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

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Fast Talking in Evolutionary Presentations

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

And now for something completely different. For a long time, it was said that "pictures don't lie". That's not so true, especially if someone gets some photo editing happening, such as the imaginative material seen here if you scroll down. Even without editing trickery, some impressive illusions can be created using lines, colors, and shading. 3-D effects are impressive.

Visual illusion
Credit: Pixabay / uroburos
Let's move on to a different kind of illusion. My wife got me interested in a television program on the truTV cable network called The Carbonaro Effect, which is a hidden camera "magic" show where Michael Carbonaro plays comedic illusion pranks on people in various settings. I do not believe there are any camera tricks involved. The individual segments are usually very brief, and I haven't seen him do the same trick twice. Carbonaro is extremely talented and personable, and very skilled in sleight-of-hand and fast talking to "explain" the illusions. He utilizes the Making Stuff Up™ principle found in molecules-to-magician science.

Michael Carbonaro would make a great evolutionary scientist. If you study on it, evolutionary scientists often present "theories" and models that include maybe, perhaps, scientists think, probably — and many conjectures — that are presented as experimental science. They sound good and get published in scientific journals, but they are not actual science. Nope, they're illusions sold with fast talking, old son. Whether creation or evolution, historical science attempts to reconstruct events in the past. Biblical creation science has the advantage of the only eye witness what happened in the Bible. Another advantage creationary scientists have is that, when evolutionary and long age conjectures are set aside, the evidence supports creation science far better than it supports uniformitarian and evolutionary speculations.

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

Friday, April 28, 2017

Amber, Blood Cells, and Faith in Evolutionary Magic

Let me get this straight. Someone or something takes a chunk out of a tree, it bleeds sap, an insect gets trapped in it, and the whole thing turns to amber after a few zillion years. Not hardly! Sap and resin are different things, and when an insect or other critter gets trapped in amber, it doesn't just hang out and turn into a fossil. I recommend reading "Sticky Situations" for some basics on amber.

Amber has been unfriendly to evolution claims
Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
While amber has been fascinating for many years, whether for jewellery or curiosity's sake, it has been receiving a great deal of attention in recent years. An ant beetle showed no change after all those assumed Darwin years, the claim of bird wings in amber backfired, assertions of dinosaur feathers in amber are ridiculous, and more. Now there's a new discovery that baffles the evolutionary cult of death.

This new item shows a tick, blood cells, and one-celled organisms that live in blood cells. That's pretty impressive technology right there! Special equipment shows that they were not just any blood cells, but those belonging to a mammal, which was probably a monkey. This is a problem for evolutionists, since amber is not a perfect preservative, so the tick as well as the blood cells (not to mention the organisms in the cells) could not have lasted for as long as the Darwin Party desire. Why didn't they break down long ago? Darwinian magic?

Yet again, creatures preserved in amber help to refute not only evolution, but also long ages. Take away the circular reasoning and faith-based assertions of secularists, and evidence shows that Earth was created recently.
Looking for the clearest amber on Earth? A new study shows that Dominican Republic amber is clear enough to see what's inside. Apparently, ancient parasitic protozoans loved to live inside intact red blood cells.

Publishing in the Journal of Medical Entomology, renowned amber collector George Poinar showed over a dozen pictures taken with a microscope. They reveal tiny parasites in various growth stages inside blood cells as well as body tissues of a bloated tick trapped in the amber.
Don't be ticked off. You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "Amber-Encased Blood Cells Look Fresh". For additional information, I suggest you read "Tick Talk: Mammal Blood Found in Amber".


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

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Hobbit-Forming Guesswork about Little People Fossils

Every so often, paleoanthropologists at the Darwin Ranch start chewing the peyote buttons and dreaming up some wild ideas. I'll allow that the diminutive H. floresiensis is baffling for both evolutionists and creationists, but there's no excuse for presenting some nonsense as science (such as going to the island and shrinking way, way down). The latest batch of stories aren't so outlandish, but it shows the disagreement among evolutionists while they hash things out. Creationists need to commence to working on these archaic humans (they certainly were not apes, nor were they our evolutionary ancestors) and determine what happened, including how they arrived in their location after the Genesis Flood. Then there's the strange H. naledi...
Two of the most mysterious hominin fossils are in the news again, and opinions are flying every direction.

Are the little people of Indonesia and South Africa just small versions of us? Wherever they came from, and whatever they were doing in the caves in which they were found, they don’t fit evolutionary expectations.

The Hobbits: Homo floresiensis

Whenever you see an overconfident headline like Science Daily‘s “Origins of Indonesian Hobbits finally revealed“, you know some press department is trying to promote one of their university’s researchers. This one is from Australian National University, and the researcher is Dr. Debbie Argue.
To read the rest, click on "Are Hobbits Human?

