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

Saturday, December 30, 2017

The Facts Cannot Be Disputed

The last post for 2017 will deal with one of my favorite subject, which is how anti-creationists use reprehensible reasoning while asserting they have all the facts. Normally, articles by this author like the one linked below would be shared to The Question Evolution Project "as is", but I had a hankering to add some additional material.

Evolutionists and creationists do not have separate facts, disputes arise about eh interpretations of facts
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
Something that other biblical creationists and I emphasize is that facts are facts; there are no facts for atoms-to-atheist evolutionists and other facts for creationists. No, the disagreements occur on the interpretations of the facts. You have probably seen claims that there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution, but a bit of examination and logical thinking will reveal that the "evidence" is not based on facts, but interpretations, speculations, and opinions. You'll also get a passel of bad logic.

One sidewinder insists on lying outright, saying that Creation Ministries International denies facts that conflict with the Bible. He is hidebound to cling to his falsehood, even though I caught him and explained that they dispute interpretations of facts that disagree with the Bible. Atheists and evolutionists presuppose materialism and naturalism, and therefore reject divine revelation. Biblical creationists presuppose God's Word as the ultimate truth. Everyone has their starting point.

Atheists and other anti-creationists have a habit of misrepresenting Christians and creationists (such as in the example above). One thing they like to do is poison the well with loaded terminology, such as "biblical literalists". That has a negative connotation where believers put their think bones on the shelf and believe poetry, apocalyptic material, figures of speech, and so on as literal. Not hardly! We use the historical-grammatical approach as well as the same kind of sense where someone does not take the term "sunrise" literally. You savvy? Tim Chaffey wrote:
Bible-believing Christians generally follow a method of interpretation known as the historical-grammatical approach. That is, we try to find the plain (literal) meaning of the words based on an understanding of the historical and cultural settings in which the book was written. We then follow standard rules of grammar, according to the book’s particular genre, to arrive at an interpretation. We seek to perform careful interpretation or exegesis—that is, to “read out of” the text what the author intended it to mean. This is in contrast to eisegesis, which occurs when someone “reads into” the text his own ideas—what the reader wants the text to mean. In other words, exegesis is finding the AIM (Author’s Intended Meaning) of the passage because its true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient.
So, it's really not that difficult, and something that thoughtful readers of various genres engage in on a regular basis.

The following article shows us how an evolutionist used awful logic and manipulated the "facts" to bash creationists and prop up evolutionism. The author identified several logical fallacies, and although I disagree with a couple of his identifications, it is definitely worth reading. Twice, if you've a mind to. Even if people don't want to get into the specifics, the point I hope all y'all will get is that, with some thinking, you can see when evolutionists are trying to hoodwink us.
In a section called Forum, in the January 2013 issue of Scientific American a one page article called “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts,” written by a fifth grade schoolteacher, Jacob Tanenbaum, has an embarrassing number of factual, analytical and logical errors, misinformation and fallacious arguments.
Besides the exaltation of science as a savior, it also exhibits a disturbing trend among materialists, that being the vilification of Bible believing Christians and the belief that they are a threat to our very existence.
This post is an examination of that article in depth.
The article was titled “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable facts,” but apparently there were second thoughts about the title and the online version was renamed “A Science Teacher Draws the Line at Creation.” There are indisputable facts on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate. The status of evolution in our education system is that it is an indisputable fact and they do not want it to be open to debate. There are, however those that do dispute it and they are not just Creationists.  His article centers around three things:
To finish reading, and I hope you do, click on "Indisputable Facts".

Friday, December 29, 2017

Humans Helping Birds Evolve?

A major problem found in proponents of atoms-to-ornithologist evolution is that they are uncertain of their own belief system, seeing small variations in living things as examples of "evolution". While many make honest mistakes, there are blackguards who equivocate on evolution to convince people that Darwin was right, and there is no Creator. To further complicate matters, the definition of species is disputed, and although evolution is supposed to be a slow process, quick, observable variation flusters evolutionists, such as with the rapid gecko changes.

The variation in the great tit's beak is variation, not Darwinian evolution
Credit: Pixabay / Sara Price
Parus major (also known as the great tit) is a relative of the chickadee, tufted titmouse, and a few cute little chirpers. They're mainly found in the Northern Hemisphere, and are very popular in Britain. People over there are very fond of feeding birds (my wife and I do some ourselves here in New York), and some changes in beak size have been noticed. Some folks have called this slight change "evolution", and even attribute it to human influence: bird feeders. Longer beaks reach the goodies better, so natural selection kicks in. Of course, not all bird feeders are the same, so this doesn't look all that scientific to me. And it's definitely not Darwinian evolution. What really happened is that the Master Engineer designed critters so they could adapt to varying conditions, but not to change into something else.
Each year thousands of people fill bird feeders with seeds, corn, and nuts to encourage feathery friends to make a stop in their backyard. Bird feeding is especially popular in the United Kingdom where Britons spend nearly double that of other Europeans on bird feeders and birdseed, and half of homes with a backyard boast bird feeders. According to researchers, this seedy proffering is driving the rapid evolution of bird species.
. . .
Researchers looked at genetic variations in more than 3,000 individual birds from these populations. What they found was a genetic divergence between the groups that was linked to beak shape. Comparisons of populations revealed that British great tits now sport longer beaks than their Dutch relatives.
To read the rest, perch here: "Don’t Feed the Birds or They’ll Evolve". Also recommended, "Rapid Finch Speciation Counters Evolution".

