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 8, 2018

Inselbergs and the Genesis Flood

In previous posts, we have looked at several instances of geomorphology, such as planation surfaces and the like. Today we are going to focus on inselbergs. No, Inselberg was not a musician in a German rock band (that I know of), but it the word came from German and means island mountain. We have a passel of them in the USA (such as Stone Mountain), but there are many of them around the world, and they puzzle deep time geologists.

Those island mountains that are all around the world cannot be explained by deep time geology.
Eningen unter Achalm, Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Vux (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) (enhanced)
You could be eyeballing a plot of land and suddenly see a huge bump or series of bumps. According to uniformitarian geology, everything happens over long periods of time. Geologists cannot adequately explain how they appeared. To make matters worse, inselbergs are showing signs of erosion that do not fit deep time speculations. The global Genesis Flood provides the most logical explanation for what we observe — which means that Earth is far younger than secularists and stalkers want to believe.
As the world’s continents were uplifted from the waters of the global Flood, they were greatly eroded. During this massive erosion, the rocks that weren’t pulverized were transported hundreds of kilometres toward the oceans. The enormous power of the receding water, relentlessly shaving off the surfaces it flowed over, left behind large flat areas known as planation surfaces, along with coastal Great Escarpments, large natural bridges, and freestanding arches. Scientists studying conventional geomorphology find all these features puzzling because they ignore the Flood and rely only on slow erosion over millions of years, which does not work.
To read the rest, click on "Inselbergs — Evidence for rapid Flood runoff". I think Inselberg would be a good name for a rock band.

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

Friday, December 7, 2018

Evolutionism and Word Games

Creationists seldom object to the word creationISM, evolutionists react to the word evolutionISM. Both are valid words, and evolutionists themselves use evolutionism.
In discussions and debates, people can present their arguments with terminology that is designed to draw emotional responses from people who are listening or reading. Some manipulative debaters attempt to provoke their opponents into making mistakes with ad hominem remarks and loaded words.

There are times that loaded wording in debates, discussions, or various presentations can be painfully obvious. In other cases, the wording can be subtle and not necessarily manipulative; it may simply be a reflection of the speaker  or writer's feelings. We tend to frame our views in the best light and cast a shadow on a contrary viewpoint. People do that.

A subtle but manipulative tactic in using loaded words is using something that ends in -ism. Atheists and evolutionists have been known to contrast science with creationism, which may imply a feeling that creationists are members of an aberrant cult that has no science supporting it.

Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution tend to get on the prod when they encounter someone using the word evolutionism. They may even accuse biblical creationists of using a nonexistent word to denigrate evolution. Darwinism? That's okay, because it's a philosophy or worldview, but evolution is science in their view. Unfortunately for their position, evolution is an -ism, it is more than just a study of biology — it is indeed a worldview.


Interestingly, although some dictionaries tend to downplay the word evolutionism or ignore it entirely, but evolutionists themselves use it. Also, creationists don't pay no nevermind to the word creationism for the most part, and we use it ourselves. Also, Darwin's social media warriors claim to believe in evolution because it's "settled science", but they show ignorance of the science they claim to support. (I reckon that they're actually being dishonest as well as ignorant.) The "facts" of evolution keep changing (as links in the posts on this site will show you), and some folks just don't want you to know that we were indeed created. God is the Creator, and he makes the rules. Better find out what he has to say, whether you like it or not, and while there's still time. Eternity is a long time to be proud, arrogant, and wrong, old son.
Why is it we often encounter the comparison of creationism vs. evolution but rarely creationism vs. evolutionism? Is there no such thing as the word evolutionism? Surprisingly, many English language dictionaries, including even some large unabridged dictionaries, fail to define the word evolutionism and some don’t even list it as a word. For example, the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language I have in my library weighs ten pounds and has nearly 2,000 pages of definitions yet fails to include the word evolutionism. Those dictionaries that do include the word generally leave it undefined and merely list it as a noun related to the main entry “evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionism—Is There Such a Word?"

