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

Thursday, August 31, 2017

More Dinosaur Family Tree Follies

An axiom familiar to computer programmers is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), which essentially means that if the programming is not done correctly, nonsense ensues. Advocates of universal common ancestor evolution have the same problem on a larger scale, and it strongly impacts their cladograms.

The dinosaur family tree is being rewritten again using bad logic and computers
Assembled and modified from images at Clker clipart
Cladograms are made by finding similar traits in organisms and then producing a tree. The classifications of dinosaurs has been rewritten according to faulty data (assuming a common ancestor, despite no evidence for such a thing) and circular reasoning. A new cladogram is causing consternation for the hands at the Darwin Ranch, since the classifications of lizard-hipped and bird-hipped dinosaurs is up for a makeover. Biblical creationists don't have such problems. These owlhoots keep kicking against the goads, denying that dinosaurs and man were created on the same day of creation week. There was no single tree, it's more like an orchard.
Some things everyone knows. Everyone knows Tyrannosaurus rex was a carnivore. Everyone knows Triceratops was a plant eater. And, until recently, everyone knew dinosaurs fall into two broad groups (“lizard-hipped” and “bird-hipped”). Or do they? If several paleontologists in the UK are correct, this “obvious” truth, accepted for over 100 years, may now be in limbo.

Teaching the first-ever creationist dinosaur class at my college, even I assumed this was true. I didn’t imagine questioning it. But what once was firmly established may now be turned upside down.
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Redrawing the Dinosaur Family Tree".

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Misleading Exoplanet Sales Pitches

Evolution is a fact and consistently verified, with no scientific evidence against it, from the Big Bang all the way up to you and me. If you believe that, astronomers have some prime real estate to sell you. The commute to each is a mite long, though. But they're like Earth!

Exoplanets in the habitability zone, secular scientists leave out important details
Artist's conception of Kepler-10 and planets — Image credit: NASA / Ames / JPL-Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When it comes to exoplanets, there's a minimum criteria for the possibility of life evolving on them. (Creation is anathema to them.) It's often called the habitability (or Goldilocks) zone. There are several factors, including the right kind of star, distance of the planet from it, size, solar neighborhood, and so on. Many of the important parts are left out, and we're sold a bill of goods along the lines of, "Just like Earth" — if Earth was made of lava. Seems like they're getting mighty intent on convincing the public that there's a passel of planets that pass the habitability zone test, but secularists are leaving out important information. It's not just planets, either. Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, is also being passed off as a suitable place for humans to migrate. That'll be the day! They'll just have to cowboy up and admit that Earth was created to be special.

To read about several instances of secularists neglecting facts, click on "The Habitability Habit: Exaggerating Earth-Likeness". You may also want to read "Privileged Planet Confirmed!".

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

How Does a Creationist Student Write a Paper on Evolution?

Christian students in government-run education systems are in hostile territory, especially at the university level. Their faith is being challenged by secularist material (sometimes attacked outright by misotheistic teachers and instructors), and the students want to get good grades so they can graduate or even move on to advanced degrees. Students in these settings are under the control of the secularists in charge (while still having to be respectful), and have to play their cards right.

Creationist students can write a paper on evolution without compromising principles
Credit: Pixabay / andrew_t8
What is a student who believes in special creation and rejects evolution on both scientific and theological grounds supposed to do when required to write a paper on evolution? Good students want good grades, but the Christian doesn't want to compromise on principles. Worse, just "doing the assignment" on evolution and giving the materialists what they want would essentially be lying.

Sounds bleak, doesn't it? But the situation can be advantageous. Professing atheists and anti-creationists claim to know about Christians and creationists, but few have actually taken the time to become familiar with our views. On the other hand, creationists often know more about evolution than the typical keyboard warrior because they have to understand evolution and creation science. 

In a similar way, when people are going to have a formal debate, each side needs to be familiar with the other side's views. Then, an accurate presentation can be made for one's own views and an informed critique of the other's presentation can be made. Anti-creationists seldom give us this basic courtesy, preferring to use straw man attacks, ridicule, and other foolish arguments. We have to be better than that — especially scientists and those in academic areas. When being required to write on evolution, the creationist student needs to know creationist material, but also have a good working knowledge of evolutionary material. It is also extremely important to know the materialistic presuppositions that permeate the environment. I'd better holler "Whoa!" now and let Dr. Walker do his part.
So you’re studying at a secular institution and have received an assignment asking you to explain some evolutionary concepts. What should you do? Should you refuse to do it? Should you argue the case for creation and try to prove that evolution does not work? What happens if you can’t find any creationist information on the topic?

Don’t panic. All you need is to understand the thinking of secular science, how to research the topic, and how to write the assignment. Once you know these things you can write an assignment without compromising your creationist views. And your assignment will be one which can advance the creationist cause, as well as being a quality piece of writing that will receive a good grade.
To finish reading (and I hope you do, as well as bookmark the article), click on "‘How do I do my assignment about evolution?’"