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Geologists Puzzled by Unstable Mountain

The dominant philosophy of secular geologists is uniformitarianism, where "the present is the key to the past", and the slow, gradual processes we see today have remained constant. Wielders of this viewpoint often lasso themselves, because the long-age views pack a passel of problems.

Geologists expect mountains to be stable, and are surprised when they do not fit uniformitarian assertions.
Credit: Freeimages / Amy Hennen
(I was unable to find a usable picture of the mountain, so here are some rocks)
Way over yonder in Norway, Mt. Mannen ("the man") is not behaving itself and is called "unstable". Bad parenting? The economy? What caused this? Anyway, there have been alarms that the mountain is in danger of "collapsing", which really means a huge landslide could suddenly happen and destroy properties and kill people. Geologists tried to do some controlled intervention and make the slide happen. When something occurred, it was not what they were hoping for because it was too small.

Secular geologists are imposing their philosophy on the mountain, which they expect to be cooperative and sit quietly for millions of years. Observed facts contradict their uniformitarian viewpoint. If they would cowboy up and consider a young earth perspective, including how the geological features were primarily formed by the Genesis Flood (catastrophism), they would most likely be less surprised by what they observe. Perhaps geologists could make better predictions, too. Just a thought.
Mount Mannen in Norway, 320 km northwest of the capital Oslo, has made headlines more than once, even here in Finland, where I live. But not because of its respectable 1,300 m (4,300 ft) height, since nearly 300 peaks in Norway exceed the 2,000 m (6,500 ft) mark. It is because it is regarded as an ‘unstable mountain’.

Mannen has been closely monitored since 2009 as part of an emergency preparedness service; authorities are prepared for a massive landslide of up to 100 million cubic metres. This would be bad news for the Rauma Line—a railway operating in the danger zone. It is estimated that it would take only a small fraction of the potential slide—‘only’ 2 million cubic metres—for the debris to cross the valley and likely devastate buildings and damage the Rauma Line.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Norway’s live ‘unstable’ Mount Mannen surprises geologists".

This short video was presumably taken from the railway line
that is in danger of a landslide from Mt. Mannen.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

The Big Bang Further Self-Destructs

Secular cosmologists conjured up the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which was reluctantly accepted over other models such as the oscillatory and steady-state. Over the decades, serious flaws were discovered, so astronomers fudged data and came up with a prairie schooner full of patches for the Big Bang. One failed fake science patch is the concept of "dark energy".

Failed Big Bang theory received more bad news that the universe should not exist
Severely modified from an image at Clker clipart.
"But Cowboy Bob, the Big Bang must be true, because here we are!"

Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that tinhorns like this one use to justify the fictitious, evidence free rescuing device called the Oort cloud. Looks like a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy mixed with ad homiems, straw man arguments and the irrelevant thesis fallacy, but never mind about that now. But do mind that people think illogically like that.

Some cosmologists kept on fiddling with data and determined that this nice little universe we have should not even exist. While that is old news, additional research makes the whole thing worse. Even using their assumptions (no actual facts required), the conclusion is that if the universe popped into existence, matter and antimatter would cancel each other out and there would be nothing here, no cosmic evolution leading to biological evolution at all. The universe would be nice and clean, though. All those silly efforts to deny the work of the Creator keep on coming up empty.
Recently, the asymmetry matter/antimatter problem, one of the most serious objections to the Big Bang model, just got a little worse. The asymmetry problem involves the fact that there is very little antimatter in the universe. Antimatter is just like normal matter, except that some of its properties are opposite that of normal matter. For instance, the antimatter equivalent to the electron is called the positron. The positron has the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge, rather than negative. Likewise, the antimatter counterpart to a proton is the anti-proton which has the same mass as a proton but with a negative charge.
To read the rest, click on "Big Bang Scientists: Universe Shouldn't Exist".

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Illogical Extinctions in Secular Geology

The Evo Sith want us to believe in atoms-to-atheist evolution, so they try very hard to present stories that they think the public will accept. They round up a corral full of conjectures and isolated facts, then saddle them with assertions, opinions, and what not so they seem presentable. Using the public's fondness for believing what scientists say (appealing to authority), secularists are largely successful. Except that some people do bother to stop and think, and even question evolution.