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

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Another Reason to Doubt Beneficial Mutations

Proponents of carp-to-cardiologist evolution originally relied on Darwin's views of natural selection, a concept that he pilfered from creationist Edward Blyth and then twisted for his own ends. While some fundamentalist evolutionists erroneously conflate "survival of the fittest" natural selection with evolution, the two are not the same. When Darwinists realized that natural selection was not working to cause evolution, they started paying attention to genetics, a science begun by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him).

A heart condition is traced to mutations
Cropped from a graphic at Clker clipart
The most common form of common-ancestor evolution is a synthesis of genetics and natural selection that relies on mutations as its driving force. But the idea of "beneficial" mutations is disputed at best, and there are no examples of mutations improving protein construction. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, and a few are neutral. A recent study on a heart condition that kills people who seem healthy has been traced to mutations. The truth is, everything was created perfect. When Adam sinned, death entered the world, which included mutations.
A 15-year-long project finally bore fruit after researchers painstakingly identified a specific gene mutation that can lead to sudden heart failure in otherwise healthy-looking young people. These newly published results counter the long-standing view that mutations can somehow drive evolutionary innovation.

The gene in question, named CDH2, carries the instructions for cells to build N-cadherin. This protein binds adjacent heart muscle cells together like mortar between bricks. With faulty mortar, bricks may stack up just fine, but they can suddenly collapse in a strong wind. A similar tragedy occurs with a CDH2 mutation. This error in the instructional code produces warped N-cadherin that leaves vital heart cells with a weak attachment to one another.
To finish reading, click on "Mutation Underlies Fatal Heart Condition".

Notice that the Christian worldview is to help the helpless, defend the defenseless, build hospitals and schools, do good to others? Things would be quite different if we joined in with a social Darwinism approach and let it go to its logical conclusion:
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

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

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Guessing Again about the Moon's Origin

The origin of Earth's moon is another of those burrs under the saddle of secular scientists. Since it's anathema to even consider that there's a Creator, and since they're constrained to promote cosmic evolution (after all, there's money in it), speculations about the moon's origin keep changing.

Credit: NASA / ISS / Col. Jeff Williams (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents)
Their guesses keep on changing because the facts don't fit none too good. One conjecture becomes dominant for a while, then another replaces is. Facts interfere again, so yet another is brought forward. Now they have a story that is unfit for 1950s pulp sci-fi, but is considered "science". Why pays these jaspers? Oh, right. We do. Through our tax dollars. They seem unaware that the moon is unique in many ways and specially fitted for life right here.
In my lifetime there has been tremendous evolution in man’s ideas about the moon’s origin. In the 1960s, planetary scientists were convinced that the moon formed one of three ways  . . . 

But by the 1970s, it was clear, both from physical problems with each theory and from lunar composition measured from samples Apollo astronauts brought to earth, that none of the three theories were correct. Hence, by the late 1970s, planetary scientists developed a hybrid model of the moon’s origin, a scenario that hopefully kept the advantages of each of the three basic theories, while avoiding the shortcomings of each . . . 
While this remained the standard theory for more than three decades, apparently there still were problems with the moon’s composition that this model did not explain well.
To read the article in it's entirety, click on "A New Theory for the Moon’s Origin".

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

Monday, April 24, 2017

Ice Age Forests in Scandinavia

Geologists believing in long ages and uniformitarianism cling to the notion that there were several ice ages in Earth's history, while creationary geologists believe there was only one Ice Age. Seems like most of the time an or the Ice Age is discussed, it is the "last" one. According to secular belief systems, the last ice age was devastating to forests in Scandinavia, and trees didn't get their ownselves planted there again until somewhere about 9,000 Darwin years ago.

Lofoten Norway Ice Age forests geology Genesis Flood
Credit: Pixabay / manolofranco
Fossil evidence is deflating that view. Further, secular geologists are unable to present a plausible model for the cause nor completion of an ice age. Creation science models involving the Genesis Flood are far more plausible. Of course, secularists won't cognate on those because they affirm rather than deny God the Creator, and also indicate a young earth.
Ice ages within the uniformitarian paradigm are very cold, much colder than today. So, according to this paradigm, it is believed that during the last ice age Scandinavia was completely denuded of trees and their range shrank as far south as the Mediterranean region. Trees did not make a comeback in Scandinavia until after the ice melted some 9,000 years ago, within the uniformitarian time scale. However, the fossil evidence suggests otherwise.
To read the rest of this chilling article, click on "Trees in Northwest Scandinavia during the Ice Age".