Monday, August 28, 2017

The Sixth Great Extinction?

According to standard secular geology, Earth has dealt with five "great" extinction events. Recently, new inquiries prompted speculations that there was a sixth major event. None of these fit standard uniformitarian assumptions (present processes are what happened way back when as well as not; "the present is the key to the past"), however.

Sixth extinction event geological history supports Genesis Flood
Credit: Pixabay /Free-Photos
The megasequences studied must be the result of catastrophic instead of gradual processes. The best explanation for what is observed in found in creationary models of the Genesis Flood. (I know, some tinhorns will say that the Genesis Flood is fiction and could never happen, but such illogical faith statements disqualify them from serious discussion. A response that can be summed up as "Because evolution" is not a rebuttal, Skippy.) Further, the new proposals not only support biblical creation science, but may cause some reworking of our models as well.
Geology students memorize the rock system names found on geologic column diagrams, learn age assignments, typical fossils, and the five worldwide animal extinction events. Now, secular researchers reveal a sixth extinction near the top of Earth’s rock layers, and it coincides with three other large-scale features all poised to reshape the way biblical geologists think about the Genesis Flood.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Newly Discovered Sixth Extinction Rewrites Geology".

Saturday, August 26, 2017

I Have a Theory

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

I have a theory, which is mine. It is about the brontosaurus. Wait, that was someone else. My theory, which is mine, may seem overwhelming to prosaic minds, but give it some consideration and you'll see why it is excellent. And it's mine.

Cowboy Bob Sorensen came up with a dreadful theory
My picture was modified through blatant misuse of FotoSketcher, Paint.Net, and Clker clipart

Origin of a Theory

Organizing The Question Evolution Project, as well as my interests in biblical creation science, apologetics, false religions, logic, and so forth, cause me read quite a bit of material, watch videos, listen to audio, and write very long sentences. Some information was stored in my mental filing cabinet over the years, and I was pondered the efficacy of writing a detailed essay or even a book. The subject was the relationship between evolutionism and New Age religions, science history, Hinduism, paganism, and the like. Indeed, I had written on similar topics before, but wanted to go into greater depth.

When listening to an audio version of the 1989 book The Long War Against God by Dr. Henry Morris, I realized that he covered much of the material that was in my mental file. Outrageous!

My Theory

I wondered how my material could already exist in a book that was published 28 years before I was encountering it. Then, like sitting on a hill all night wondering where the sun went after it set, it dawned on me: telepathy, time travel and theft.

Morris sensed my thoughts in the future, (knowing it would be long after he had passed away), and used them in his book in 1989. This was because I'm an author and becoming influential in biblical creation science. He had a ministry and was established as a respected author, so he was able to develop the ideas that he read in my mind.

Why My Theory Stinks

First of all, the word theory is used almost as much as a coffee pot at a cowboy campfire. That word means something far different to people of science than it does to us reg'lar folk. Someone might say, "I have a theory...", which may be something that has been brewing in the back of the mind for a spell, or is a thought that just occurred to the person.

In science (and I'm vastly oversimplifying here), a hypothesis is proposed to explain an observed phenomenon. If a hypothesis is supported by evidence and repeated testing, it becomes a theory and is awarded a clean stall in the stable. Theories are used to interpret observations and facts, but may well be put out to pasture if they're disproved. Facts, however, pretty much remain facts, but interpretations can change — especially when new evidence comes to light. 

My theory, which belongs to me, is really a just-so story. If someone will accept telepathic time travel, my laughable claim to be important and worth having my thoughts copied, then that person may believe practically anything. After all, I have no evidence whatsoever to support those claims; nothing can be observed, repeated, tested.

Therefore, my theory is not.

Evolutionists have a passel of so-called theories, but many are not even hypotheses, they are simply speculations. Still, they get paid mucho dinero for pontificating sciency stuff that has no observable evidence, no plausible models, cannot be tested or repeated, but can sound believable to people who have a mind to accept such things in the first place. Sort of like evolution, which is actually not a theoryCosmology is also disqualified. A bit of critical thinking and demands for evidence from other people can stop some of those jaspers in their tracks. I could have been a well-paid evolutionist, since I could lasso a dream and sell it for money — if my conscience would clam up so I could do that.

"But what about Dr. Morris, Cowboy Bob?"

Brilliant man of God, put a great deal of effort into his research, led the Institute for Creation Research for many years. Even if I was important, he would have no need of my thoughts, since he had plenty of his own to develop. Also, I fully believe that his integrity would not let him steal. He had some faults in his writing, which includes some concepts that creationists have decided are not worth using (I believe he promoted the canopy model, which I also taught in the 1990s, which is largely rejected by literate creationists nowadays.) It's startling to go through The Long War Against God and notice things he was pointing out are still valid, and even more important, today.