The main dinosaur extinction speculation omits pertinent data and leaves important questions unanswered.
Credit: Pixabay / Andrew Martin
Sometimes, very basic questions are asked that undermine hypotheses. For example, we hear about "mass extinctions", such as the alleged asteroid impact that caused such distress for the world that the dinosaurs died out. Why did other, more fragile critters, survive? Why don't we hear about the findings that birds and pterosaurs lived together? Why are pertinent facts omitted in the storylines? Evolutionists don't get along with each other on many things, but we hear the only dominant opinions popularized as if there was uniformity. The least popular concepts is that Earth was created recently, evolutionary dogma does not match up with the facts, but the facts are best explained by the Genesis Flood.
To believe the standard evolutionary timeline, you have to accept some highly unreasonable notions.
Museums and nature TV shows routinely show the march of evolution through time. The story is punctuated by several major extinction events, the most famous of which is the death of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. The current popular theory is that an asteroid slammed into earth, causing the death of all the dinosaurs, pterosaurs and marine reptiles in a geological instant (called the KPg boundary). Do viewers ever ponder the fact that many delicate animals lived right through this catastrophe as if nothing happened?
Genomic evidence reveals a radiation of placental mammals uninterrupted by the KPg boundary (PNAS). The early placental mammals (a group that includes us humans) were believed to be rather small, perhaps badger size, at the time of the extinction. They were no match for T Rex and Triceratops. Why, then, did they survive “uninterrupted” right through the disastrous extinction event? This group of evolutionary scientists, using different assumptions for dating ‘divergence times’ (when mammal groups supposedly branched into different families), believes that’s exactly what happened.
To read the rest, click on "Selective Extinctions Defy Logic".

Monday, December 25, 2017

A Christmas Greeting

I hope you are having an excellent Christmas. At the moment, I'm sitting at the dining room table, using a weak laptop and listening to Christmas music instead of holing up at my usual work station. This thing will get my by if the main computer crashes.

Surprisingly, I do not have a great deal to say for this particular weblog, partly because I felt that I would be repeating things I have said before. But I do have three links to some other things.

This excellent image of what I take to be a cross and the Christmas star
is by Gerd Altmann at Pixabay
For those of you who want to read some Christmas material I posted:
That's about it, aside from the music video below. Regular posts are scheduled for tomorrow and after, though. 

- Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Further Devastation of a Deep Time Icon

Every once in a while, I need to share material that is a bit more specialized. Some folks do not cotton to information involving mathematics, but the two articles linked below (actually, Part 1 and Part 2 of the same subject) further thwart the astronomical (Milankovitch) Ice Age theory that is used to justify deep time assertions. Even if you're not interested in the mathematics part, there is some excellent information for your consideration. Feels like an Ice Age is beginning as I write this on December 17, 2017, but that's just me.

Creation science using basic algebra and logic refuting astronomical theory on age of Earth
Credit: Freeimages / miguel ugalde
I'll allow that algebra is not my strong suit. If it's not something you care for but have a basic understanding of it, the articles show how us reg'lar folk can use a calculator (or even the one that ships with Windows as well as free calculators online like this one) to see how the Milankovitch theory is kaput. Even though this theory has been refuted before, secularists protect it because Papa Darwin requires deep time, so they keep using faulty data to cling to long ages.

An interesting fact about the astronomical theory is that it is not only used to prop up long age assertions that are based on numerous assertions an circular reasoning, but it is used to support global climate change alarmism. This is not surprising, since there are many reports of bad and even faked data to promote the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Like leftists detest what is called "alternative media" because their mainstream news media are hopelessly biased and agenda-driven, and other sources give inconvenient truth, secularists loathe creationists for refuting evolutionary and deep time claims. Here, a creationary scientist answers fools according to their folly (using their own data) so they are not legitimately justified in their own eyes. Clearly, Earth was created — and far more recently than these owlhoots want to admit.
In a scientific controversy, how do laypeople evaluate the merits of each side’s arguments when those arguments involve technical details? Unfortunately, many people simply assume that the majority’s arguments and conclusions are correct. This is certainly true in the creation-evolution debate, where most scientists make claims that clearly contradict Scripture.

However, a situation occasionally arises in which it is possible for laypeople to verify for themselves whether a claim is true or not. Creation scientists are delighted when this happens since Christians should be testing our claims, as well as those of other teachers, to see if they are true (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

This article shows how you can confirm for yourself, using a simple pocket calculator, that an iconic old-earth claim about past “climate change” has long been invalid.1 Although understanding this argument may take some effort, remember the words of Ecclesiastes 7:19: “Wisdom strengthens the wise more than ten rulers of the city.” It is my prayer that you’ll feel greatly empowered by your ability to verify these results for yourself without having to take anyone’s word for it—including mine!
 To read the rest of this article and the next, here are the links:

Friday, December 22, 2017

A Catapulted Fungus?