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

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Tree Mail in the Wood Wide Web

Many people believe that it is a good thing to talk to plants. (If you hear them answering, that may be a problem.) It's good for you to get outside (watching out for ticks and dangerous critters, of course), but most of us don't realize that there's a passel of communication happening.

Trees have their own communications systems
Image made with assembled graphics from Clker clipart
We looked at an internal tree-mail system a spell back, but the story has grown quite a bit. Trees are sending helpful information to each other and getting cooperation, and sending requests to local fungi to provide them with nutrients. The system is actually quite intricate, and defies evolution because every aspect must be in place and fully operational from the beginning. This tree-mail system is yet another example of the design and provision of our Creator.
Stresses constantly threaten to destroy the forest’s surface harmony, and yet modern scientific research is revealing how marvelously the Creator has equipped His woodlands to respond to these stresses, keeping alive these reminders of harmony that once existed and will be restored someday through Christ.

Researchers are discovering that trees form communities that “talk” to each other, sharing their needs and providing mutual assistance. Yes, you heard me correctly. It’s mindboggling, even for someone like me who has spent his life studying nature’s wonders (forest ecology in particular).
To read the entire article, click on "Talking Trees — Secrets of Plant Communication". Also, for an article on cell biology and the genetics involved, click on "Plant Email System Described".

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

Friday, April 21, 2017

Deception in the Name of Science

A long-standing question of ethics and morality is the use of deception in the pursuit of science. Deceiving test subjects has occurred many times in psychology and sociology, and it presents a dilemma: if people know in advance they are being deceived, they are likely to react in a different manner than if they believe what they are experiencing is true, but it is dishonesty, so is it right?

Secular psychologists lie to test subjects implement manipulation
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
Keep in mind that secular psychologists have their basis in evolutionary thinking, which is in turn based on atheistic materialism. They have no consistent basis for morality, which is often predicated on whatever is expedient at the time, or the end justifies the means. Biblical Christianity (especially with a creationary bent) need not apply for employment here. Research in psychology has jumped the corral fence and is heading off at full gallop into Orwellian territory. Desires to implement mental manipulation techniques are on their minds. In a similar manner, the ability to say, "I'm sorry" is also subject to manipulation. Instead of actually being sorry and repenting of an action, the delivery of the apology is more important than the content.
In order to test human responses, some psychologists intentionally lie to volunteers. Is the “science” of manipulation justifiable?

Three psychologists decided to play Orwell’s 1984 with people. They took 54 people and did this to them, according to their paper in PLoS One:
To learn more about what's happening at the Ministry of Truth, click on "Researchers Lie to Subjects".

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

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Evolution and Nature Worship

We frequently see the fallacy of reification, where something abstract is given traits belonging to a person or entity. This sort of thing is done frequently and often for humorous purposes, like when Basement Cat gives me an evil look. No, she can't do that. Or saying that the beach is calling for me. No, ain't happening, sorry. Science says...no, it doesn't, but maybe some scientists say. See?

Figures of speech using reification abound in stories and casual talk, but when used in an argument or scientific paper, reification is a fallacy. Proponents of scum-to-skeptic evolution are using the fallacy more and more frequently, indicating that evolution chooses, selects, decides, and so on. It's not infrequent to see an evolutionist making evolution into a puny god. 

Pagan evolution lives today
Pantheon of gods in The Triumph of Civilization by Jacques Réattu, 1793
Evolution has always been a religious idea from way back, including Greek and Hindu religions. What we have now is more correctly termed evolutionism, since it is a belief system deceptively presented by its adherents as objective science. Atheists claim to be irreligious, but that is untrue. (To go further, fascism has pagan roots incorporated into politics and policies. See "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism" for more about this dangerous belief system.) Evolution gets credit for changes seen in nature, the Creator is denied, and rational thought suffers as well. I reckon that's one reason evolutionists detest critical thinking, because people can see that Emperor Darwin has no clothes.
We are justifiably impressed by the great strides being made in science, technology and medicine. However, at the same time, western cultures have succumbed to secular, humanistic influences in education, the arts and the media; those human accomplishments are misused to persuade people that traditional Christianity is irrelevant. The truth-speaker who would stand up for Bible-based absolutes soon discovers the tyranny of society’s so-called ‘tolerant’ academic and political elites. After all, this is the 21st Century; surely we have grown up and left all that religious stuff behind. Or have we?

Paganism revived

Dig just beneath the surface and religion is alive and well. For sure, it is not the worship of the one true Creator God revealed in the Bible. No, modern people have ‘gone back’ to embracing gods of their own imagining. Ironically, many people with a strong secular evolutionary bent are now found embracing paganism. Pagans define their ideology as, “A polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.” It is an ancient form of religion and is found in many guises but there is no doubt that it always makes the veneration of nature central. Some consider nature itself to be divine and worship it accordingly. However, many today are what we might call ‘naturalistic science pagans’; although they may protest themselves to be non-religious, their writings betray a different motive.
To read the rest, click on "Wishful thinking about nature’s abilities — paganism and evolution".