So, I tossed a theory into the air like a silver dollar and put a bullet hole through it. A bit of humor with some teaching as well. Also, my presentation of my spurious theory was far less annoying than Anne Elk's presentation of her own theory about the brontosaurus, you gotta grant me that!


Friday, August 25, 2017

Evolution, Creation Science, and Speciation

Except for a few uninstructed people, creationists and evolutionists agree that speciation occurs. When it comes to the mechanisms, benefits, purposes, limitations, and so forth, that's when we're going to be having us some disagreements. Whether through natural or artificial means, hybridization occurs.

Liger (lion-tiger hybrid) image credit: Ali West (CC by 2.0)
Advocates of muck-to-monkey evolution have a heap of difficulty explaining speciation and its limitations. Biblical creation science advocates have explanations and speculations that fit the observed data. The article linked below discusses the origin of diversity, the purpose of it in the Creator's plan, the role of genetics and epigenetics, and more. What about hybrid sterility? There could be a purpose in that as well, but thoughts on this are still being developed. I reckon that this is a show-stopper for evolution, what with sterile hybrids not continuing the changes and all, but that's just me.
While informed creationists recognize that species are not equivalent to kinds, we don’t have an adequate understanding of why different species exist within the various created kinds. Using the biblical history and information from the scientific literature, it appears there is good reason why speciation occurs. Organisms diversify as they reproduce and fill the earth. Maintaining separate diverse populations, which biologists usually classify as different species, provides a reservoir for variability. Through hybridization, this variability can be shared between the populations. There are examples where this has enabled a population to recover from unusually harsh environmental extremes. It has also been proposed that it provides the basis for adaptive radiation, where organisms rapidly diversify and fill a variety of environmental niches. In the end, the process we call speciation appears to be an important means by which God provides for His creatures even in the current fallen world.
To read the rest of this technical article (be prepared to spend about half an hour with it if this material suits you), click on "Towards a creationary view of why speciation occurs". 

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Evolutionists See Life Through Large-Scale Death

Universal common ancestor evolution is counterintuitive, requiring a similar level of suspension of disbelief that people use when watching movies about killer robots from outer space. That is, evolutionists need people to forget basic science and reason to accept their pronouncements. Since Darwin's stories are losing credibility, his disciples in the scientific community are using "jump the shark" gimmicks to keep their mythology afloat.

Desperate evolutionists say destruction cause by volcanoes made dinosaurs possible
Credit: US Geological Survey
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According some some of these owlhoots, large scale death and destruction from volcanoes made the "age of dinosaurs" possible. Those that didn't get wiped out had to get out of Dodge, and then dinosaurs evolved to fill the niche. (Except that there is no evidence of dinosaur evolution, but that doesn't stop a good story. More suspension of disbelief, you see.) Someone else said that the destructive ultraviolet rays of the sun helped spark abiogenesis, the origin of life. 

Seems to me that secularists are becoming increasingly desperate in light of evolution-refuting and creation-affirming discoveries, so they spin these yarns. They should get refunds on the money they spent on their failed educations and get employment feeding horses or something. Seriously, when scientists insult my intelligence, it puts a burr under my saddle. How about you?
In the Darwinian mindset, natural disasters are the seedbeds of creativity and progress.

Most people don’t find bombs and explosions particularly useful for building functional structures. Sometimes an old structure needs to be removed by intelligently-placed explosives so that a new building can be erected on a site. Architects, though, don’t generally employ terrorists as construction workers, nor do artists create art with tornadoes. Musicians are not generally inspired by rumbling landslides for their themes.

Common sense, though, gets tossed aside in evolutionary circles. Consider Science Daily‘s headline, “Volcanic eruptions triggered dawn of the dinosaurs.” By saying that widespread destruction “set the scene” for the rise of the dinosaurs, the reporter implies that natural disasters unleash the creative power of evolution:
To read the rest, click on "Darwinians See Creative Power in Natural Terror".

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

The False Evolutionary Icon of Walking Fish

Believers in fish-to-physicist evolution have a detailed mythology that they get all gussied up and show off as actual science. In reality, they have loosely connected mythologies that are taken by faith, not demonstrable science. Although some countries claim to believe in keeping religion separate from government-run schools, secular humanism (atheism) by way of evolution is the unofficial state religion for many secularists.

Darwinism walking fish is believed by faith, not by science
Images found at Clker clipart were modified
One statement of evolutionary dogma is that life began in the sea. Eventually, we get to where some creatures got ambitious and flopped onto land, evolved lungs and legs, and eventually turned into all land life. Hail Darwin, blessed be! 

Except there is no actual scientific evidence for this.