On a journey through wooded areas, or even a woodpile out back, you can find some interesting things. Mushrooms can be interesting, but fungi are not exactly jumping around for our entertainment. They just sit there. One of these is called the fluted bird's nest, Cyathus striatus.

The "fluted bird's nest fungus" has an odd way of spreading around.
Cyathus striatus credit: Wikimedia Commons / John Roper (fair use for educational purposes, accreditation)
This fungus is interesting because it does indeed resemble a bird's nest, eggs and all. Those ain't eggs, pilgrim, they contain the spores that spread them around. The action commences when a raindrop smacks into the "nests", and those egg-like things (peridioles) shoot out of their containers; they are shaped to use some of the impact force of the raindrop. With the help of sticky threads, they attack to whatever is nearby. If they get swallowed by some critter, no big deal: it all comes out in the end, if you catch my meaning.

Of course, adherents of molecules-to-mycologist evolution give credit to Darwin. All hail, blessed be! Except there is no evolutionary mechanism or model, only blind faith. What we do see is further evidence of design by the Master Engineer, which is the rational conclusion.
They are fungi, but you wouldn’t know it. They are only a few millimetres high, but contained within these minute hunks of life is a universe of fascination. They are cup-shaped, and contain a number of small, hard, lentil-shaped ‘eggs’ neatly arranged within. This is why they are called ‘birds-nest fungi’ (Cyathus striatus).

Until 1790 they were thought to be flowering plants, the little ‘eggs’ being seeds. And it was not until 1951 that a man by the name of Brodie described how the ‘eggs’ fly from the nest.
To read the entire article, click on "Splashing success".

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Materialists Use Theological Arguments

Once again, astronomers find a celestial object that should not exist, but it does anyway. This happens quite frequently, whether baffling planets and moons in our own solar system, or exoplanets such as the oversized NGTS-1b. Why are they so befuddled? Because they work from irrational materialistic presuppositions.

Secular astronomers are surprised to find a planet where it "should not" exist
Credit: Rgbstok / kimolos
This planet is almost the size of Jupiter, orbits a small star, and (according to cosmic evolutionary mythology), there is not enough material for the planet to have formed in the first place. (Then there's the alleged super-huge black hole that shouldn't exist.) It's not just in astronomy where secular scientists keep getting amazed, it happens in paleontology as well. Ironically, secularists use theological arguments based on their naturalistic opinions in other ways. The embrangled theology is first based on the assumption that God the Creator does not exist. F'rinstance, owlhoots who hold to a naturalistic paradigm commence to pontificating that if there was a God, he wouldn't have used a bad design for the human eye. Therefore, EvolutionDidIt because the design for the eye is so bad according to their uninformed beliefs.

Fact is, there is a Creator, we must pay attention to what he has explained to us in the Bible, and he's the one who created everything — and created it recently. To find out more about the big planet, bad assumptions, startling astronomy, and strange naturalistic theology, click on "Giant Planet Sends Planetologists Scrambling".

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Plants, the Sun, and the Days of Creation

A straighforward reading of the account of creation in Genesis is pretty simple, what with actual days and all. Unfortunately, there are some folks who want to grease up the concept of millions (or billions) of years and force it into the text. The only way to get long ages out of the Bible is to put them in there first, old son. Even so, strange readings of the text, including trying to accommodate the Big Bang, create a passel of problems for both professing Christians and for deep time beliefs. There is just no room for long ages or evolution.

God created the heavens and the earth, then light, later on plants, and then the sun. This raises some questions.
Credits: NASA / STEREO / Helioviewer
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In this case, we see that the heavens and the earth created first (Gen. 1:1). Then we learn that God put light on the subject (Gen 1:2). Okay, that's nice. But soft, what light through yonder universe breaks? The sun was created on the fourth day of creation week. But we already had light! What was that?

Plants were created on the third day. If someone is going to do a day-age thing to the text, that would mean that plants existed for a mighty long time without the sun, in that other light we don't quite understand. Also, plants are not exactly simple things, they are very intricate and were "advanced" from the beginning. Whether a compromiser, a believer, or mocker, there are some reasonable questions that need to be addressed.
God created plants on Day Three of Creation Week, the day before he created the sun. But he had already created a light source on Day One that evidently fulfilled many roles the sun would eventually fulfill. This article explores the order of some of the events in Creation Week, the nature of the light that God created on Day One, the length of the “days” of Creation Week, and how God provided for the needs of plants throughout the week.
To read the rest of this article, click on "Did God Really Create Plants Before the Sun?"

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Ancient Trees were Advanced

Trees known as cladoxlopsids are not available for us to spread a blanket under the branches and have a picnic. They are extinct, but there are some detailed fossils available. Like so many other discoveries of late, these trees were "advanced" according to Darwinian thinking, and were surprising to secular scientists.