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

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Getting the Dirt on Microbes

It's time for a post that's really down to earth. For the most part, we put plants in soil, whether on farms, in gardens, potted plants in the home, and so on. Most folks know that plants need soil so they can grow, but we forget that it's little things in life that matter. Or, little living things. Microbes. There's a great deal of life underfoot.

Credit: Freeimages / Dieter Joel Jagnow
People tend to get all het up about bacteria, thinking that it makes people sick. Fact is, there are many bacteria that are beneficial to us. They live in us, and in the soil as well, which is good for the plants. Bacteria in dirt has its own communities, like so many other living things. They adjust to environmental conditions and often work together. There is a symbiosis with bacteria, other living things, and the environment that defies Darwinism and shows the ingenuity of the Creator.
I remember making mud pies as a child for my mom—she didn’t like them too much.1 Pie making was always the best just after a good rain, but I had no idea that I was covering my hands in germs. Though I now know there was probably other biomaterial present in the soil (e.g., the organic matter called humus), back then the combination always warranted washing my germy hands when I went inside. In terms of our overall health, there is a fine balance between all the germs in the dirt and all the other stuff that it is made of. Dirt is dirty, but not in the ways that we often think.

While earth is typically considered to be only rocks and dirt, life is also abundant in soil. But we cannot observe all the living things in the soil with our eyes—they require a microscope for us to see them.
To dig into the rest of this very informative article by a microbial ecologist, click on "The Dirt Is Alive: God’s Design for Soil Microbiome".

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

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Radiocarbon Dating Fails to Produce Deep Time

For molecules-to-misotheist evolution to work, it needs huge amounts of time. Secularists ignore evidence that shows the earth is young, and make excuses for tremendous flaws in radiometric dating (see "Would Evidence for Radiometric Dating Stand Up in a Court of Law?" for more on the subject, including several links). I reckon they must feel that bad science is better than admitting that evidence fails to produce an old earth, so they keep on with radiometric dating.

Radiocarbon dating does not show old earth
Assembled with graphics from Openclipart
More specifically, radiocarbon dating deals with organic matter and the amount of carbon contained therein. Carbon-14 should not be found in certain items after 57,000 Darwin years, so certain things that have been dated at millions of years should not contain any carbon. But they do. Sure, evolutionists circle the wagons to protect their prize pig, making excuses such as "contamination". Such excuses do not withstand scrutiny and change the fact that Earth was created much more recently than is dreamt of in their philosophy.
Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time. The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS), which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms. Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels.
To read the rest (it won't take too much time), click on "Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth".

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

Monday, April 17, 2017

New Fossils Foul Up Evolutionary Timelines

Seems like the hands at the Darwin Ranch would get discouraged and find more rewarding (as well as useful) employment, what with all the bad news that's been carted in lately. They're unable to let bad evolutionary stories alone because new findings get publicity mighty quick like, and those of us with a creationary persuasion won't let them get away with it. Especially those of us with unregistered assault keyboards.

Large sea sponge
Largest sea sponge found, "about the size of a minivan"
Credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2015 Hohonu Moana
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Time to commence rewriting the textbooks and adjusting the evolutionary timelines again, since the new fossils are recalcitrant and quite a bit out of sequence according to evolutionary mythology.

  • Colony of sea sponges was found and given an evolutionary date after an "extinction event", but it had thrived 
  • Uncooperative fish showed up in the fossil record before it was supposed to
  • The doubtful Chicxulub meteorite impact didn't exactly wipe out everything around it, as a mixture of tracks from birds, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs indicate
  • Teeth of Neanderthals show that these fully human folks knew some things about medicinal plants — and possibly a form of antibiotics
  • Giant rodents cause scientists to say that previous hypotheses were wrong
Gradual trial-and-error evolutionary processes over long periods of time are not supported by the fossil record, old son. Never have been, never will be. What the fossil record does support is the global Flood at the time of Noah. To read about the above items and more, click on "Rethinking Fossils".

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

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Creation, the Resurrection, and Evidence

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while, Christians are accosted by unbelievers who demand "proof" (or evidence) of the miracles that Bible believers affirm. On this site, as well as on many of those which are linked, a reader will find copious evidence demonstrating the paucity of particles-to-pastor evolution, and presenting scientific evidence affirming biblical creation. What about the events that happened about 4,000 years after creation that involve Jesus?