Some people claim that certain catfish that use their fins to navigate over land from one bit of water to another, or critters like lungfish, are evidence for evolution. Not hardly! They are creatures with certain abilities, but there is no reason they are evolving from or to something else. The walking fish of Darwinism is a religious icon, and has nothing to do with actual science. It also represents rejection of our Creator through false religion and pseudoscience.
Virtually all natural history museums have a diorama displaying fish with strange leg-like fins emerging from the water onto land. This is a critical evolutionary event—gills somehow evolving into lungs and fins evolving into legs—that allegedly occurred many millions of years ago.

But how true is this scenario? After all, this happened before anyone could observe or document it. The only way to “see” if it actually happened is to find fossils of water creatures displaying structures that would have the specific anatomy to enable them to invade this foreign environment called land. It’s no wonder evolutionist Carl Zimmer recently said, “Scientists still puzzle over exactly how the transition from sea to land took place.”
 To read the rest, skip on over to "Did Fish Learn to Walk?"

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Animals Rejecting Darwin

Remember from your Darwin catechism classes at the government indoctrination centers where we were told about how the most fit survive to pass along their genes to the next generation? Pretty dismal view of life, I reckon. One animal gets to eat and live, the other one starves and the winner quotes Remo, "That's the biz, sweetheart". Except that's not really the rule. In fact, it's been rightly said that there's more cooperation than competition in nature.

Wolf in Yellowstone National Park
Image credit: Arthur Middleton, University of Wyoming, US Geological Survey
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Humans are considered apes by secularists because secular scientists said so, but for the most part, we don't act like animals. We take care of each other, help the helpless, rescue those in need, and so on (until secularists choose to act according to Darwinian principles and eliminate the "unfit"). In reality, we were created separately from the beasties, in the image of God, and are not the product of evolutionism. We have some traits in common with apes and other animals because our Creator used some of the same aspects of design.

It's not much of a surprise that humans will care for each other, and even care for animals. What about the animals themselves? Some nurture each other within the same species or family, others leave their young when threatened. Remember, they are animals, and we cannot put our human expectations on them. Then we have the Darwin-rejecting cooperation among animals, even different species. Evolutionists have tried to come up with explanations for this behavior, but fail.
You wouldn’t think it would pay to be a meerkat. These mongoose-like animals from the dry regions of southern Africa will postpone meals to help with the baby-sitting, and will stay home so their family and friends can go out to supper.

Helpful animals? Whatever happened to the evolutionary idea of ‘survival of the fittest’?

And what about the helpful ‘watchman’ bird that lets out a loud squawk when it sees a hawk approaching? All the neighbouring flocks know to fly off quickly, which confuses the advancing predator. Yet the vigilant alarm-caller puts itself in extreme danger by its conspicuousness. Its give-away squawk may make it an instant target for attack, while those who heed its alarm get away and survive.

Helpful birds? That seems contrary to ‘survival of the fittest’ too.
To read the rest, click on "Helpful animals".

Monday, August 21, 2017

Fast Fossilization Defies Deep Time

The standard deep time story about fossilization includes elements of something dying, sinking, getting covered, and then over millions of magical Darwin years later, it became permineralized (minerals seep in and make a cast of the organism), and then someone finds it. Sounds nice, but if you have your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ handy, you'll learn that the story above is just that — a story. It doesn't work that way in real life. Especially when paleontologists are finding an increasing number of well-preserved specimens that include delicate parts.

The other morning, I noticed a clump of mushrooms had sprung up in some wood chips in the yard, but not as impressive as those pictured below. (I ain't eating them without a mycologist giving me the go ahead, though.) Went back a couple of days later, and they were scattered. People kicked at them, animals frolicked, whatever. They're delicate. If you pay attention, you'll suddenly notice wild fungi popping up, then fading away in a short time, even if they're left alone.

Mushrooms are delicate, so having one well-preserved as a fossil is amazing
Credit: Freeimages / Alan Belmer
I had a joke about mushrooms, but it y'all might find it to be in spore taste —

"Stop that, Cowboy Bob!"

Here is an article about three delicate, well-preserved items in fossils that fly in the face of standard secular mythologies, instead supporting rapid burial, which is necessary for fossilization. Then they stayed put for all those Darwin years while massive geological changes happened around then? Not hardly! 

We have billions of fossils all over the world. Secularists have implausible stories, but the logical explanation of such fossilization is the global Genesis Flood — which means fossils did not take millions or billions of years to form, so the earth is not billions of years old. To read about these three quick but lasting impressions, click on "A Bird, a Mushroom, and a Fly Fossilized Fast".

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Noah: Man of Destiny — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

After all the reading and MP3 listening that I do, it was nice to read a work of fiction for a change. Noah: Man of Destiny by Tim Chaffey and K. Marie Adams is the first book of The Remnant Trilogy. Seems like whenever you get the first book of a series, it is not self-contained and you want to continue — if it's good. This child liked the book and wants to keep going.

Disclaimer: none. I bought this book all by my lonesome. Nobody gave me a promotional copy or anything like that. I guess some legal-type people want to know about such things. I'd be open to receiving promotional copies of the next two books, unsubtle hint, wink wink nudge nudge.

