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, November 30, 2017

Logic and Definitions

Back in the olden days while studying contract law, one thing was frequently emphasized: for a contract to be valid, there has to be a meeting of the minds. That is, both parties need to understand the terms of the agreement. Ever sign a legal document or read the terms of service for many products online? Words and expressions are defined, often in excruciating detail. This is foundational to reduce confusion.

Defining terms is foundational in serious discussions and reduces logical fallacies such as conflation
Credit: Pixabay / PDPics
Ambiguity can be fun. Some owlhoot challenged me to a debate while I was stuffing feathers into a pillow. So, I threw down on him. "Throw down" can be literal, or the colloquialism for engaging in a challenge. It may have originated in days of old when knights were bold, and one would throw down the gauntlet when issuing a challenge. 

We don't need confusion on terms when trying to understand or debate a subject. I disremember when and about what, but I was having an argument with a guy for parts of two days because we each had a different definition in mind. Turns out, we were actually in agreement!

When dealing with serious issues (including contracts), ambiguity is not fun. In discussions on origins, terms need to be defined to minimize uncertainty. More than once, this child has been told, "Such and so is the scientific definition of evolution", but those who made the declaration had differed on the scientific definition. Many words have multiple meanings, and evolution is one of those. For that matter, take a gander at the photo, above: the word definition shows parts of two very different meanings. 

Even the word Christian can be vague. I heard an atheist call in to a Christian radio program and say that he was a Christian because he liked some of the things Jesus said! You can have people from various religious sects, or none at all, identifying themselves as Christians but with different definitions of the word. Indeed, Richard Weikart wrote in Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich that the German religious landscape in the early days of the Nazi regime was disparate, often having little or nothing to do with established definitions of the word Christian.

Recently, Dr. Albert Mohler specified the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Marriage has been redefined by many to fit political and social sentiments, away from God's design as understood by people for millennia.

Some sidewinders get so intent on convincing others that molecules-to-musicologist evolution is true that they conflate (pull a bait-and-switch) on definitions. F'rinstance, a virus showed evolution, therefore, evolution is true. Not hardly! The "evolution" the virus exhibited was a variation, and that use of the word was conflated to confuse someone into accepting universal common ancestor evolution. See what I'm doing here? Distinguishing between the terms, that's what I'm doing. Conflation is a logical fallacy (as is its close relative, equivocation). That, and other logical fallacies can occur when words are not properly defined. Also, keep an eye out for when atheists and anti-creationists conflate science with evolution. Those of us who reject Darwinism are called "science deniers" (which is a lie) because they loaded terms and did themselves some conflating.

As I've said before, creationists need to be aware of logical fallacies. One reason is to see when someone is being deceptive or manipulative, and the other is to honor Christ. After all, we need to present our best apologetic and use what God has given us.
One of the most important tools in logical reasoning is a dictionary.  Correct reasoning requires that we use words properly – according to their meaning.  Failure to use words correctly often results in miscommunication, but it can also result in errors in reasoning.  One of the most common logical errors in debates over origins concerns the definition of a single word.  And the error can be resolved by understanding how definitions work and by consulting a dictionary.

The definition of a word is a statement or series of statements that explains the word’s meaning.  There are four types of legitimate definitions.  And there is a fifth type of “definition” that is fallacious because it does not truly describe a word’s meaning.  It is critical to understand not only the definition of the words used in any argument, but also to know which type of definition is in use.  All of the four legitimate types of definitions have one thing in common: they explain the meaning of a word.
I'd be much obliged if you would read the rest of this important article. To do this, just click on "Logic: The Importance of Definitions".

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

C.S. Lewis and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

C.S. "Jack" Lewis was born on November 29, 1989. Originally baptized in the Church of Ireland, which is Anglican, he fell away from his faith and became an atheist. Lewis was reluctant to relinquish atheism, but realized that Christianity is true. Jack was (and is) highly regarded as a leading apologist for the Christian faith. He wrote many fiction and nonfiction books, and most are available today. There are also scores of biographies of this complex figure.