Background image: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Before I commence to telling about evidence for Jesus, I need to lead y'all on a side trail for a few moments. Whether discussing creation, evolution, the life of Jesus, or other things that we are unable to observe in the here and now, we are using historical science — a useful term that is not exclusive to creationists [1]. Historical science attempts to use data in the present in an effort to determine past events, while operational science is what is observed, tested, repeated, measured, and so forth. You savvy?

Now we're back to the main trail. There is abundant historical evidence for the life, death, and bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead [2] [3] [4]. I'll allow that most of the evidence regarding Jesus is contained in the Bible. Alleged biblical inaccuracies have been asserted but not demonstrated, and many claims of critics have been refuted. Indeed, respected archaeologist William Ramsay was skeptical of the New Testament, and his investigations let to his conversion to Christ. Ramsay said that "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . his statements of fact trustworthy" [5]. I should add that the Bible is brutally direct when describing the failings of God's people. Saul persecuted the church before he was promoted to Apostle Paul, Peter denied Jesus, Judas betrayed Jesus and hanged himself, all of the disciples went into hiding. Note that God was woman-affirming, since they were the first ones to report the risen Lord when the culture had a low view of women's testimonies, so the disciples were reluctant to believe them at first (Luke 24:10-12).

Some critics will say something akin to, "Leave the Bible out of it, and let's discuss evidence on neutral ground; show me extra-biblical evidence for Jesus". Sounds reasonable, except that there is no such thing as "neutral ground" [6]. More than that, the scoffer wants the Christian to tacitly admit that the Bible is not true, and to argue on his plot of land: materialistic presuppositions, where God is disallowed [7]! Further, the atheist is wanting you to appeal to his pride, where he can decide if God the Creator and Redeemer is worthy of worship. The atheist's ultimate starting point is rejection of God and affirming naturalism, while our ultimate authority and starting point is the Word of God.

Some folks say that they sincerely want evidence for our position. We can offer a prairie-schooner full of evidence for creation, miracles, and the Resurrection of Jesus, but if they are spiritually closed, they will reject what we have to offer. They are blinded by their father down below (John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4), are enemies of God (Rom. 8:6-8), and unbelievers cannot understand the deeper things of God (1 Cor. 2:14). They seldom set out to actually do evil, believing they are doing what is right according to their degenerate worldview. An example of this is that secular scientists are unaware of their own biases [8]. These things support the Christian teaching of the noetic effects of sin, that sin has darkened the minds of unbelievers so that it interferes with their morality and ability to reason [9]. I have seen this in people who have been rational in some things, but are consumed by hate when discussing God, the Bible, Christians, and so forth. Some seem so far gone that their basic reasoning abilities are affected as well.

If you study on it, you'll find that atheists arbitrarily define "reality" as naturalistic atheism. This fallacious reasoning empowers intolerant unbelievers to heap abuse on Bible believers and call us "reality deniers", but they do not understand that reality and wisdom begin with God (Prov. 1:7). Dr. Greg Bahnsen pointed out that the kind of evidence an unbeliever claims to desire (and what evidence may be accepted), as well as the way he or she interprets such evidence, is based on what he thinks about reality in the first place. Metaphysical views determine anyone's epistemological views

Don't be disunderstanding me, evidence is important, especially for strengthening the faith of believers. When presenting evidence to unbelievers, we must present it in a presuppositional framework. That is, we will not yield on the ultimate authority of Scripture, which is certain. Probability arguments tend to put a burr under my saddle. Saying thinks like, "It's probable that Jesus rose from the dead", "It's improbable life could arise on Earth by chance", such arguments are weak in and of themselves. Yes, they have their place when used properly (especially when showing the folly of evolution), but not when divorced from Scripture. Remember that Salvation does not come from our "brilliant" arguments, but from God (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Our job is to give an account for the hope that is in us, starting with Jesus as Lord, proclaim repentance (Acts 17:30, Luke 24:46-47), not depending on worldly wisdom (1 Peter 3:15) and leaving the results to the Holy Spirit. We need to be prayerful, especially in relationships that are more than just social media drive-by encounters.

Celebrating the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead on Easter is very important for Christians [10]. Sure, some pharisaical "Christians" will saddle up with atheists to spread the false claim that Easter has pagan in origins [11]. The Creator of the universe (Col. 1:16, John 1:1-3) took on human form, lived a sinless life, was crucified on a cross for our sins, rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-8), ascended to the right hand of God the Father (Eph. 1:18-21), sent the Holy Spirit to indwell us (John 14:16) until he comes to take us to our greatest home — forever (Rev. 21: 1-4). We are children of the living God (John 1:12). Those are excellent reasons to celebrate!