I did not review this on Amazon where I purchased the ebook because they allow trolls to run free and attack other reviewers. Especially creationists. Also, Christian and creationist material on there is frequently attacked by people who cannot even be bothered to read it. This happens frequently, so I'm content to use this here medium. Hope I use the medium well.

So, let's saddle up and ride.

Tim Chaffey is affiliated with Answers in Genesis, and very involved with the Ark Encounter (the life-sized model of Noah's Ark). His work with AiG and AE helped give him some insights as well as ideas that were used in this book. K. Marie Adams works in the AiG graphics department, and has other pertinent training, interests, and experience. Like any historical fiction, there has to be some artistic license. Chaffey and Adams used speculation about conditions of Earth way back yonder, but stayed true to the clear narrative in Genesis in their efforts to communicate the truth. (This is in stark contrast to The Shack, a work of fiction that taught blatant heresies.) Some reasonable possibilities were used, such as references to the land of Nod, and real people from Genesis were included.

Noah: Man of Destiny is very readable and fast-paced, and doesn't get bogged down in lengthy descriptions of unnecessary details. For example, there were instances of long trips on the river which could have made the book a great deal longer but may have proved dull for many readers. I saw a review on Amazon complaining that this was a romance novel. Yes, he meets Emzara who becomes Mrs. Noah (the name was taken from legends, as the Bible is silent on her name, so artistic license was used). But this bit of romance did not take up nearly as much space as the critic implied, and is not "graphic"; the book is accurately described as family friendly.

Something else that I appreciated was being unable to predict situations. It's something that gets boring or annoying for me. When I thought, "Okay, here's the bad thing that's going to happen", I was pleased to be wrong. 

There were several things I wanted to point out, but there's no need for spoilers. After the story abruptly ends (it's the first of a trilogy, remember), the last part of the book has some things that I consider "behind the scenes". It addresses some questions and concerns about why the authors chose to include some details and leave others out, such as Noah's ignorance about certain things, including deep theology. Don't forget, we have the advantage of the Bible to guide us, and the story is about a young man living a few hundred years before God called him to build the Ark. Other details were "borrowed from the Bible", discussed in a section of the same name.

There were one or two complaints I have, and they're minor. They involve editing, and only happened about three times early in the book. Someone seemed to have a bit of trouble with interrupted sentences or sentences that trailed off. The other complaint was that the ending was too abrupt.

Overall, I was pleased with the Noah: Man of Destiny and recommend it. I give it four out of five stars.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Orchid Pollination — Design, Not Evolution

We have had some heavy-duty material here lately, this piece of light reading may be a nice change of pace.

Aside from hybridization and other forms of artificial selection, thousands of orchid species exist in nature. I'll allow that I'm tempted to assign human characteristics to some of them, such as conniving, deceptive, ingenious, and others because of their amazing abilities to get themselves pollinated. They look nice, too.

Credit: Morguefile / Moonlightway
Most of us know that one of the most important ways for flowers to get pollinated is to let insects — especially bees — do the job. Some orchids mimic insects to attract them, as well as giving a fragrance that appeals to them. There are even a few varieties that have a kind of "catch and release" program for bees — the Bucket Orchid even produces a liquid that makes the male bee attractive to female bees! Other orchids mimic insects to get the attention of other insects.

Darwin's disciples cannot explain the mimicry and symbiosis involved, so they appeal to the secular miracle of "convergent evolution", which is a non-explanation. So many things must be in place from the beginning or the pollination process is ineffective. The logical conclusion is that the Creator is demonstrating his abilities to use specified complexity yet again.
There is no evidence whatsoever that flowering plants evolved. Charles Darwin himself once commented: ‘Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the vegetable kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden and abrupt development of the higher plants.’ The orchid family is one of the largest plant families, with about 30,000 species. Orchids come in many shapes and sizes, the best known probably being the insect–mimicking species. Many of these mimics have very ingenious ways of attracting pollinating insects, appealing to the senses of both sight and smell. Can evolution explain the origin of these mechanisms?
For the rest of this short article, click on "Orchids … a witness to the Creator". You may also like a related article about the Greenhood Orchid makes an insect think romance is in the air, "The Love Trap". 

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Developing Engineered Adaptability

Organisms adapt to changing conditions, which is something on which both creationists and Darwinists agree. How they adapt is where the controversy lies. Evolutionists rely on naturalistic explanations while biblical creationists maintain that evolutionary speculations and storytelling are inadequate, but engineering principles of creation are the best approach.

