imprisoned, tortured, and executed Christians, but sent them to psychiatric facilities for "treatment". How long until that happens here? Now worries, atheists are benevolent. Just ask the Christians in past and present communist-run countries.

Christians and other thinking people, are you doing your part to learn how to answer the kids when they come home from the government-controlled indoctrination centers? (They call it "education", but when we teach our children about biblical truth, we're accused of "indoctrination". Quite the opposite.) This site points you to other useful sites, and presents a host of information for your education and edification. Please use it.
A report by Dartmouth Medical School (USA) concluded that “Human beings are biologically primed to seek moral and spiritual meaning” and children’s “capacity and desire for spiritual experience are, to some degree, hard-wired.” According to Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at Oxford University’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, young children have faith even when they have not been taught about God by the family or at school. Even those who grew up alone on a desert island would come to believe in God, he suggests. Psychologist Dr Olivera Petrovich noted that Japanese children spontaneously attribute the natural world to the work of a creator God, even when this is contrary to the beliefs of their parents and teachers.

A recent article in The Guardian, authored by Nathalia Gjersoe, reported some new research into the beliefs of young children. Scientists noted two very specific views, held instinctively, which help explain why children have a natural tendency to believe in creation. The first is that different kinds of plants and animals are distinct from one another and that one kind will not change into another. The second is that everything in nature has been designed for a purpose. Significantly, these views are equally common in children from religious and non-religious backgrounds.
I hope you will read the rest of this article. Just click on "Evolutionising the young".

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

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Dinosaurs, Chickens, and Stuff

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is not going to be a long, complicated article. Y'all probably need a break from the heavy stuff, and I don't mind one myself.

A reader of The Question Evolution Project sent me a link to a one-minute video (which linked to a non-science article) about how scientists want to tamper with the DNA and chickens, help them get in touch with their inner dinosaur, and possibly bringing back a modified form of dinosaurs. Echoes of Jurassic Park, I suppose. (When we're done here, let's all meet at Kentucky Fried Rex for chow.) One serious question to consider is: why bring back things that were extinct? I reckon it depends on the motivation.

A couple of lighter items about "Jurassic Park"-style DNA tampering with chickens, and surprises in the devious intelligence of those birds.
Assembled and modified with Clker clipart graphics
What caught my attention is how scientists are assuming evolution in order to do this process, and ignoring the other scientists who reject dinosaur-to-bird evolution. How many times have we seen where evolutionary thinking has actually hindered scientific progress? They are arguing from their presuppositions (which is something we all do). What comes to mind is when Dr. Lovejoy shaved down a pelvic bone cast of Lucy the extinct ape into what it should have looked like. Both Lovejoy and these dino-to-bird DNA scientists are being ultracrepidarian, and some restraint would be in order. For the short video, click here, and the short, unimpressive article, click here.

In other fowl news, stupid chickens are not so stupid after all. Consider how some birds show musical innovation skills far beyond those of apes, even rivaling humans. There are birds that are more intelligent than apes, too. Then there's puzzler of the amazing flight plans of migratory birds. Hard to figure how many birds have amazing abilities, then do stupid stuff.

So what's up with chickens, other than being mighty tasty? Smarter than we may think. Someone got around to studying chicken intelligence, and found out that they're sneaky caitiffs. Manipulative, too. This fits, because they have basic math and reasoning skills. For a nice report that does not pay homage to the Bearded Buddha, click on "Chickens exhibit Machiavellian tendencies, scientists discover".

Perhaps we make value judgments and compare them to humans instead of realizing that they were designed with certain skills by our Creator. Maybe the DNA tampering will yield smart dinosaurs? Why not, since circular reasoning can be hatched up as "science" nowadays.

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

Friday, January 20, 2017

Connecting Mind and Computer

Materialists are physicalists: physical properties are all that matter, and when you die, you're worm food. No soul, no afterlife, no rewards or punishment, nothing. (Atheists have a message of hope? Not hardly!) Christians and others believe that we have a mind or soul that is independent of the body, and some materialists suggest that it may be real, but they can't find where it resides (see "The Quantum Soul?"). The mind is not the brain, but the mind uses the brain as its conduit, if you will. Some extremely impressive technology supports this belief.