Fossil trees show features far too advanced for evolutionists to handle
Bristlecone pine image credit: Pixabay / riosam_87
 Like other recent fossil discoveries that surprised evolutionists, secularists are arguing from deep time evolutionary presuppositions. Simply put, they assume that life began in simple forms and then diversified, each climbing the ladder to becoming more and more advanced. Reality does not support evolution. In this case, the tree has tree stuff that you would expect today, and it did even more features than modern trees. That's because there was no Darwinian evolution, life was created. You savvy? In addition, detailed fossils around the world indicate rapid burial — and that is a strong indication for the Genesis Flood.
Devonian rock layers and the fossils within them supposedly hail from a time long before monkeys, dinosaurs, or modern oak trees evolved. The Darwinian concept of plants and animals gradually gaining complexity over eons of natural selection paints a picture of simple-to-complex development. But do fossils show that? A newly discovered tree fossil from northwest China seems to tell just the opposite tale—that the growth structures in the world’s earliest trees were perhaps even more complicated than in today’s trees.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Extinct Trees Were World's Most Complicated".

Monday, December 18, 2017

Dinosaur Egg Site and Creation Science

Way down yonder, Argentina way, a relatively small area is a treasure trove of dinosaur eggs. A great deal of research has been done, and quite a few questions have been raised. The eggs, and even embryos, were fossilized. That goes against the dogma of uniformitarian geologists and paleontologists, since such detail requires rapid burial.

Dinosaur egg site in Argentina supports Genesis Flood creation science model
Argentinosaurus skeleton replica photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / Eva Kröcher (GFDL 1.2)
Eggs are more common than nest areas like this one. The site is in a "floodplain environment", which would make rapid burial even more unlikely, but can be explained by the Genesis Flood. (Interestingly, the "nest structures" may not be what secular scientists think.) The area shows many characteristics, including movement of the strata and of the eggs themselves, are very compatible with the Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments hypothesis by Michael J. Oard. The Genesis Flood means that uniformitarianism is fundamentally flawed, and the earth is far younger than they want to admit.
Auca Mahuevo in Neuquén Province in west-central Argentina is a well-known site for dinosaur eggs. Uniformitarian scientists have published a significant body of information on the local sedimentology and stratigraphy. Their analysis of the remarkable embryonic remains, eggshell microstructure, and ‘nests concluded: “The discoveries our crew made raised dozens of scientific mysteries.”

The Auca Mahuevo site is slightly larger than 1 km2. The 86 m of strata that are exposed are considered Upper Cretaceous fluvial deposits and consist of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone with weak ‘paleosol’ development. The site contains thousands of eggs, some with fossilized embryos, embryonic bone and skin, and many dinosaur tracks. The eggs are found scattered, sometimes forming carpets of eggs, and some are found in clutches or ‘nests’. Some clutches are as close together as 1–3 m.
To read the rest, click on "Argentina egg site supports BEDS model".

Saturday, December 16, 2017

How We Get Our Fabulous Feline Friends

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many people own pets around the world, as you know. They can be annoying and caring for them may be tedious, but they get into our hearts and become part of our families. Animal neglect and other abuse is infuriating for me. Although God gave mankind dominion over his creation, we are to be stewards of it. It is not only because of those biblical truths that I find animal neglect and abuse distressing, but a principle as well: If someone is going to have a pet, they are making a commitment to the care of it. Before we get to the history and science material, I want to tell you some personal things.

Domestic cats, like Basement Cat here, are an important part of many people's lives. How did we get them?
Basement Cat's expression says, "Don't leave your shirt on the bed. By the way, the bed is mine now".
We almost lost Basement Cat. We're attached, not only for the typical reasons for people who are owned by cats, but she came to us through tragic, personal circumstances. Shortly after Thanksgiving in 2017, she became sick. At first, we thought her insulin needed to be reduced. After many veterinarian visits, we spent two weeks thinking she could die at any time. She had to be force-fed with a syringe:

Just hold on for that echocardiogram visit, Cat, we'll find out what the x-rays showed about that mass near the heart. We spent that second week wondering if she'd die of a heart attack before the test was made. Worse, we wondered if we were going to have to say goodbye, but Dr. Cody at Lake Katrine Animal Hospital said it wasn't time. My wife and I spent time in passionate, even agonized prayer. (While I strive for logic and reason, and know that she has to go sometime, it felt so wrong at the time, and it was painful. This brings my tough guy image down in flames, doesn't it?) After one visit, she started acting better and was coming back online. Getting shaved before the echocardiogram, she showed some spirit:

The dark mass near the heart was not found! Yes, the heart sounded strange to the doctors, but the electronics (as well as previous vet visits) showed no sign of difficulty. She still has some lung issues at this writing, but the old cat is back. [EDIT: Lungs are also better now.] We've praised God, and the fact that he made people so they could use their intelligently-designed minds to develop modern veterinarian medicine and give proper treatments. Some aspects are mystifying about her recovery, and we think that the combination of science and God's mercy brought about this result. 