Radcliffe Camera, Oxford / William Leighton Leitch
While Lewis appealed to many people with his intellectual approaches to Christianity and his refutations of atheism, his theology was rather weak. Apparently, he did not want to offend anyone, and kept his scope broad — too broad, in my view. Like William Lane Craig, he did not argue from and for the Bible, but seemed to argue for theism in general. In addition, C.S. Lewis seemed to affirm the almost-Roman Catholic doctrines of the Anglican church (such as transubstantiationism), and did not take firm stands on doctrine. Weak theology tends to render apologetics impuissant. One can be intellectually persuaded to believe in the existence God, which is essentially Deism, but arguments without Scripture tend to produce a theist who is just as lost as any atheist. I fully believe that if he had given more consideration to being theologically accurate, and had learned presuppositional apologetics (his apologetics were more classical or evidential), this brilliant man would have been even more powerful in his presentations.

In a similar manner to his generic apologetic method, Jack was never a fan of Darwinism; he even had trouble with it before his conversion to Christianity. (Ironic, because theistic evolutionists and atheists sometimes use him as a kind of celebrity appeal to authority to promote evolutionism.) However, he confronted Scientism and naturalism, which were philosophical foundations for evolution. Lewis was unwilling to take on evolution directly because he thought it would detract from his main work in apologetics, and because he felt that he did not have the scientific qualifications. This is indeed unfortunate, since Genesis is the foundation of all major Christian doctrines, and you do not have to be a scientist to notice errors in reasoning. You need logic and facts, and he had those available. Unfortunately, Lewis did not have our advantage of many biblical creation science ministries available online, which is a tremendous blessing for us.

I found it intensely interesting that Jack made some remarks about Scientism and Darwinism, including the rabid following that those belief systems had back then. He described what is happening today, and almost predicted how intolerance for nay-sayers would increase. Evolutionary devotion and intolerance of contrary views has dramatically increased in the decades that passed since Lewis' time, and I think if he could see what is happening now, he would not be surprised.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has stated that C.S. Lewis would probably be a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement. ID itself is non-biblical and only seeks to refute atheistic evolution and has adherents from various religious and non-religious persuasions. Biblical creation science uses ID arguments, but does not divorce them from theology. For these reasons, I think Dr. Bergman was quite correct that Lewis would be an ID supporter.

Certain vagaries in his writings led many people to consider him a theistic evolutionist. Citing from various works (and some evolutionists blatantly misquoted him) could support such a contention. Like all people, his views developed over time. What could be considered his most devastating essay on Darwinism, "The Funeral of a Great Myth", was published posthumously in Christian Reflections. (He was a bit premature with a eulogy for Darwinism as a myth, as the social aspects have become increasingly standardized in business, culture, and even religion.) In this essay, as well as through a careful analysis of his writings, it is clear that C.S. Lewis was definitely not a theistic evolutionist.

Here are some resources for your edification:
I hope these resources will help you regarding the attitudes of C.S. Lewis about evolution. He was no friend of Darwinism.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Secularist Laments Lagging Evolutionary Indoctrination

Although evolutionists have maintained a stranglehold on educational indoctrination in many Western countries for decades, some get on the prod that their conditioning is not yet complete. Contrary views of origins are actively suppressed, and even though secular educators claim to encourage critical thinking, only the sanitized versions of evolution are presented and inconvenient facts are omitted in government educational systems. That is one reason Question Evolution Day is important.

Despite the stranglehold that secularists have on educatioinal systems, some people reject evolutionism and think for themselves
Modified from a photo at Freeimages, original from Jeramey Jannene (click graphic for larger image)
In the United States and other Western countries, fascism is opposed in theory. Many people consider fascist a useful pejorative, projecting it on people they dislike (often without knowing the meaning of the word), and then employing fascistic philosophies and practices, including violence and leftist propaganda — sort of like when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag and blamed others for their own actions. You may be surprised to learn that atheism and evolutionism are strongly linked to fascist philosophies (see "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism" for more). Any totalitarian leader worth his or her salt, whether fascist, further left communist, or others, knows the value of indoctrinating the young early in life.

On a related side note, in early November, 2017, Canada's Governor General mocked the beliefs of many people who do not hold to the pronouncements of what amounts to Scientism and the secular science industry. She equated those of us who reject origins by "natural processes" with believers in alternative healing methods, devotees of astrology, essentially all religious views, and so on. I recommend this analysis by Dr. Mohler on the November 15 edition of The Briefing.