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

Friday, April 14, 2017

Big Mouth for Such a Tiny Ancient Creature

A new entry for the "What is That?" file is a strange creature with the Latin name Saccorhytus coronarius. Ugly thing, but it probably didn't know it or care, what with being exceptionally tiny and all. For that matter, it didn't seem good for anything except eating, since it was mostly mouth. The disgusting part (well, to me) is that it had no anus, so it would excrete from the same place that it ate. Reminds me of certain anti-creationists, but never mind about that now.

Saccorhytus coronarius credit: Wikimedia Commons / Apokryltaros (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Mighty fine work for the palenotologists go commence to studying the thing and finding all sorts of details. Saccy had various bumps and things, and some spikes. Evolutionists are thinking that this may have had the precursors to gills. Fish evolved from it, and we evolved from fish according to their mythology. Further, since it showed up in Cambrian rock, evolutionary scientists are also saying that there are other fossils that must have been missed over the years, so the molecular clock is still out of whack, but Evolution of the Gaps means they can still believe in their paradigm without evidence. So, if you get out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring©, all of the speculations, perhaps, maybe, possibly, could be all add up to evolution is a fact! Blessed be! Actually, the Genesis Flood is a far better explanation for the fossilization of billions of life forms, many in great detail, all over the world, and doesn't need excessive speculation passed off as "science".
Tiny black specks recovered from a lower Cambrian rock formation in South China’s Shaanxi Province have turned out to be the fossils of globular animals that once wriggled between grains of sediment. Discoverers have dubbed the small animal Saccorhytus coronaries because it has a sac-like body and a mouth surrounded by a corona (crown) of spikes. They have not located a separate digestive output opening on its other end. Therefore, it apparently ate and evacuated its waste through its mouth. Evolutionists say Saccorhytus could be the oldest known ancestor we share with elephants, sea bass, sharks, starfish, sea urchins, and acorn worms.
To finish reading, click on "Was Our Oldest Itty-Bitty Ancestor All Mouth?"

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

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Traveling at Warp Factor Nine

Outer space is a big place. But you are bright people and knew that already. Science fiction aficionados have produced many stories that involve going faster than light, but Uncle Albert Einstein spoiled that idea. Some wrote stories and just ignored the problem (similar to the way some evolutionists ignore inconvenient fossils), moving at many times the speed of light. When the universe got bigger (well, better measurements and such), moving at such speeds would still take a mighty long time to reach other stars. So, they lassoed the concept of warp drive.

Is warp drive possible
Credit: NASA/ESA (modified), usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Warp drive has several names (including subspace), and did not originate with Star Trek, but Mr. Roddenberry's humanistic programs sure did make it popular. Naturally, fans will attempt to explain such things in their favorite shows and make them seem somewhat realistic, but they can only do so much with a concept that is extremely speculative.

What about serious research? Yes, it's happening, but not very promising. Why do people have such a fascination for traveling at warp speed? So we can see space aliens that must have evolved, and they can come here and see us. Have some nachos and soda, shake hands (or whatever) and part friendly. Evolutionists keep getting excited about finding habitable planets, but they come up empty, including the latest prospects to date. The concept of contacting extraterrestrials is actually based on evolution and several other atheistic presumptions, and implies that God is not the Creator, nor is Earth special.
A ‘trekky’ enthusiast once told me that the warp speeds described on the television shows and in the movies may be calculated as follows. Warp factor w, from the original Star Trek series, means that the spacecraft travels at w³ times the canonical speed of light (c ≅ 300,000 km/s or 186,000 miles/s). Therefore warp factor w = 7 means the spacecraft travels at 7 = 343 c. It would be unusual to hear that the starship the USS Enterprise had exceeded warp factor 9, which is about 729 times the speed of light.

To travel even around the local neighbourhood of our galaxy warp factor 9 (from the original TV series) just won’t do it. The nearest star to our solar system is about four light-years away. So travelling at warp 9, you would take two days to get there. Not too bad. But what about going to other star systems?
You can finish reading by clicking on "Warp drive". Make it so.

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

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Evolutionists Evading Soft Tissues — Part 2

Let me wish you a happy Cosmonautics Day. Oh, wait. This is about debunking evolution and affirming creation science. Still, the first human in space was a noteworthy event.

In our last exciting episode, we saw that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are busy forging excuses for more soft tissues. When unbelievable, science-denying rescuing devices are ineffective, they use an emergency exit: ignore the difficulties.