Mapping out Engineered Adaptability in refuting evolution and affirming design in creation
Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
Creationists have long promoted the Creator's design, pointing out the failures of evolutionary explanations for what is observed, emphasizing how creation is the only logical explanation for adaptation, and so on. Some creationists are pursuing Engineered Adaptability, developing a framework for a design-based theory that uses enginering causation and principles. A "map" of sorts for a series on Engineered Adaptability that is more focused has been proposed.
A map is crucial for all travelers, from fun-seeking vacationers to serious scientific researchers. This month’s article is a map of the Engineered Adaptability series and highlights the places future articles will stop en route to its destination—a design-based framework that explains adaptability. To keep everyone traveling together, the articles will decipher information from peer-reviewed forums and supply an orientation so readers know where they’re headed.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Arriving at a Design-Based Framework for Adaptability".

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Secular Cosmologists Increasingly Desperate

Rational people think that if a hypothesis or theory is not supported by evidence, it is discarded and everyone moves on to something better. Unfortunately for science and reason, the Big Bang has been tweaked, adjusted, had the top sawed off and stapled on the bottom, sprayed with patchouli essential oil, run over with a steam roller — okay, I'm exaggerating just a bit. The fact remains that the Big Bang has failed, but instead of being discarded, it is modified for further failures. Then modified again, repeat as needed and call it science.

Big Bang continues to fail, secular cosmologists increasingly desperate
Credit: NASA/GSFC (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The current patch involves dark matter, dark energy, and other things involving "dark". There is no evidence that these things exist, but cosmic evolutionists cling to these things anyway. It should be obvious why: they despise the rational alternative, that God created the universe, and much more recently than fourteen billion years or so ago. Lack of science is causing scientists to say things that could be attributed to chawing down on peyote buttons.

Here is an article with several startling examples of nonsense that is worthy of Hugh Ross, just click on "Cosmology Still in the Dark". Also, you may like an article about unwarranted excitement over lifeless, smelly, dangerous molecules in space. For that, navigate to "Dead Molecules Found Around Star!"

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Evolution and the Human Sense of Smell

We hear about how impressive the sense of smell is in animals, especially dogs. According to Darwinian mythology, humans do not have an acute sense of smell. People have believed that idea for a long time, but it's based on assumptions and conjecture, not actual science.

Human sense of smell far more acute than evolutionists led us to believe
Credit: Pixabay / shixugang
But just study on it for a spell. Ever wake up in the morning because you smelled coffee brewing? Or bacon frying? Maybe you were awakened by the smell of smoke and wanted to make sure your place wasn't on fire. Personal fragrances are sold at exorbitant prices. Know why? Because people can smell them. (Some are marketed to men with the idea that if women get a whiff of this particular fragrance on you, they'll — oh, you know.) Show of hands: how many people like the smell of cut grass? Various scents stir our memories and emotions. Interesting that we can save and reproduce sounds and visuals, and to some extent what we physically feel, but there are no recorders for smell and taste, but I digress.

Evolutionists essentially believe that we evolved our way out of our sense of smell to make room in our brains for language capacity. Since we're so highly evolved, our sense of smell became mostly vestigial — useless junk. No, we were created, and we have our parts for specific reasons. Those unscientific, unfounded evolutionary conjectures interfered with scientific research in this area for a mighty long time. That's changed.
We’ve all heard that, compared to mammalian animals like dogs, humans have a poor sense of smell. Did you know that this notion is a 19th century myth? And that this commonly accepted myth is based on an evolutionary idea rather than scientific evidence?

“Poor Human Olfaction Is a 19th Century Myth” — Rutgers University neuroscientist John McGann’s review published in Science — traces the origin and consequences of this belief and reviews evidence to the contrary. How good a sniffer you are, it turns out, depends on what you’re trying to sniff out and how you measure olfactory quality and ability.
To finish reading, nose on over to "Humans’ Poor Sense of Smell Is an Evolutionary Myth".

Monday, August 14, 2017

Assumptions on Understanding Data

It is not a matter of our facts and their facts because scientific evidence is interpreted according to assumptions. Someone may say, "That fossil on my mantlepiece shows that the world is billions of years old", while someone else can look at the same rock and say, "That rock is evidence for the Genesis Flood". Everyone has the same data to work with, and we all start with our own beliefs.

More to Do credit: Freeimages / David Stern
Many times, atheists will claim that science is atheistic by nature, but that is one of the unsustainable presuppositions they hang on scientific methods. For that matter, I've seen the demand, "Prove scientifically that God exists". This shows a lack of logical thinking as well as a misunderstanding of both the capabilities and limitations of science; it cannot prove anything (let alone the existence of God via the category error), but science can show if a hypothesis or theory does not work.

The kind of science that we can see, repeat, test, and so on is operational or experimental science. My example at the top about the rock on the mantlepiece is an example of historical or forensic science, where scientific methods are used in efforts to reconstruct the past. Strictly speaking, things like cosmology and evolution are not science; no human saw the origin of the universe and certainly cannot repeat it. 