One sneaky trick is to say that secular public education, which controls students for several hours each day and actively promotes evolutionism while opposing any hint of evidence for creation, is good and right. However, when Christian parents and others follow biblical commands to teach the young, we are "indoctrinating". If atheists didn't have double standards, they would have none at all. For example, the movie Genesis: Paradise Lost was attacked by a sneering atheist (click for larger image):

Click for larger
An important part of indoctrination is opposition to critical thinking — as we frequently see in evolutionism. Secularists don't cotton to anything even hinting of the  Master Engineer. This hatred includes the Intelligent Design movement, but especially biblical creation science.

Effective propaganda often relies on logical fallacies. These sidewinders commence to using equivocation (such as equating science and evolution, or science and anthropogenic climate change), arbitrary assertions of opinions as scientific facts, blatant lying (creationists, ID proponents, or those who reject anthropocentric climate change are "science deniers"), demonizing through deceptive misapplications of psychological terminology, redefining words, and more. 

Moving from those deceptions, they can make a common enemy based on fallacies and falsehoods, such as when Hitler called the Jews a common enemy of Germany to help unify the people under his demonic leadership. Now creationists are "science deniers", and hinder scientific advancement. Therefore, we are the common enemy, so they can persecute the opposition and pretend that we are mentally ill when we point it out. See how that works? That's who angry secularists are and how they operate, and then claim that they are concerned for the good of all. Not hardly!

Despite the uphill battle against propaganda and deception, apparently some people think for themselves. Das ist streng verboten!
Evolutionists have had complete domination of public school science for decades. They can’t believe that a sizable percentage still don’t accept evolution.

Ryan Dunk at Syracuse University is dumbfounded. He said on his blog last September,
Despite over a half century of education reforms aimed at better science instruction, nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.
In both articles, Dunk commits numerous logical fallacies and propaganda tactics as if taken right out of the NCSE talking points:
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Darwinians Baffled that Students Refuse To Be Indoctrinated".

Monday, November 27, 2017

The Oort Cloud: Faith Without Evidence

Atheists and evolutionists mock biblical creationists for believing in the observed work of the Creator, but have their own blind faith and "miracles". One example is their fact-free presuppositional assertions that neutron stars make gold in space. Another example of faith in their own schemes is discussed below.

 A serious problem for long-age cosmic evolution is the existence of comets. Those nuclei of those bad boys are small by astronomical standards (but you would not want one in your driveway), and are seen when they get close enough to the sun. Then, some of the surface burns off and we see the glow and long gaseous tail. They go orbiting again, and more of the nucleus burns off on the next pass. Repeat and fade until nothing is left, or it crashes into a planet or something. Using the dating methods and assumptions of secular scientists, comets should not exist because they would have been entirely used up millions of Darwin years ago.

This is where the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ comes into play. In 1932, Ernst Öpik said, "Hey, I got this!" and proposed a rescuing device, which Jan Oort agreed with in 1950. The excuse usually bears the name of the latter: the Oort cloud. Way, way out yonder, beyond Neptune's orbit and the Kuiper belt, a fantastical cloud of clutter repopulates the comets. Story goes, this happens when something kicks around some of the contents and they go into their odd orbits. Voila, comets still exist! This cloud is alleged to be a huge bubble-like thing with two chambers.

The Oort cloud is a deep-time rescuing device that has no scientific evidence
Credit: NASA / JPL, based on illustration by Donald K. Yeoman
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Oort cloud is convenient, and invoked when comets are discovered, which smacks of confirmation bias. Interestingly, even the heavily-biased Wikipedia admits that the Oort cloud is theoretical. Take a look-see at this short children's indoctrination piece from NASA, and note how many "facts" are asserted, even though they have no verifiable scientific evidence:

Remember, kids, having faith in something even though you know it isn't true (to repurpose a quote from Samuel Clemens) is science. Secularists resort to some desperate measures to deny recent creation, and indeed, the Creator himself. Dreaming up things such as the Oort cloud, dark matter, space aliens, the Big Bang, or the giant ice wall surrounding the flat earth can seem plausible. However, scientists supposedly rely on empirical data. Guess that's changed. Interesting that they believe in fictions that they willingly fabricated, but deny the evidence for and testimony of God.
When I was growing up, the definition of science was simple: “the study of the natural world using the five senses.” This definition placed some limits upon science. For instance, science was restricted to the study of the natural world, so anything supernatural was out of bounds to science. Supernatural things include miracles, angels, souls, and God. Even if something is part of the natural world, it wasn’t considered scientific unless we could detect it with our five senses.