Thinking back to a few years ago to the glory days when she would transform into Combat Cat. Maybe she was agitated by that dreadful couch we had? You can hear multiple slaps on my hand:

Although I simply wanted to share this story with y'all, it's also there to help illustrate that pets, and in my case, this cat (as well as those who have been in my life before) become important parts of our lives. Our Creator gave them to us for various purposes.

So how did we learn to get in touch with our felines? A pair of Felis catus (the domestic house cat) was not on the Ark, as the created cat kind was quite a bit different back then. Through natural selection, the desire to be with humans, unnatural selection (human influence), and other factors, some big cats became little cats. Breeding gave us assorted coats and sizes. These variations have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, but instead, are the result of genetic activity. You savvy?
Cats—which inhabit almost every corner of my home—live on every continent except Antarctica. But it was not always so. When representatives of all air-breathing land animals boarded the Ark around 4,350 years ago, Noah’s historic collection needed only one pair of felines. They would not have been anything like modern domestic cats. That breeding pair contained the genetic information to produce the great variety of felines the world has seen since the Flood. That includes roaring lions and tigers and cheetahs (oh my!), the yowling feral cats in your neighborhood, and the indoor cats meowing on my quilts.
To read the rest, claw your way over to this extremely interesting article: "How Domestic Cats Came to Rule the World (at Least the Part I Live in)". Excuse me while I whip out my calendar and mark August 17, which is Black Cat Appreciation Day. Do I really need to? Basement Cat gets her ownself appreciated every day.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Creation and — Formula One Racing?

Never thought I would do a post about motorsports. Some people are thrill about "man and machine". Even though I am a guy, motorsports are not something I prefer. But I grabbed the article featured below just to see why ICR wrote about Formula One (or, F1) racing, and I was pleasantly surprised. It's not so much about the sport as it is about the driver. I hope you will stay along for the ride (heh!) and maybe learn a few things like I did.

Physical and mental demands on a Formula One racer testify of the skill of the Master Engineer
Credit: Pixabay / Ádám Urvölgyi
The racing sport that seems to be the one most people hear about is NASCAR, but I reckon that it's on the wane. There are several auto racing sports in which well-heeled folks participate, and have some similarities. Those racing sports are popular, too. Here we'll focus on Formula One. Don't commence to thinking you'll be like one of the good ol' boys and use your own car in a Grand Prix race. That'll be the day! F1 autos are mighty expensive.

Let me take a side trail for a moment. Having done some bicycling, I know that there are many things of which a rider needs to be mindful. How the bike feels, its sounds, traffic (not just vehicular), weather, how the rider feels, proper equipment, handlebar and saddle adjustments, and much more. The mind is processing a great deal of input very quickly. The whole situation is intensified during a race.

There are similarities to what I just described to F1 racing. You may be tempted to think that anyone can get into an expensive car and go at high speeds around a track, but there are significant physical requirements. Making a turn, the driver may have to deal with five "gs" (g-force, the number of times the force of gravity; their effective body weight is five times greater). Astronauts on lift-off typically deal with three gs. The input for an F1 driver includes radio communications, as well as the feel of the track, the automobile, sounds (very loud), and much more. Then there's the challenge of keeping it under control when something unexpected happens.

The vehicles are carefully engineered by people using the minds the Master Engineer gave them. Doing the driving requires use of the engineered mind under stressful conditions and making rapid decisions. The brain is similar to a computer, but on a scale beyond the digital computer. More like a quantum computer! And we're supposed to believe all this came about by time, chance, natural selection, mutations, and luck? Oh, please.
Bright red with perfect details, a Ferrari Formula 1 F1 SF15-T diecast model race car would make a great present! Young boys around the world push their model Ferraris across the floor while making sounds of growling engines and squealing tires. They envision themselves seated behind the wheel, racing on winding tracks and reaching speeds over 200 miles per hour. A select few will become race drivers. Along the way they will be physically transformed into something they probably haven’t considered: a world-class competitive athlete.
Watching a Formula 1 (F1) car maneuver at high speeds is exciting. Seated in one during its performance is a different story altogether. Even riding as a passenger in dual-seated racing vehicles provides a whole set of sensations—mostly quite uncomfortable—that must be experienced to be appreciated. They are so unlike average driving that a realistic experience in one of these machines can’t be imagined. The physical strains demand that the drivers be in excellent physical shape.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest, just click on "Beauty in Motion: Formula 1 Drivers".

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Feather Duster Birds and Other Mutations

A small species of parrot from 'Straya is known as the parakeet, budgie, and other names, but more formally as the budgerigar. Very popular as pets. Lovely plumage. The ability to mimic human speech is probably a factor in their popularity, but you need to train them properly. Also, the purchase price is much cheeper than that of full-sized parrots.