Amazing technology used by an ALS patient illustrates that the mind is separate from the brain, and the incredible skill of our Creator.
Image credit: Pixabay / GDJ
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurological disease that destroys voluntary muscle movement, but often leaves the mind intact. A woman with ALS was fitted with a computer interface that gives her some remarkable abilities to communicate and some motion, which is caused by thinking about the motion. She can also pray without thinking about muscle movements. All of this shows not only the brilliant medical technology, but that our Creator's skills are still far above our comprehension.
A new bioengineered medical device was designed to treat people with a severe loss of neurologic muscle control. It affords a rare opportunity to clearly see some of the hidden relationships between mind, body, and designed interfaces.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported on a 58-year-old woman with normal cognition, but who lost voluntary muscle control due to severe amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This woman with locked-in syndrome received a remarkable new treatment—a fully implanted brain-computer interface that links her brain's thoughts to the outside world.

The term "interface" is rather common, but many people don't know exactly what one is. A recent paper by Frank Sherwin of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and myself detailed the elements of a physiological interface and their vital importance. We showed how our immune system actually functions as an interface between our human body and the microbial world. We confirmed a fundamental principle of design in general: For two autonomous, automated entities with distinct boundaries to work together, they must be connected by an interface with three distinctive elements: 1) physical authentication mechanisms, 2) non-physical standardized protocols, and 3) a mutually accessible physical medium to both entities.
Don't even think about skipping out. You can read the rest by clicking on "Brain-Computer Interface Unmasks Mind-Brain Relationship".

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

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Science Industry Supports Abortion

Regular readers know that I keep emphasizing that scientists are not the dispassionate automatons that many people think. They are not running around, gathering facts, then following where the evidence leads. Rather, they are human, having their preconceptions as well as good and bad character traits. It's been more obvious lately (or has the trend increased?) that the secular science industry has a definite leftist penchant (see references 7,8,9 at this link). It gets worse.

The science industry has serious problems with its moral compass, and is becoming increasingly activistic for abortion.
Image credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
The scientific establishment also has some intrinsic moral problems, and needs to borrow a moral compass. Moral concerns of scientists would definitely be improved by biblical Christianity, especially since left-learning science institutions are increasingly activistic for the murder of unborn humans in the womb. If you study on it a spell, you'll see it's not all that surprising, since they deny God the Creator (therefore, denying that we are created in God's image), and try to make evolution a creator. It also follows that evolution has been used to justify abortion on demand, with "It's just a tissues", or, "It's in a fish stage of recapitulation", which was based on the fraud of Haeckel the jackal.

Is the feeling of justification by science part of the reason that pro-abortionists make their view a "rights" cause? My speculation is that science feeds society which feeds science in areas like this. Lena Dunham regrets never having had an abortion, which would apparently give her more credibility in her support of murder of a child that was created in God's image. 

Is the ending of human life trendy? Maybe we'll see combination hair, tattoo, and abortion salons soon. Albert Mohler has some insightful comments on this in his January 9, 2017 episode of The Briefing (you can listen or read the transcript). Further, Dr. Mohler discussed how religious people, including ultra-liberal "Christians", Hindus, and others, blessed an abortion clinic as "sacred. See or hear the January 12, 2017 episode of The Briefing for more about this immoral behavior.

Society is trending toward such casual treatment of human life, and the immoral views of the science industry fit right in. Meanwhile, there are still those of us who believe that defending the defenseless are some of the hallmarks of a just society

Further, the hysterical asperity spewed forth in a Nature editorial rivals that of cyberstalkers. They are demonizing those of us who believe that unborn lives should be protected, wanting access to baby parts in the name of "science". Secular scientists are objective? That'll be the day!
Is there any logical or empirical reason why science journals and secular reporters should always take the pro-abortion position?

Pardon, Big Science, your bias is showing. When it comes to abortion and other ethical controversies, secular journals and science editors almost always throw in their lot with the leftist, progressive, liberal crowd who chant for abortion on demand, unlimited access to embryonic stem cells, funding for Planned Parenthood, and other Democrat Party platform positions. Why is that? Don’t they realize they themselves could have been aborted? Do they have any scientific evidence that an unborn baby is not a person? No. The bias is clear; any restrictions on abortion are viewed as bad. Any limits on access to human embryos and fetal tissue are presented as a step “backward” for society. Here are some examples.
To see the examples and commentary, click on "Big Science Leans Pro-Death".