By the way, some tinhorns object to the term historical science, and especially the obvious distinction between historical and operational sciences. You'll see it referred to as if it was specific to Ken Ham (just like Bill Nye the Leftist Guy referred to "Ken Ham's" creation science, as if he was the only one who believed it). Creationists are not the only ones to make the distinction. It was interesting to see that the term historical science was used since 1900 by the International Congress of Historical Sciences, and was used in The Philosophy of History by Friedrich von Schlegel in 1935. Here is one of several examples I found of a secular scientist making the distinction in a paper.

Somehow, particles-to-pugilist evolutionists (the internet keyboard warrior sidewinders) play some equivocation games by equating science with evolution, then calling creationists "science deniers" which is a blatant lie. The claim is based on their presuppositions for interpreting evidence as well as failing to understand science itself. Science is a methodology, old son.

A more direct example of faulty assumptions is the claim that the giant panda's "thumb" is evidence against the Creator and for mindless evolution. That fails in the light of reason, because anti-creationists are assuming that the appendage is a failed thumb, but it actually works quite well for the panda's purposes. Their interpretations of what is observed in the panda led to wrong evolutionary and anti-theistic assumptions.

Because of anti-creationist propaganda, it may bring a prairie schooner full of startlement to tell y'all that creationists do not reject observed data, and no scientific fact controverts the Bible. We reject storytelling based on evolutionary assumptions masquerading as science, and we present creationary interpretations of evidence. In fact, observed data are better handled through biblical creation explanations and models; the same data are harmful to evolutionary views.
The whole point of science is that anyone doing the same experiment under the same conditions should get the same result. (The pioneers of modern science believed this because they believed in a divine Lawmaker who upheld His creation in an orderly way.) So, if you can’t do repeatable experiments, it’s not science. This includes many ideas of origins. One example is cosmogony (‘birth of the universe’), quoting a co-founder of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:
“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,” says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. “A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”
Dr Michael Turner, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Chicago and the person who coined the term Dark Energy, tried to salvage cosmology by conceding that it’s different from experimental science and is instead historical science.
To read the rest, click on "'This changes everything!' — The right perspective makes a big difference".

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Earth's Magnetic Field and Solar Sneezes

A spell back, I posted about how life predated science fiction because Earth has something akin to planet-sized deflector shields. These are the Van Allen radiation belts, which were previously unknown until the Explorer satellite series helped find them. Later, the cosmic evolution-defying deflector properties were discovered.

Van Allen belts shield earth, Richter helped in their discovery
On January 31, 1958, Explorer 1 brought the US into the space age.
Image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When you sneeze, you're ejecting...stuff. The sun sends the occasional blast of stuff our way, which has been likened to a solar sneeze. 'Snot funny, That plasma and radiation could cause us problems. The following link leads to an article by Dr. Henry Richter, who was involved in the Explorer series and the detection of the Van Allen belts. It's good for a space exploration history lesson, and a reminder that our Creator set things up for our protection, even way out yonder.
A recent article about an attribute of the Van Allen Belts and how they operate strikes me as another prime example of how the Earth and its environment are designed to allow and protect life. Every now and then, the sun sends a large coronal mass ejection (CME) toward the Earth. This is a lot of dangerously destructive plasma which is a hazard to life and to electronic devices and systems. If the CME reached an unprotected Earth, it would cause widespread damage. The article on Phys.org, “Sun eruptions hit Earth like a Sneeze‘, say scientists,” describes what would happen without protection by our magnetic field.
To read the rest, click on "Earth’s Magnetic Field Protects Us from Solar Sneezes". Bless you, sun. 

Friday, August 11, 2017

Creation Science and Predictions

Something that crops up in discussions regarding science is predictability. Operational science (the kind you see every day, which is observable, repeatable, testable, and so on) has that going for it. Origins science is a horse of a different color. You can't repeat, test, observe the origin of the universe or alleged universal common ancestor evolution. Scientists in the evolutionary and creationary camps make some serious efforts at predicting some things, though.

Creation science outstanding predictions
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Evolutionists have a dreadful record of making predictions (as seen here, for example), but since the secular science industry is in power, ideology is more important than truth or accuracy. Maybe their poor record is why we hear outright falsehoods about creationary scientists, such as denying that they are published in scientific journals, they do make predictions (including the failed Homo naledi fiasco), that they are not credentialed scientists, and so on. The article linked below features three outstanding creationary scientists and their predictions.
Some of us may not understand the scientific properties that make our world work, but we still know we can depend on them. When we wake up each morning, we have a good idea what’s coming next. After all, the faithful One who created the universe sustains it “by the word of His power”—from water to gravity, from stars to atomic forces (Hebrews 1:3). The laws reflect God’s character. Because He doesn’t change, the laws that keep our universe going don’t change either. He’s the reason our water heaters churn out hot water and the earth keeps spinning on its axis.