Most parakeets / budgies are normal, but the feather duster mutation is rare by very harmful
Freeimages / Julie Elliott-Abshire
We're used to the parakeets with their feathers under control, but there's a sad mutation that may look cute at first, but ruins their health and usually shortens their lifespans to a few months instead of years. It gives a feather duster effect because the feathers keep on growing, and is also indicative of other problems. The hands at the Darwin Ranch insist that natural selection and mutations brought about all the varieties of life on Earth, but the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, or neutral at best. Actually, life was created — Darwin was wrong.
Nora’s long, curly feathers seemed to lack some component of the normal barb, barbule and hook structures of standard feathers, and they greatly hampered her mobility. Although able to eat normal budgie fodder and shuffle around, Nora couldn’t climb, preen or fly like other budgies, and she could hardly chatter or squawk either. However, with Warren’s help she did eventually learn to perch on the low rung in her cage.
Nora’s parents were both descendants of English show budgies, the only birds known to produce ‘feather duster’ mutants, the first such case being reported in England in 1966. Breeders think a mutation (genetic copying mistake) in a recessive gene causes the problem.
To read the full article, click on "The mutant ‘feather-duster’ budgie". Also, there are a couple of very short videos below, one of which is a feather duster budgie.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Work of Noah

The Genesis Flood (also called the Noachian Flood, among others) radically changed the earth's surface and send secular geologists on a goat rodeo to try and force-fit the observed data into their paradigm. Doesn't work too well. Creationary models explain data far better, as we have seen numerous times. What about Noah himself and the massive project?

Noah's Ark was a massive project, but not impossible
The Animals Entering Noah' Ark, Jacopo Bassano, 1570s
Scoffers argue from ignorance and incredulity based on their naturalistic presuppositions, saying that the Flood was fictitious, such as this bigot. There are no miracles — because atheism. They refuse to even consider the possibilities of Noah doing his work, preferring prejudicial conjecture to learning our side of the story. Two reasons scoffers hate recent creation is because Darwinism needs long ages, and it shows that God is our Creator. They also hate the Flood because not only does geology support creationary models, but Noah's Ark is a type (foreshadowing) of Christ.

Evolutionary presuppositions dictate that ancient man had not evolved a great deal of intelligence, which has been refuted by the skills of say, the Neanderthals and the dudes formerly known as Cro-Magnon. Noah and the people of his time, and afterward, were not the semi-sapient brutes that evolutionists would have us imagine.

Yes, the Flood was a miraculous event. However, it had natural effects that are studied. Otherwise, God could have simply lifted up Noah, his family, and animals, flooded the world, and then set them back down without having to deal with Ark building.

Don't disunderstand me, there's nothing wrong with asking honest questions. We have reasonable, biblical speculations and inferences. For instance, who can reasonably say that Noah did not hire local labor? They didn't have to agree with his views (I do not agree with the views of my own employer, but I work anyway). There are several other items worth considering. Intelligent people, with God's help, were able to make things work. And it was work. Obviously, it wasn't a pleasure cruise!

From here, I'm going to send y'all sailing to a series of three articles. Each has an audio version (but obviously you'd miss out of the graphics):

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Silliness in Searching for Aliens

Things are getting silly with the hands at the Darwin Ranch, down Deception Pass way. They are so certain of their presuppositions about evolution, they assume that it happened both on Earth and way out yonder, thataway. (Worse, they assume that the origin of life began in space as well.) But they're used to believing in things without evidence, such as the Oort cloud (some think the fantastical death star "Nemesis" stirs up the mythical Oort cloud), and believing fish-to-fish farmer evolution itself. So, betting on the odds of their own fantasies that some intelligent life must be out there, some folks keep looking.

Credit: Pixabay / Stefan Keller
Some scientists want us to keep mum about our presence, as bad things could happen. Others are determined to go ahead and broadcast into space, even setting dates by which we would be contacted — but those speculators would be long gone so they don't have to own up to their errors. The following link has several interesting items about just how weird and desperate the creation-deniers are getting.
Believers in space aliens, or even space bacteria, have cast all restraint to the wind. SETI today is indistinguishable from a cult, and so is its stepchild, astrobiology.
NASA has been studying space for 60 years, Space.com reminds us. The search for life beyond earth has gone on even longer. In all this time, with close observations of every planet and remote observations of many stars, not one shred of evidence for life beyond earth has ever been found. And yet secular scientists and the mainstream media speak as if extraterrestrial life is a virtual certainty.
To read the rest and several reports, click on "Nuts for Aliens".

Monday, December 11, 2017

Secular Geologists Mystified by Sheet Sands

In studies of origins, a great deal of attention is given to the historical sciences of geology and paleontology. Most of the fossils are in six megasequences, which present strong evidence for the Genesis Flood. Other aspects of geology are of interest, especially since secular geologists are unable to furnish plausible uniformitarian models and explanations for what is observed.