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

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Dinosaurs Done in by Dark Matter?

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with another "theory' about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why would they do a thing like that? Because none of the theories that have been passed around present adequate explanations of data. Also, someone needed money, so she wrote a book.

Since none of the current theories of dinosaur extinction work, a cosmologist made a new one. No facts or science, though.

Years ago, I was giving presentations about creation science and evidence against evolution. One thing I forcefully stated was that evolutionists present layers of "theories", but they are flawed all the way down to the foundation. In this case, a cosmologist invokes dark matter. This stuff is a rescuing device for the Big Bang, and has never been demonstrated to exist (so they keep making excuses for its absence instead of admitting it's paralogical). The spurious theory also involves the fictitious Oort Cloud, another rescuing device for the fact that comets would have been exhausted in an old universe. What stymies this child is how such pedagese not only gets accepted for publication, but is seriously considered, and Darwin's Drones unthinkingly accept words in their anti-creationist favor because it's from a scientist.

The best explanation for dinosaur extinction is the drastic changes on Earth after the Genesis Flood. Dinosaurs lived a while (a fact to which historical records attest), were probably hunted by humans, had trouble with the changed climate, and so forth. As for the dark matter thing that is fact- and science-free, don't be invoking stuff that doesn't exist and call it a theory, savvy?

Dark matter has been invoked to solve many vexing problems in astrophysics and cosmology. Now it seems it has been invoked to solve the evolutionists’ problem of extinction of the dinosaurs.

American theoretical physicist and cosmologist Dr Lisa Randall has developed a breakthrough five dimensional warped geometry theory. About two years ago she proposed a new hypothesis on dark matter which suggests the mysterious invisible substance that allegedly dominates the universe played a role in killing the dinosaurs. She even has written a book on it — Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs. In the book her new theory is summarised as follows.
To finish reading, click on "Dark matter caused the demise of the dinosaurs?"

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Submerged Cypress Forest

If y'all have ever been way down south in Dixie (southern United States) or watched movies and such, you may have noticed cypress trees in wet areas like swamps and riverbanks. They like those areas, but they can be found in drier climes. Some got more moisture than they bargained for.

So, a cypress forest was discovered off the Alabama coast. Huh? How did that get there?
Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze
Back in 2004, Ivan the hurricane included in its list of changes the exposure of cypress stumps. These were submerged off the Alabama coast, and did not show signs of great age. Cutting into them will get you sap and the cypress tree smell. What happened to have them submerged and youthful? The Genesis Flood model of creation scientists gives the best answer.
Sixty feet (18 m) beneath the green waves of the Gulf of Mexico, about 15 miles (24 km) off the Alabama coast, lie the remnants of an ancient forest of giant cypress trees.1 For hundreds of yards (meters), the stumps follow the lazy meanders of what appears to be an ancient river channel that flows down from the coast, near the place where two present-day rivers spill into the sea through the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta.

How did a forest ever grow here, and when did the ocean level rise enough to bury a forest and river? That’s an interesting question, showing that ocean levels have fluctuated dramatically since Noah’s Flood. Global warming and coastal flooding are not just modern worries!
I won't leaf you pining. All y'all can read the rest of this article (or download the audio) by clicking on "Alabama’s Underwater Forest".

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

Monday, January 16, 2017

Egesta-Rollers of the Lone Prairie

Some people need to get over the "Ewww Factor" to appreciate some critters for what they are, and how they're designed. I'm fascinated by certain reptiles, spiders, and so on (especially when dangerous ones are on television or behind glass). My wife gets the heebie-jeebies, though. So, if you can put bad feelings on hold and admire a creature for it's own sake, we're gonna have a ball!