Over the years, however, many scientists found this definition too confining. So they gradually redefined science as “the search for natural explanations.” This newfangled view of “science” studies things we can’t even detect. The Oort cloud is a good example. It was included among the “11 Scientific Wonders We Know Exist—but We’ve Never Seen” featured in a cover article in New Scientist last year [March 2016].
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Oort Cloud—No Evidence Required". Also, for more about comets and recent discoveries, click on "Comets - Their Silent Testimony".

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Appeal to False Authority, TalkOrigins, and Diamonds

Creationists will often see a fallacy called appeal to authority in discussions with atheists and evolutionists. We frequently encounter this at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interweb.

While referring to an authority on a subject is legitimate, many tinhorns will refer to someone who has no qualifications in a subject, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins railing about theology. Atheists and anti-creationists get the bits in their teeth and ride hard to heavily biased atheistic storage facilities to find material on a subject, throw links at us, and essentially say, "I cited TalkOrigns! Case closed!" (Seems to me that this might qualify as confirmation bias, but I digress.) Citing those places is easier than thinking or reading creationary material, but those sites are unreliable; it is appeal to false authority in action.

Sites like TalkOrigins are false authorities and terribly unreliable

Recently, I made a post and said that opponents will go to the excuse mills. A furious atheopath proved me right by ignoring my remarks and giving a link to TalkOrigins at his post. The material was outdated and irrelevant, but people like this act like we've been debunked because of the "authority" cited. My belief is that they act this way because they are afraid to read material that refutes evolutionism and deep time.

One of the boilerplate responses to the existence of carbon-14 in diamonds (or in other places where 14C "should" not exist) is contamination. If you study on it, that's a heap of contamination from quite a few labs doing a great deal of testing. Those critics who are squirming to escape the inconvenient evidence are impugning the skill of those technicians — technicians and labs that they applaud when dating results fit their paradigms! Two standards, no waiting. No, there is no contamination. Fact is, Earth was created, and far more recently, than secularists are willing to admit.
C S from United States wrote in:
I was looking at talk origins’ little archive on Diamonds and C14 in summary. They say Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.
CMI’s Joel Tay responds:
To see Joel's response, click on "Carbon-14 in diamonds: Refuting Talk.Origins". You may be interested in another article, "Propaganda Talk about Origins". Also, there's a short video below.

Friday, November 24, 2017

Nature Teaches Humans about Design

Okay, you caught me. "Nature" does not "teach" anyone anything, just like "science" does not "say" or "know" anything. That is the reification fallacy. Generally, it is not important except in formal debates and similar situations. Otherwise, so many people use the fallacy, we would be calling them out on simple figures of speech left and right and reigning in simple conversations. In conversations, people generally do not do this to manipulate the thinking of others to fall for propaganda. So, I felt like doing it here. Besides, the three links below are using the same figure of speech. Oh, and don't worry, the articles linked below aren't very lengthy.

A good designer is going to spend time making plans that include a variety of elements, as well as how the project can withstand variables. The infinite mind of the Master Engineer had everything covered in his plans, which took him no time at all. Humans used the minds that God gave them to study nature and learn some great things — and then praise their false god of evolution instead of giving thanks to the one who made it all possible. Ingrates.

Biomimetics is where God's creation is studied and principles are applied to our lives
Credit: Pixabay / Lukas Bieri
Now, let's commence to reifying. Animals are a good source of information that indicates design. Many have tails, and those tails actually use physics in some cases, such as the side-to-side movement actually helping increase the length of strides in walking and running. We can study ant algorithms in relation to population density. How do you get a robot to get off its back if it falls? Scientists are studying the way beetles click upright so they can apply the principle. To read more of this first installment, go to "Animals Teach Humans About Design".

Moving on, we can learn about the Creator's engineering work from plants. There's a whole heap of lignin laying around that plants are not using any longer, but if we get serious with studying it, it can be turned into bio-oil, carbon fiber, and more. We were taught in school that most plants need sunlight so they can make their own fuel, and studies are being conducted to efficiently use similar principles — but they need to learn how plants self-regulate so they don't burn themselves out. For these stories and more, click on "Plants Teach Humans About Design".