Sheet sands are a constant problem for secular geology models, but the Genesis Flood models provide a superior explanation for their existence.
Detail of the wind and water-weathered sandstone that forms the
Beehive Formation in the Valley of Fire Nevada State Park
Credit: Alex Demas / US Geological Survey
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
One of the many aspects of geology that mystifies secularists is sheet sands. It may be possible to occasionally write off something unusual, but not these things. They extend over vast areas, and defy uniformitarian explanations. (They cling to their deep time notions, and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence that the earth is actually much younger than in their philosophies.) Uniformitarian geologists lasso some vague terms to blind us with science, but it's just expensive wording that means, "We ain't got a clue". Once again, biblical creation science Flood models give far more plausible explanations.
Sheet sands are widespread, thin sandstones that blanket large regions of the continents. Most are composed of extremely pure quartz of uniform, well-rounded grains that contain almost no shale. Secular geologists have tried to explain their presence for decades and have failed to develop a satisfactory answer. Their best models invoke “atypical depositional conditions unique to shallow epeiric seas” and “are viewed as sufficiently different from other modern and ancient sedimentary successions that some textbooks treat them as a separate category of stratigraphic unit.”
In other words, not only are the sands hard to explain, they fail to follow uniformitarian expectations. Many of these sheet sandstones extend for hundreds of miles and are just a few tens of feet thick.
To finish reading, click on "Resolving the Sheet Sand Enigma".

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Destroying Darwin Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although disciples of Darwin pretend that there is no basis for reports that creationists and other Darwin deniers are fired from science and academia, facts show otherwise. Secularists may throw us an occasional "maybe" that there was substance to the dismissal claims of creationists and ID supporters, but they generally say that the wise and noble secular judges were right in dismissing claims.

Persecution and discrimination against those who deny Darwin is increasing
Click for full size (original graphic source unknown)
Persecution of Christians, Intelligent Design supporters, and biblical creationists is on the increase. One of the more famous cases is that of Dr. David Coppedge. Another high-profile case is that of Mark Armitage, who was fired after presenting facts in a peer-reviewed paper regarding dinosaur soft tissue. Armitage prevailed in his lawsuit, which is surprising.

Dr. Jerry Bergman was removed from Bowling Green State University for his creationary views. It happened again! He was asked to resign (effectively fired) as a professor from Northwest State College after 25 years. Those tinhorns make me wonder how they got their jobs, because Dr. Bergman is a prolific author and highly credentialed. What really takes the rag off the bush is that this brilliant and respected author, lecturer, and professor has also completed three weighty volumes in a projected series of five regarding how Darwin deniers are persecuted; they just gave someone with a high profile material for his books! You can listen to his story at this 42-minte podcast, and there are additional links. I have to add, though, that Bob Enyart (the show's host) promotes a heresy called "Open Theism", so I advise against clicking on his theology links.


In related news, Dr. Bergman wrote an article about Dr. Günter Bechly, who was forced to resign after leaving atheism and endorsing Intelligent Design. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© are intolerant of anyone leaving evolutionism or atheism. Their death cult needs to be protected from scrutiny, and anyone who does not ride for the brand with full devotion must be punished. The Intelligent Design movement is not even biblical creation science! Let's take a look at the article:
One recent case is that of the distinguished paleontologist, Dr. Günter Bechly, a world expert on fossil insects, who was forced to resign [a tactful way to say he was fired] as curator for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. Then, as a result, he was censored from Wikipedia.  The editors at Wikipedia attempted to cover up their censorship of Günter, a world-class expert on dragonflies, by claiming his heresy on ID had nothing to do with their decision. Instead, they proclaimed the censorship was because he is not “notable” enough to include in their free online encyclopedia.
To read the rest of this article, click on "Change Your Mind on Darwinism, Get Expelled". There are some additional comments below, I'd be much obliged if you'd keep reading.

A frequent propaganda tactic is ridicule. One sidewinder will use ridicule, ad hominem attacks, false thesis arguments, straw man arguments, and more — often in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence. Here, he plagiarized a post from Wikipedia and attempted to sound scientific with psychology, but that is a false thesis and has nothing to do with the reality of the persecution of Christians. He is doing the persecuting, then blaming those he persecutes for objecting, saying that they have a mental illness! A diagnosis of the mental disorder shown below is made by a qualified expert after dealing with a patient, not by an uneducated, anonymous atheopath who is trying to distract from his own wicked actions. (Mayhaps he needs to be examined for what appears to be projection.) His bigotry is given approval by others of his ilk:

Click for full size
Despite the denials of fundamentalist evolutionists and misotheists, persecution of those who doubt, deny, or even question the Bearded Buddha is increasing. For that matter, the persecution of Christians in general is increasing. Keep your heads down, those of you who reject evolutionism. Biblical creationists, y'all need to remember that God is in charge, and they will stand before him one day.