Evolutionists deny science by ignoring facts about fossils

Excellent preservation of a Cretaceous Confuciusornis confuses evolutionists, so they ignore the fact that the detail cannot happen in their paradigm. Instead, they talk about bird evolution. But they have nothing there, either. The same kind of thing happened with the Eoconfuciusornis discovery, another excellent and detailed fossil. Just ignore the problems. Oh, by the way, they're still scrapping over the amber and dinosaur tail thing, too. Settle down, Earth is not as old as you want to believe. It was created much more recently.
Unrepentant over extreme falsification, evolutionary paleontologists are just taking it for granted that soft tissue can survive millions of years.

Scientists have reported soft tissues from the lower hindlimb of a Cretaceous bird. Writing in Nature Communications, Jiang et al. say,
Nope, to find out what is being said, and more details about the items mentioned above, click on "More Soft Tissue Found in Cretaceous Fossil Bird". Hey, got a bonus for y'all: further deep-time follies with "Tick Talk: Mammal Blood Found in Amber".

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

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Evolutionists Evading Soft Tissues — Part 1

Advances in science and technology should have helped evolutionary science, but instead, they have benefited biblical creation science instead. Howls of outrage from the hands at the Darwin Ranch echoed all over Deception Pass when dinosaur soft tissues were discovered. Now the gang has to put in overtime at the excuse foundry because more soft tissues are being discovered. Things got worse.

Corythosaurus, dinosaur soft tissues defy evolution

Evolutionists force themselves to deny science in order to maintain their narratives. Scientists have shown that soft tissues, proteins, blood cells and the like cannot last for so many zillion Darwin years. Excuses are forged, but the facts are right there in front of them. The most painful fact (for them) is that scientific evidence does not support long ages or evolution, but it does support special creation. Evolutionists are science deniers.
A lready in 2017, secular scientists have described some stunning original biochemicals in fossil bones. Two new finds reignite vigorous debate over the nature of the protein remnants—are they true organic remains, some form of contamination, the result of a strange preservation process, or what?
To keep reading something that anti-creationists detest, click on "Stunning Protein Fossils Confirm the Flood". Also, Part 2 is here.

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

Monday, April 10, 2017

What is the Spleen?

We've examined the heart, eye, brain, appendix — may as well add the spleen to this organ recital. Ever heard the expression about venting one's spleen? Way back in the old days, it was considered the source of anger, so expressing rage was "venting" the spleen. (Anti-creationists do this frequently when presented with the truth of creation and refutation of scum-to-sculptor evolution.) Odd how that "medical" view of the spleen persisted for quite a spell, but all we have left of that now is a strange phrase. In reality, though, the spleen is quite important.

Credit: National Institutes of Health
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
This smallish organ is not something people tend to hear about all that often. Perhaps it's because if it has to be removed, it's not a death sentence. The spleen is quite important in filtering blood and doing other functions that our Creator saw fit to have installed in mammals.
The spleen! . . . What’s the spleen?

That might be how most people respond to any mention of this organ in our body. While most people have heard of the spleen, few could tell you what it does or even where it’s located.

That’s a pity since the spleen is an amazing organ that clearly shows the wisdom and handiwork of our Creator. (Although the spleen serves some very important functions, when necessary we can live without it—thanks to our accommodating liver.)
Let me spleen — I mean, explain — how to read the rest of the article. Just click on "The Mysterious Spleen", by Dr. David Menton.

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

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Making Zombies with Evolutionary Research

The concept of minerals-to-millwright evolution has grown quite a bit. Yes, it certainly gruesome.

"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"

Well, sorta. Anyway, the situation for science itself, especially historical science like evolution, is quite grave. One way for a researcher to give the impression that research has credibility is to give references to other research. Unfortunately, this give an impression of life for something that should have remained buried.

Evolutionary science research makes its own de facto zombies
Image from Clker clipart
New papers are being presented, reviewed, and passed that perpetuate myths. They reference outdated and even bad research that has gone before, keeping the mythology alive — it makes de facto zombies. Part of the problem is in academic and research environments that require publishing. In addition, there are many papers to be reviewed that include numerous references, and those can go without scrutiny. It also helps the unscrupulous gain personal advantages.These factors can help perpetuate evolutionary mythology and reinforce false naturalistic views that deny the work of the Creator.
Most scientific papers contain numerous references. Rather than enhancing scholarship, careless referencing can sometimes advance zombie science.

Some theories deserve a quiet death. Unfortunately, they are kept on life support by the common practice of referencing in journal papers. Dead ideas re-emerge as zombies, parading around as if they never really died.

A typical paper contains dozens—sometimes hundreds—of references. It’s doubtful any one author or co-author takes the time to read them all. Perhaps that boring task gets delegated to grad students or contributing authors. Is it possible, too, under the pressure of publish-or-perish deadlines, that scientists pad the references to impress editors? It can work like name-dropping, giving the appearance of reputation without the reality.
You can dig the rest of the article by clicking on "Scientific Referencing Perpetuates Myths". Also, check out "Scientists Blind to Their Failings".