Let's get into the really tiny stuff. Cells have their own lock-and-key mechanism, and studying this in receptors on proteins to help medical diagnoses. A slightly related area is that cell membranes can let in some items and keep others out, benefiting biomimetic membrane fabrication. You can see what these stories are about and more, head on over to "Cells Teach Humans About Design".

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Thankfulness and - Repurposing?

From 1985-1992, American television had a series called MacGyver, which has become a bit of a cultural icon because of the hero's abilities to use chemistry, physics, and the like (as well as being able to think quickly) to make things happen and get out of difficulties. The series was rebooted in 2016. The idea of using whatever is available and fast thinking is often found in espionage movies and fiction. The concepts of multitasking and repurposing are found in many places, including our daily lives and in biology.

Repurposed printing press part saved Mayflower from disaster, our Creator has multitasking happening in our biology
Replica ship Mayflower II credit: Wikimedia Commons / OldPine
It seems that that some MacGyvers were on the Mayflower as well. The midship beam was cracking, and for it to completely break would have been a death sentence. The resourceful crew cowboyed up and repurposed a part of a printing press' equipment to save the voyage — and a major part of American history. For this, many of us are thankful.

Many of our organs, cells, and parts of our DNA are able to multitask. Some of these extra functions have been known for many years, and others have been discovered more recently. It's easy to think of scientists saying, "Hey, I didn't know it did that, too!"

Our Creator engineered many systems for our survival, and gave us the ability to reason so we can use the resources he has given us, as seen in biomimetics. We should give thanks that he has given us life and engineered it (and us) to live. More importantly, we should be thankful that he has provided us with salvation and eternal life.
Available machinery capable of versatile applications, combined with quick-thinking Pilgrim passengers, solved a life-or-death crisis that the Mayflower’s professional crew hadn’t anticipated. This providential detail is part of the Pilgrims’ progress in America—and thus is something we can appreciate during the Thanksgiving season.

We can also appreciate how God has programmed so much of His great creation with versatile engineering traits, including multitasking features within our own bodies such as our appendix, nose, ears, and hair.
To read the article in its entirety (which is not very lengthy), click on "Mechanical Multitasking on the Mayflower".

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Species Confusion and the Created Kinds

Scientists who are involved in biology disagree on the definition of species. Sometimes this happens with individual critters, but the broader use of the term is also disputed. It is the lowest ranking in taxonomy below genus, most often defined as organisms that can mate to produce fertile offspring. Doesn't always work that way, however.

Liger at the Novosibirsk Zoo / Wikimedia Commons / Алексей Шилин
We hear about hybrids, often in the plant kingdom. Animal hybrids usually cannot reproduce, and one of the most famous examples is the mule, from a male donkey and female horse. There are other hybrid animals as well. Darwin's imaginary "Tree of Life" gets its branches all tangled up with species interbreeding, and sometimes, the hybrids can breed with the parents, creating havoc for scientists at the genus level. It may be slightly less surprising when the matings happen in captivity, but they happen in the wild as well.

Materialists like to reject any consideration of the biblical kinds, preferring species (a system that was, ironically, invented by a creationist). No, they prefer to use "their" classification system. I'll allow that the created kinds in Genesis are not sharply defined, but the Bible is not a science textbook, it's a book of history (among other things, of course). When it speaks of science, it is correct. When Scripture does talk about science, it's correct, old son. The kind is broader than the species. Creation science has better options and fits what is observed far better than Darwin's failed Tree of Life. When animals jump species back to genus, that's no problem for the classification of biblical kind. In fact, creationists expect such things.
What do you get . . . when you cross a zebra with a horse? Give up? Why, a zorse, of course! How about crossing a polar bear and a grizzly? If you said “pizzly,” you’re catching on! Do you think I’m joking about these names? Guess again.

These are real examples of separate species that can breed and produce unique hybrid babies. Biologists have known about them for a long time, but until recently they thought hybrids were oddities. They usually observed these mixes in captivity, not in the wild—strange hybrids like the ones above, or wholphins (mix of a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale) and geeps (mix of a goat and a sheep). New, inexpensive techniques of DNA analysis have now enabled scientists to test a variety of wild creatures, and they have discovered that hybridization seems to occur all the time in the wild.
To read the rest or download the free audio, click on "The Great Species Mixup". You may also like to see a creationary view of speciation by clicking on "Evolution, Creation Science, and Speciation". Finally, two half-hour videos: "Speciation- yes, Evolution- no" and "Speciation and the biblical kinds – What’s the connection?"