The first reaction may be disgust. But if you study on it, you'll see that the lowly dung beetle is designed to perform a valuable service.
Image credit (cropped): Pixabay / debbiedejager
I'll allow that this post is difficult to write, but that's simply because I have to cowboy up and avoid using scatological humor. It ain't easy. The topic is the dung beetle (Egyptians worshiped the things, the artifacts are called scarabs). These little critters are on almost every continent, and love poo. Not only are they coprophagous (they eat it), but lay eggs and live in it, spread it around, and actually perform a vital function on the prairie. And the Serengeti Plains. And... (The stercoraceous material spread by Darwinistas has no value, unlike dung.) This lowly creature was designed by our Creator to perform a symbiotic function and to make life a little bit better on our special planet. Don't go teasing one by putting some coprolite in front of it.
Imagine the life of a dedicated dung beetle, collecting, moving, and hoarding dung—even raising its children on it. Talk about a lowly existence! Yet, from the dung beetle’s perspective, it’s completely normal; dung is what its life is all about.

Consider the valuable ecological service the dung beetle provides as it mundanely moves manure morsels. It uses herbivore-dropped manure to benefit itself and its family, as well as the habitat in which it crawls around. What is so valuable about herbivore feces that dung beetles actually fight over dung balls, energetically “stealing the ball” from one another as if dung ball-grabbing were an Olympic soccer game?
To read the whole article, roll on over to "Dung Beetles: Promoters of Prairie Preservation".

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

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Properly Dealing with the Facts

It has been rightly said that there is no such thing as one side having facts, and the other side having a different set of facts, all being filed away and waiting for action. Everyone has access to the same facts, and it is the interpretation of facts based on our worldviews that makes the difference. This is readily apparent in the origins debate, but it has applications in other areas.

The origins debate, and others, have people who desire to present "their" facts. Many times, they argue about things upon which they agree. It's those other items that provide the most interest.
Morguefile / Grafixar
One side of a debate may think that what they consider supportive facts are actually items that both sides are in agreement on. Some owlhoot may use the definition of evolution as "change over time", then give examples of change, as support for his position. However, that same definition and examples are likely to be things with which biblical creationists agree with him. There are interpreted facts that are out of the agreement zone that prompt the most useful discussions.
We at CMI have spent many hours writing and speaking on scientific and theological issues. We have said over and over again that one does not have to ‘turn off one’s brain’ when going to church and that there is a rich, intellectual foundation to biblical creation. We have disavowed conspiracy theories, and have encouraged others to do so as well.

Yet, the world seems to be sitting at a crossroads. After Wikileaks, Snowden, Snopes, ‘fact checking’, YouTube, etc., came on the scene, many people have grown skeptical about basic facts of science. This is compounded by the now-exposed lies of certain climate change advocates (e.g., the infamous “hockey stick” graph). And, it corresponds to a dramatic loss of confidence in most sources of authority, be it an authority in the secular, scientific, religious, or media realms.

Thus, we have suddenly been besieged by people who have huge questions about things that are easily shown to be true or not. “Did the United States land multiple astronauts on the moon?” “Are we at the absolute center of the universe?” Or “Is the earth actually global?”
I'll allow that it might be misnamed, but I still encourage you to finish reading this article by clicking on "How to think (not what to think)".

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

Friday, January 13, 2017

Worldviews, Ethics, and the Reanimator

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article is going to take an eldritch direction, but will be somewhat prosaic at first. Scientists are not dispassionate and absolutely objective, despite what some may expect from them. They are human, and subject to the same pleonexia and other worldly desires as other people. Scientists also argue from their worldviews. We understand that because everyone thinks and argues that way, whether aware of it or not.

Generally speaking, secular scientists take a materialist (no God) view about life. However, they contradict their own presuppositions by searching for the physical location of free will, which is intangible by its nature. One scientist believes in the soul on a quantum level, and is close to Christian truth by saying that the soul is independent from the brain. Secularists also struggle with the concepts of ethics and morality, even trying to justify their incoherent beliefs with evolution. The only way to understand and explain the necessary preconditions of intelligibility is found in the Bible, not in erroneous reasoning and false, man-made wisdom.

Now we get to the spooky stuff, almost Frankenstein (pronounced FRAHN-kun-steen, I think).

I was listening to some H.P. Lovecraft stories, and became reacquainted with "Herbert West: Reanimator". (You may be aware of the Re-Animator movies, the first of which has a superficial resemblance to the original story, but I recommend against it.) West was a medical student, then became a doctor, but he and a colleague were interested in the reanimation of dead tissue. West would find dead critters and try injecting his elixir in them, and occasionally had some amount of short-term success. Eventually, he tried it with humans, but with short-term success.