Those consistent laws allow us to make predictions about the universe. Life is like a big jigsaw puzzle, with a pile of jumbled pieces that entice us to put them together. The Creator wants us to recognize patterns and begin making connections between the pieces. Once we find the borders and start matching similar colors and patterns, we start to see the final image that glorifies Him.
To read the entire article (or download the audio version), click on "Creationists’ Power to Predict".

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Constellations, Cultures, and Babel

There are several items that creationists tend to post involving certain worldwide legends, such as stories of dragons and tales of global floods in numerous cultures (including the Epic of Gilgamesh). I don't rightly recollect seeing much about constellations around the world, though.

Constellations in common many worldwide people groups evolution fails creationists have answer
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
It's easy to imagine people laying in the grass or a field on a dark night and picking out stars to make constellations — you may have done it yourself. So it's somewhat puzzling to hear speculations about where the constellations originated. Many star patterns are common to widely separated people groups since ancient times, but according to evolutionists, the people evolved in different localities. The mysterium tremendum of convergent evolution is invoked in lieu of actual science to explain this puzzler.

Darwinists are inadvertently admitting they have no idea why diverse cultures have many of the same constellations. Biblical creationists have a better explanation for observed facts, but naturalists reject it out of hand: post-Flood people at Babel were dispersed, and many took their pagan beliefs with them.
There are deep similarities among diverse cultures in their constellations. The similarities stem from an origin at least as remote as the dispersion from Babel, and vastly pre-date cross-cultural missionary outreaches of recent centuries. Cultural differences in constellations have resulted from distinct developments in various people groups since the dispersion from Babel. Constellations appear to contain memories (in corrupted form) of ancient historical events such as the Flood, but evidence does not support the claim that the constellations were a kind of primeval revelation, a ‘gospel in the stars’.
To read the rest, click on "Constellations: legacy of the dispersion from Babel".

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Basic Geological Models of the Genesis Flood

Scientists will formulate hypotheses, and if they withstand testing and challenges, those graduate into theories. You may have noticed that scientists like to make models. No, not those plastic things that are packaged in kits and held together with glue. A model is an attempt to explain an object or process that usually cannot be observed, so these are often found in historical science. When it comes to origins and the history of Earth, both secular and creationary scientists have their models. Models should have some correlation with observable evidence.

Coffee rocks credit: Freeimages / Jenny Rollo
Uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past") geologists generally insist on slow and gradual processes to explain what is observed — except when they are forced to steal a rapid, catastrophic processes horse from the biblical creationists' corral. That is, secular scientists are frequently surprised by the evidence because it cannot be explained by their belief system, so they occasionally insert rapid processes when necessary.

Biblical creationists maintain that what is observed in geological formations is best explained by the rapid processes mentioned above. Creation science geology models present strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, which in turn explains fossilization, plate tectonics and subduction, rapid reversals in Earth's magnetic field, rapid erosion, the Ice Age, indicates a young earth, and more. And it does this 'splainin' far better than secular hypotheses and models. They don't cotton to this, because Darwin needs huge amounts of time, secularists want it, and creationists are showing the implausibility of deep time.
Although evolutionary scientists insist there is no evidence for the global, Earth-destroying Flood described in Genesis, accepting the Genesis Flood as literal history enables researchers to make sense of a wide array of geological, climatic, and cultural data.
I'm be much obliged if you'd read the rest of the article. To do so, click on "The Flood, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, and Earth History".

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Impact Geologists Find Lighting Quite Striking

Seems to be a frequent "explanation" for secular geologists: impact. Some huge object fell out of the sky, smacked into the earth, causing a whole heap of changes. This is followed by some kind of "then evolution did rearranging" boilerplate remark. I suspicion that it's easy to come up with feckless "science" for unobserved phenomena, especially when the main subject involves deep time, which is required by Papa Darwin.

Lightning strikes misinterpreted as meteorite impacts
Time-lapse lightning strikes, image credit: NOAA
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
The big impact story has flaws, such as claimed strikes lacking certain evidence. In addition, lightning has been found to shock quartz and give a superficial resemblance to a meteorite impact. Lightning hits the earth about 100 times a second, and is mighty hot, too. Looks like another bit of secular geology has to be rewritten in the textbooks.
For decades, geologists have looked at shocked quartz as an unambiguous sign of an asteroid impact. Only the pressure and heat of an impact could shock quartz sufficiently to produce what was seen. Geologists clung to this notion even when there was no evidence of an impact. There are places in Argentina and in Australia like that, Melosh says. But since the shocked quartz was an “infallible” sign of impact, what else could they conclude?

Things just got tougher for impact geologists.

There are now evidences that ordinary lightning can produce pressure waves and temperatures sufficient to shock quartz. Fulgurites are peculiar “fossils” of lightning that form when bolts strike the ground. Studies of fulgurites show that they, too, can exhibit “planar deformation features” (PDFs) that were considered diagnostic of impacts.
To read the entire article, click on "Lightning Fries Impact Theory". You may also be interested in this post on fulgurites and how they indicate a young earth