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Ancient Algae Amazes Evolutionists

Living things seem mighty recalcitrant when it comes to supporting evolutionary conjectures, including those things termed living fossils. Those are things that were thought to be extinct, then found alive and essentially unchanged after millions of alleged years. A green alga, a seaweed, is not quite a living fossil because it was thought to be extinct in North America but still living in other parts of the world. Well, it's been found in North America after all, and it's unchanged.

Dinosaur-era algae supposedly extinct in North America for long ages has been discovered, and it is unchanged

In cases like this, wait for Darwin's Drones to bring out the usual boilerplate excuses: it didn't have to evolve, stasis, and things like that. This child doesn't fall for those tricks, because a lot of environmental things happen in a year, and evolutionary mythology breaks down if they think we're going to accept such "explanations". Aside from the anticipated excuses, there are several important facts that evolutionists overlook, including how critters and plants did not evolve, they were created to survive — and adapt when necessary.
Botanists recently discovered Lychnothamnus barbatus, a large form of green algae known from European and Asian freshwater lakes, in North America. Before this discovery, the only hints of this particular water plant in the Americas came from their fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Argentina.1 If this type of algae’s fossils were deposited tens of millions of years ago, then how has it avoided evolutionary tinkering ever since? How could it remain unchanged for over “65 million years?”
To chew on the rest (won't take long, it's not a huge article), click on "Dinosaur Algae Alive and Well Today". For a related article, read "Seaweed Clogs Evolutionary Propellers".

Monday, November 20, 2017

Evolutionists Get a Kick Out of Footprints

Scientists and other people with training and experience can learn a great deal from footprints. Many people can see the different between a bird and a human for instance, but may have difficulty between those of a large dog and a bear. That could be a problem in the wilderness. Barefoot human impressions are very distinct, and a trained observer can learn a great deal about whoever made them. The fossilized human footprints discovered in Crete are somewhat indistinct, but cause some problems for common ancestor evolution.

Fossilized footprints discovered in Crete are causing difficulties for human evolution timelines
Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart
The "our ancestors came out of Africa" mythology is threatened because of the dates evolutionists assigned to the footprints. Also, despite looking like someone is tromping through the mud and not sure of his or her footing, it is obvious that they were not made by anything other than a human. Some secularists do not want to believe the evidence because it threatens their death cult. Creationists do not have problems with having to readjust dates and rewrite theories because of facts, because the facts fit in nicely with the creationary record and models.
Evolutionists are faced with a controversy with the discovery of ‘human-like’ fossil footprints allegedly made 5.7 million years ago at Trachilos on the Mediterranean island of Crete.

Why a controversy? Because according to the evolutionary scenario at that time our human ancestors were only found in Africa, had ape-like feet but didn’t walk upright until much later in history; about 3.6 million years ago.
To continue reading, take an electronic leap over to "Cretan footprints stomp on human evolution". Also, another report can be seen at "Evolutionists Tripping Over Human Tracks on Crete".

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Cosmic Alchemy and Stellar Gold?

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy.

The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger
Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciencey stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious.

We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the universe, and subsequent cosmology on the formation of the stars, and ultimately, you and me. The ideas may look good to materialistic mathematicians, but it is not science. There is nothing testable, repeatable, observable, and all those other things required of a valid scientific theory. Stars exploding, metals forming, neutron stars making gold, a bunch of unknowns, life evolving — quite a few tricks to train in that pony, old son. Best to believe what God's Word says and leave behind the silly antics.
On October 16, 2017, two press conferences generated much interest when they announced the detection of two neutron stars merging. What particularly caught the public's attention was the claim that this event produced perhaps 10 times the earth’s mass in gold. How much of this story is established fact and what parts are conjectures? And what does this mean? Let me sort through this.
To read the rest and get a good science lesson, click on "Spinning Stardust into Gold".

Friday, November 17, 2017

Evolutionists Reach Faulty Conclusions about Extinction

When materialistic scientists argue from their evolutionary and deep time presuppositions, facts tend to get a mite scrambled. Speculations about things they think happened millions of Darwin years ago get added to the mix. When hearing, viewing, or reading about speculations that have no actual science behind them, it become difficult to stifle laughter.