One of my stranger articles, drawing an example from a Frankenstein-makes-zombies tale by H.P. Lovecraft. What are the limits of scientific integrity without the Creator, and having a materialistic worldview?
Image credit (cropped): Pixabay / maraisea
Herbert realized that he needed extremely fresh corpses, but they were not enabled to continue their research above board, so the two companions would raid the local potter's field of the recently dead. There was a terrible success with a reanimation — terrible because the corpse was homicidal, insane, and cannibalistic. 

Those are enough bits about the story itself, but there are a couple of other things that need to be addressed. One is that West was a materialist, and rejected the existence of the soul because of his presuppositions. Another point was mentioned before, that in the interests of his scientific research (and personal ambitions), he justified his grave robbing activities. His "standards" were based on expedience.

"But Cowboy Bob, that's just a Frankensteinish zombie story from 1922!"

Although I don't reckon that Lovecraft was trying to make a point, he did so anyway. It doesn't take long to round up some reports about unethical doctors, including techniques the Nazis utilized, abortionist Kermit Gosnell — you can easily find wicked doctors (and scientists) with faulty moral standards. An atheist without God the Creator as described in the Bible has no consistent moral compass. What happens when atheist scientists get free rein? Something to discuss among yourselves.

If you want the classic weird tale of "Herbert West: Reanimator", I have two places. First, you can read it online here, and you can listen to it (or download it) from LibriVox.

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

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Amazingly Complex Sensors in Plants

Most folks know about young sunflowers following the sun across the sky, which has been a bit of a mystery until lately. Other plants have sensory mechanisms as well to improve their survival opportunities, gotta get the most of that sunlight, don'tcha know.

Plants have sensors to seek light, but they are far more intricate than previously thought, and testify of the Master Engineer.
Image credit: National Institute of Health, usage does not imply endorsement of this site
Further research shows that plant sensors are far more intricate that just pointing a plant toward the light. They even activate "switches" that control the plant's behavior. This is yet another example of the purposeful engineering of the Master Engineer, and makes Darwinism even less plausible than it is now.
Plants’ amazing sensor systems enable them to adapt in response to multiple environmental cues. Since plants can’t get up and move around, they have to grow, develop, and thrive where they are.

One of the key factors in a plant’s life cycle is processing sunlight in the form of duration (day length), light quality (wavelength), and light intensity. All of these interconnected light-related factors are monitored within the plant’s leaf cells by a family of sensor proteins called phytochromes. When the red to far-red region of the visible light spectrum changes during the day, or because of shade from neighboring plants, the conformation (3-D shape) of the phytochrome proteins becomes altered and they act like genetic switches.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Multipurpose Plant Sensors Startle Scientists".

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Professing Christians Vilify Biblical Creationists

Adherents of molecules-to-man evolution are passionate about their beliefs, and many are intolerant of those who reject this position, whether for scientific or theological grounds, or both. They are not content to allow the study of origins to be an academic discussion, preferring to vilify their opponents. They engage in stalking, misrepresentation, libel, censure, dreadful logic, outright persecution, and more. This kind of behavior is typical of atheists, but it is distressing that professing Christians corinthianize with said atheists in maligning people that should be their brethren in Christ. Naturally, atheists approve of this behavior, since it advances their naturalistic worldview and Christophobic agenda.

Basil of Caesarea defends Scripture
Basil of Caesarea icon from Wikimedia Commons
The most egregious attacks seem to come from theistic evolutionists (who disingenuously call themselves "evolutionary creationists"). They have a man-centered low view of Scripture, preferring to allegorize passages that do not support their evolutionary presuppositions while maintaining a pretense of spirituality. From this parti pris, evolutionists attack and misrepresent those they treat as mortal enemies, the biblical creationists, who have a high view of Scripture, including inerrancy. (Indeed, N.T. Wright contumely refers to biblical creationists "gnostics"!) Bluntly, this is not Christian behavior. For my admittedly lengthy but detailed article on false teachers and theistic evolutionists, see "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars".