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

Friday, April 7, 2017

Parrots Present a Passel of Perplexities for Evolution Proponents

Those who believe in baryon-to-bird evolution are adept at telling stories around the campfire and making assertions, but dreadful at providing actual scientific explanations or believable models. Many "explanations" can be summed up as, "EvolutionDidIt". The group — actually, the order — to which parrots belong even stumps the storytellers.

Parrots present a passel of problems for evolutionists
Credit: Morguefile / pdell
Darwinists want to find the nearest common ancestor of parrots, but can only throw around a few guesses. But more than that, parrots have unique features that other birds do not possess. Clearly, parrots were a specially created kind, and that is a good reason evolutionists fail in their speculations.
The parrot family is one big family, say biologists. Well, technically an order, the Order Psittaciformes, comprising over 80 recognized genera and hundreds of different species . . . Their shared distinctive characteristics . . . the parrots are readily distinguishable from all other orders of birds.

Evolutionists have a problem, however. They can’t find the parrot’s closest relative. Sure, there have been plenty of suggestions over the years, citing as evidence one or a few shared physical characteristics . . . But as the arguments for or against these and other candidates for the parrot’s closest relative have raged, and biologists turned to new tools such as molecular and genetic studies, more “contradictory results” were reported, generating further confusion.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Parrot puzzle — Where are the missing relatives?"

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

Thursday, April 6, 2017

How Earth Got Its Water

When we hear about searches for life on other planets, whether in our solar system or out there thataway in some other system, the key word is often habitable. What makes a planet habitable? A spaceship-load of conditions have to be met that imply that a planet could have usable water. 

Materialists ideas of Earth oceans formation fail
Credit: Morguefile / kconnors
Today, we have similar news from two different angles. The first linked article is more in depth. Yes, I made a water joke there.

Evolutionary views of where Earth's water came from have constantly failed, so the concepts that have the fewest flaws seem to become dominant when others are discredited. Notice that we got us a wet one here? Since secularists presuppose that the solar system was all hot molten stuff that became the sun and planets through accretion, there's no place for water. It had to get here somehow, so they came up with comets and things. Yes, really. But evolutionists are drying up that idea, and admitting that the water comes from Earth itself. Isn't that what we read in Genesis? For that matter, scoffers ask, "Where is the water from the Genesis Flood?" It's still here.
“Planet Earth makes its own water from scratch deep in the mantle” was the article headline in the January 27, 2017, New Scientist’s Daily News.

It is ironic that secularist scientists are still seeking to explain where the Earth’s water came from. For many years now they have endeavored to fill in the difficult-to-explain pieces of their “story” about how our home Earth “just happened” to become so habitable for life over the course of its supposed billions-of-years history.

Secularists believe the Earth condensed from clumpy matter flung out of the solar nebula 4.56 or so billion years ago. It was thus originally a hot molten blob that cooled. They used to suggest that most of the water came from inside this cooling Earth, but not enough to fill the oceans we have on the Earth’s surface today. A once popular theory was that comets (which are essentially large, dirty snowballs) collided with the Earth and deposited their water on its surface.
To read the rest of this first article, click on "From Where Did the Earth’s Water Come?". The next article is below.

Although secular scientists are finding out that their water from space conjectures do not work, they still like to spin yarns and pretend that Earth and the solar system are billions of years old. Nope. It was created with the water, and the evidence is showing this fact but they won't give the Creator the credit. Another bit of speculation was floated for approval.
The divination experts see a new vision emerging from meteorites, portending disaster.

If there was ever a coherent theory of how the earth got its oceans, it’s gone. The new reading of meteorites forbids it. Now, inventors of solar system models have to go back to square one. Whatever they come up with is bound to take more heat.

Because the early earth was pictured to be molten with volcanoes going off and meteors hitting repeatedly, cosmogonists were forced into thinking that water arrived later. The ‘late veneer’ theory (which we call the ‘water balloon’ theory) claimed that the oceans were late arrivals, the water being delivered by comets and meteorites after things cooled down a bit.

For empirical support, they appealed to elements in chondritic meteorites, believing that elements embedded in the stones can act as “fingerprints” of conditions at the time of their formation. A new paper in Nature, however, claims that stable isotopes of ruthenium falsify the late veneer theory: “these data refute an outer Solar System origin for the late veneer and imply that the late veneer was not the primary source of volatiles and water on the Earth.” Moreover, these isotopes don’t match those in earth’s crust.  
To read the rest of this second article, click on "Secular Ocean Theory Evaporates". 

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