Credit: Freeimages / Aron Hess
Geologically thinking, we have rock layers with fossils in them. Secular assumptions smuggle in long age presumptions (uniformitarianism), so the fossilized creatures appear that they were spread out over many years, and that there were several "great extinctions". However, secular scientists speculating about the distant past are not in agreement about how many extinctions happened. Worse for them, their conjectures fail to address observed evidence, but biblical creationists' models of the Genesis Flood have no difficulty giving rational explanations. Must grate on them that the evidence supports creation and the Bible instead of their guesses.
Secular geologists hypothesize five major mass extinctions in Earth history and maintain the most catastrophic of these happened nearly 252 million years ago. This Permian extinction, or Great Dying, supposedly resulted in the loss of 70 percent of land species and 95 percent of marine species. What really happened?

Creationists believe the fossil record formed just thousands of years ago as a result of the devastating Genesis Flood. But since those who hold the secular worldview must go to extremes to avoid anything biblical—any explanation but a worldwide flood—these efforts often result in some entertaining extinction stories such as, “A single gene transfer event may have caused the Great Dying.”
I know you're greatly dying to read the rest. To do so, click on "World's Most Catastrophic Extinction".

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Some Spiders Can Fly

Some folks do not cotton to spiders, even getting the heebie-jeebies at the tiniest of them. I can understand being skittish with a spider that looks like if you tried to strike it with a tennis racket, it would take it away and strike you instead. Yep, that's alarming. Anyway, some might say, "I'm sure glad spiders can't fly!" Sorry, Sally, but some do fly — in a way. Those shimmering threads are not from UFOs, so Auntie Madge doesn't need to call the Air Force (Project Blue Book has been closed for a long time, anyway), nor are they "chemtrails" Just spiders doing ballooning stuff.

Spider ballooning is another example of the Creator's engineering design abilities
Ballooning spiderlings image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Little Grove Farms / (CC BY 3.0)
Each of a huge number of spiders can shoot out some gossamer and ride the high winds. They don't all have happy landings, though. The survivors, though, hit the ground like special forces leaving their parachutes behind. How do they do this? Sure, the wind is an important part. But another important part involves electrostatic charges! Yet another dumb conundrum for evolutionists to use words like "maybe", "perhaps", "scientists think", and then call it science. Gotta have that homage to Darwin, blessed be. No, the obvious explanation is that they were engineered by their Creator to do this aerial dispersal. After all, spiders defy evolution in other ways, including in the fossil record.
It could be a scene from a Hollywood horror movie—millions of spiders descending from the sky on to a ship being tossed about on the ocean miles from land. While Hollywood would make them huge, man-eating spiders (and the crew would have to battle to survive the infestation), the real event isn’t scary. Instead, it is incredibly fascinating. It even happened to Charles Darwin on board HMS Beagle, about 100 km (60 miles) off the coast of Argentina in 1832. And it was Darwin’s observations of the spiders’ action that caused a modern-day scientist to consider the possibility that arachnids harness electrostatic energy to ‘balloon’ from point to point. Who hasn’t been ‘zapped’ by static electricity?

University of Hawaii physics professor Peter Gorham challenged existing aerodynamic theories to make the case for electrostatic flight in ballooning spiders by looking at the physics of such actions.
To read the rest, click on "Charged-up spiders on the move". Also, a short video of the spider trails is below.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Excessively Presumptive Cosmologists

In any field of science, there has to be some degree of presumption. Scientists have to presume the uniformity of nature and its laws (although secularists refuse to admit that God, who created everything, upholds the universe by his power). When getting further into evolution-related fields, more presumptions are made based on naturalistic presuppositions. This is clearly seen in cosmology — which is not even science, but a philosophy.

Credit: NASA / ESA (modified)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Cosmic owlhoots Krauss and Scherrer wrote a paper that may not have been entirely serious, saying that cosmologists in the future may not have the necessary information to make the correct conclusions about the universe that today's scientists have made. What, nobody keeps or refers to records? The authors got the bit in their teeth and galloped off with the presumption that they are correct in the first place in the here and now. (Reminds me of the tinhorns who sequenced the human genome years ago, did it sloppily, then asserted that the DNA they didn't find a use for in their current, limited knowledge was "junk". Then they were proved way, way wrong.) Further pursuits and assertions reveal that the Big Bang assumptions of the authors have a seriously flawed epistemology (study of knowledge). Scientists today need a passel of humility, as their arrogance is getting in the way of doing useful science.
Lawrence Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer surprised the cosmology world in 2007 when they published an essay titled “The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.” The paper showed that, assuming the truth of the current big bang model, in the far future (hundreds of billions of years from now) many evidences for the big bang itself will be gone, preventing future cosmologists from even being able to detect evidence for it.