It is perplexing why they do such things. Perhaps they seek the adoration of the world, and perceive the atheistic interpretations of science (especially regarding unscientific evolution) to be a mark of intellectualism. (Their companionship with logic-challenged atheists is quisquous, and will not elevate their status.)  Further, they seem to elevate atheistic science views to the magisterial position above Scripture, and reject sola scriptura. Degrading the Bible (which they claim to believe) for the sake of friendship with enemies of God is also not Christian behavior. If TEs want to show why biblical creation science is "harmful", they should be intellectually honest and not only refrain from misrepresenting the views of biblical creationists, but use their skills in doing correct research instead of cherry-picking quotes that falsely bolster their position. 
Young-earth creationists (YEC) are engaged in a hermeneutical, theological, and historical war with neo-Darwinian evangelicals (represented in this article by the anti-YEC attacks made by Mark Noll, Francis Collins, and Ronald Osborne). Their two arguments, which are designed to not only refute our position but also to intellectually discredit us who disagree with their denial of the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, that we employ facile, simplistic exegesis to Genesis 1–11, which is not in keeping with the approach of past interpreters; and, in addition, we refuse to capitulate to the putative inviolable hermeneutic of the priority of science with respect to these texts (thought to be exemplified in Galileo’s struggle with the Roman Catholic Church’s hermeneutical approach to Scripture) are historically inaccurate when it comes to the first and neglectful of all the factors that produced said struggle and the nature of the same when it comes to the second. The church by and large—Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, and up through Luther—has always believed the first chapters of Genesis are literal history. It was Galileo who, without the benefit of Sola Scriptura, claimed that God in the Bible catered to the superstitious beliefs of ignorant people to teach His central message. Kepler, a Protestant, was able to reconcile the Bible and science without compromising either. Geocentrism had become established because the best science of the day was made to interpret the theology—the result, bad science and bad theology. In short, the arguments are proven to be specious and spurious. One battle won; many more to fight. If we do not understand the dimensions of the war we are engaged in, we are already halfway to theological and historical oblivion.
Although this is not an easy article to read and is quite intellectual, it is well worth the time of the Bible-believing Christian. To continue, settle in and click on "The Nature of the Neo-Darwinian Evangelicals’ Criticism of Young-Earth Creationists  — Personal Reflections on a Tale of Misadventures with History".

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Stone Arches, Bridges, and the Genesis Flood

If y'all want to saddle up and see some interesting scenery, there are quite a few natural bridges and stone arches in the Western United States. Other places have them, but they seem to be more plenteous out West. A while ago, I posted about how these landforms have been crumbling, though folks say they've been sitting there for millions of Darwin years.

The formation of natural bridges and arches cannot be adequately explained through uniformitarianism. The best explanation of their formation is the Genesis Flood.
Turret Arch image credit: Pixabay / skeeze
So, the first flaw in the "deep time" view is that these structures are not so sturdy after all. Another flaw in that view is how, if uniformitarian explanations are true, we cannot see these structures being formed today, and we see them at high elevation. Some of the uniformitarian explanations have some amount of truth, but the Genesis Flood (about 4,300 years ago) model has the best explanation for the facts. Earth is young like Scripture indicates, and scientific evidence continues to affirm this truth.
Freestanding rock arches and large natural bridges are observed to collapse today, such as Wall Arch in Arches National Park in early August 2008. The formation of large arches and natural bridges from slow weathering and erosion would take tens of thousand of years. However, the uniformitarian hypotheses for their origin are not observed. A rapid process of erosion in the past consistent with the Retreating Stage of the Flood is more likely.
To read the rest, click on "Many arches and natural bridges likely from the Flood".

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

Monday, January 9, 2017

Shambolic Scientific Research Raises More Questions than Answers

The public has a strange love affair with science, adoring scientists on one hand, but having increasing suspicion of scientists and scientific establishments on the other hand. I suspicion that one reason for distrust is that scientists have a tendency to conduct incomplete research and then announce conclusions. This has been occurring with increasing frequency, especially in the profitable scum-to-psychologist evolutionary field.

An appallingly incompetent psychological study involving religion, the brain, and an MRI raises serious questions.
Image credit: Freeimages / max brown
Psychologists were doing a study on brain activity and spirituality using an MRI and Mormons (why they selected that religious group isn't clear, that's the first question raised). The study lacked a control group, and had results that could also be explained by other stimuli than spiritual good feelings. It's discouraging when you'd expect this kind of experimentation from inexperienced children, but it was conducted by supposed experts. This also helps illustrate the flawed view that spirituality resides in the brain.
Can an MRI scan tell anything about spiritual experience?