In these papers, it is noted that, assuming the big bang model is true, at some point in the future, galaxies will be far enough away from each other as to not be seen. Within a galaxy, the operation of physics is relatively static. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will not be able to witness some of the more dynamic effects of expansion, which were critical in the development of big bang cosmology.
To read the rest, click on "What Krauss and Scherrer’s 'End of Cosmology' Scenario Means for the Epistemology of Modern-Day Cosmology". 

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Evolution is Quickly Failing

Gotta admit, I keep wanting to swipe the title, "Everything You Know is Wrong" and apply it to evolution because, frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), the evolutionary storyline keeps changing. Even more so in recent years, and the changes favor special creation and show the etiolated nature of Darwinism.

Image by Why?Outreach
Evolutionary scientists are finding more and more evidence that their cherished beliefs are turning to ashes in their hands. New discoveries change the age of the alleged human-chimp ancestry split, changing the age of lineages and causing more problems. Ardipithecus ramidus discoveries are changing the "savannah hypothesis". "Lucy" the ape fell out of human lineage stories long ago, except in the minds of the churlish faithful, and Lucy is being bothered even further.

If they would step back and see that their naturalistic worldviews do not contain the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, they might get tired of being wrong and realize that yes, there is a Creator. To read about the items mentioned above and more, click on "Everything Scientists Assumed About Human Evolution Needs a Major Rethink".

Monday, November 13, 2017

Puzzling Dart Frog Poison

There are small critters in Central and South America have been given the name "poison dart frogs". Most have bright colors, but if you find yourself near them, resist the urge to pick them up. They are toxic, some are dangerously so. These attractive but dangerous amphibians were given their name because some species were used by natives in the area to poison the darts for hunting and such.

Poison dart frogs puzzle evolutionists
Dendrobates tinctorius credit: Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (CC BY-SA 2.5)
So, they're dangerous to touch, and the poison some secrete can be used to make lethal weapons. This raises some interesting questions: How does the poison work? How can they survive their own poison? What came first, the poison or the resistance? The first question involves biology and chemistry, but the other two are stumpers for evolutionists, because both the poison and the resistance must be operational at the same time, or nothing makes sense, nothing works — evolutionists have no plausible model beyond "maybe", "perhaps", "it could be", "scientists think", and so on. That' ain't a plausible model, Hoss. No, the poison dart frogs were engineered by their Creator.
Found in Central and South America, the poison dart frog uses its skin toxin for defense and its bright colors as a warning. Each tiny amphibian holds enough toxin in its skin to kill 10 people.1 Its popular name came from native hunters who very carefully dipped the tips of their hunting darts in the frog’s poison. A new study revealed how the frogs survive their own poison, and the answer points to God.
To read the rest, click on "Why Don't Poison Dart Frogs Poison Themselves?" You may also be interested in the short video below.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Evolutionists Censoring Biological Truth

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence. Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods. When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore!

CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition
Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains of evidence for evolution" that are actually untrue. Some of their "facts" are based on faulty and incomplete research, stories that were popular in science news and in textbooks that have been rejected, and so on. Biblical creationists attempt to present information that they did not know or possibly have not carefully examined. We hope that they will question evolution, and eventually come to know the Creator in a personal way. The article featured below emphasizes biological truth; evolutionists think that genetic research is friendly to their paradigm, but that is the opposite of the truth.
DNA is a supernaturally created and designed medium containing living information. Overlapping parts of the same nucleotide sequence along the DNA code are used to produce completely different protein molecules. Studies have shown that DNA nucleotide sequences can produce different proteins if read forward versus being decoded from the same area backward. “This is similar to a book in which the same sentences can be read in completely different languages, read forward or backwards, and give different yet completely clear meanings.”1 As we begin to understand the complexity of the DNA code, or even the simplest living cell, it is simply impossible for random chance processes, i.e., mutations, to achieve such level of complexity.
To finish reading, click on "Censored Biology".