Some neuroscientists at the University of Utah decided to put Mormons in an MRI scanner and watch their brains light up when they felt spiritual. Science Daily describes the experiment:
I've given you a head start. To finish reading, click on "Mormons and Psychologists Burn Their Brains".

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

Saturday, January 7, 2017

David Coppedge, Intelligent Design, and Persecution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The termination of Dr. David Coppedge from Jet Propulsion Laboratory resulted in a high-profile court case where the ruling went against him. He was a team lead at JPL for the Cassini mission until his demotion and subsequent dismissal. The unexplained court decision coupled with the skulduggery and double standards of managers at JPL make the outcome very baffling indeed. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the entire situation was based on people being threatened by Coppedge's worldview, and that the firing was retaliatory.

Persecution of those who reject evolution is extreme in the secular science establishments. Dr. David Coppedge has a story to tell.
Artist's conception of Cassini and Saturn,
image credit: NASA/JPL (use does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The crime of Dr. Coppedge was "religious": he dared to offer, one-on-one, DVDs about Intelligent Design. The ID movement is definitely not biblical creationist, their adherents have diverse views. Basically, ID people want to provide scientific evidence that unguided evolution is impossible. I reckon what you do with that information is up to you. Biblical creationists use intelligent design arguments, but let people clearly know that the intelligence doing the designing is God the Creator as revealed in the Bible.

David received a complaint for "pushing religion" by offering the ID DVDs. (My first thought is, "Which religion? Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, Deists, and others believe in a creator of some sort or another".) He had been doing this for quite a spell, but it only takes one owlhoot to get her knickers in a twist and make problems for everyone — and destroy a career (I am very careful about even offering a business card for The Question Evolution Project at the workplace because of things like this). Coppedge offered ID materials, not biblical creation science, even though he's a creationist. Perhaps he thought that would be less threatening, and could be a stepping stone to presenting creation science and the gospel, I don't know. Many of his posts and articles from Creation-Evolution Headlines are featured on this site. 

Let's step back a mite. When the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed discussed how scientists who disbelieve in evolution are repressed, evolutionists circled the wagons and opened fire. Darwinistas propagated false information as well as dismissing it instead of dealing with the content (it's what atheists and village evolutionists do). The National Center for Evolution Indoctrination — I mean, Science Education — made a hit piece about it called "Expelled Exposed". (Not surprising for a sidewinder organization that registered the domain of creationism.com and had it redirect to NCSE!) Here's a response to "Expelled Exposed".

Another high-profile case is the wrongful termination of Mark Armitage. His crime? Being a creationist and publishing findings about soft dinosaur tissue in a peer-reviewed journal, but not discussing young Earth implications or Darwinism. You can read about Armitage in this article, which includes several links for more information.

Also worth considering is Dr. Jerry Bergman's Slaughter of the Dissidents which addresses the intolerance from evolutionists toward those who reject evolution. It is expanding into a three-volume set. You can see the 2012 video here, and read a review of the first book at this link.

Dr. David Coppedge's experience parallels those of many others. I have seen posts and articles doing the usual hand-waving and assumptions that he deserved what happened to him. (That's something common from atheists and evolutionists, they assume the worst about evolution deniers, and play fast 'n' loose with the facts.) The Discovery Institute (an ID organization) has a 3-part podcast of Coppedge's account in "NASA on Trial: The Persecution of David Coppedge". Click for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. You can read his story on his site, here. Also, here is an interview with David at Creation Ministries International.

There is abundant evidence about the persecution of biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents by the secular science establishments. Unfortunately, this will continue. But it is not unexpected (Matt. 5:11-12, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:23-24, 2 Tim. 3:12-13), especially because creation is at the root of all major Christian doctrines. Evolutionism isn't about science, it's about controlling your beliefs. When the "wrong" information is not controlled, people learn the facts and begin to think for themselves and see that evolutionism is intellectually, morally, spiritually bereft. Despite harassment, libel, misrepresentation, and outright persecution, we continue to proclaim the truth for the glory of God. I hope that Dr. Coppedge's faith and perseverance, as well as the faith and perseverance of others mentioned above, will be an inspiration to all of us. 

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