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

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Worldviews and Beauty

You know the old saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, which basically means that what may look good to you may not look so special to me. On a larger scale, there are things that people generally agree upon that contain beauty. This applies to architecture as well.

Materialists influenced indirectly by Darwinism affected architecture, and they detested past beauty.
Credit: Pixabay / Robert Jones
There was a time when people made an effort to design a building that was pleasing to the eye, and people wanted a house "with character". With the advent of modernism came utilitarian approaches to building. Bland houses and apartment complexes that were scarcely above the aesthetic value of things resembling bunkers ensued. Some of the designers were actually opposed to the beauty of what went before.

Modernists tended toward materialism, and intertwined in that were atheism and Darwinism. I think they also sacrificed quality of work. This utilitarian approach is a tenet of evolutionism. While we have ugly buildings and cheapness in construction, there is a bit of a rebellion happening. People want beauty, and the concrete jungles we call cities are having more parks so there is a bit of nature. This is actually good for people. After all, our Creator designed many things to be pleasing to us, his creation. Ever notice that many of the great buildings of the past were made to be beautiful by people with God in their worldviews?
Materialism brought forth modernism, which glorified bland utility. Some want to bring back the Christian virtue of beauty.

Walk through housing tracts and commercial centers built in the first half of the 20th century, and you are likely to get depressed. Plain horizontal lines predominate. Cubical, unimaginative forms with flat roofs and and bare walls devoid of ornamentation draw the eye nowhere. Colorless steel and concrete, far removed from nature, give a feeling of walking in Soviet factory cities. The relationship is as plain as the architecture: materialism brought forth communism as well as modernism. Architects of the period, like German architect Bruno Taut, were on a campaign to destroy beauty:
 To read the rest, click on "Materialism Destroys Beauty".

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

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

The Many Sizes of Catfish

Catfish are considered good eating in the southern United States and are often fried. That should not be surprising since they are found in the Big Muddy (Mississippi) least ways, and this continent has quite a few catfish in rivers and such. By the way, watch out for the dorsal and pectoral fins, because many of them are venomous — some dangerously so, which means get treatment.

Catfish have many sizes and varieties. Many are good eatin', some fit in a home aquarium, others are extremely large. This is variation by design, not evolution.
Credit: Unsplash / Milos Prelevic
Catfish are found on almost every continent in varying sizes and shapes.Aquarium fanciers can have those that are smaller than the ones served up on a plate just before the sweet potato pie is served, and there are also some monsters in the wild. The Mekong Giant Catfish is huge, but endangered, so don't be eating those because they're endangered. Savvy that?

Sometimes people are surprised by new critters, but thousands of species are discovered every year. That means we don't know all there is to know, you know? Places like the Mekong River have more treasures waiting to be discovered, aside from huge catfish.

Proponents of fish-to-fool evolution incorrectly refer to speciation and varieties as evidence for their belief system, but that is not the truth. Creationists agree with speciation, and we know that the Master Engineer built adaptability into the biblical kinds referred to back in Genesis. Genetic information is not being added by "selection" or other unseen forces that Darwin's disciples imagine. Those catfish are not turning into cats, so there is no evolution to see here, folks.
The variation in size among these is extraordinary—one of the greatest ranges within a single order of bony fish (order Siluriformes). The Mekong Giant dwarfs the diminutive cory catfish (Corydoras spp.) at only 8 cm (3 in) or so—ideal for the home aquarium. Some catfish species reach sexual maturity at just 1 cm (0.4 in).
 To read the entire short article, click on "Catfish, big and small".

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

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Antimatter and Baryon Befuddlement

Particle physics is one of those areas that can be useful, but only look good on paper when applied to Big Bang guesswork. Secular cosmologists and cosmogonists are constantly attempting to conjure up rescuing devices for the Big Bang, appealing to their own "miracles" that only make things worse. Antimatter and baryons are bucking broncos that secularists cannot tame.

Baryons are conserved, and the amount of antimatter in the universe cannot be explained by secular imaginings.
Baryon decuplet image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Trassiorf
Sometimes, they simply say that there is a difficulty, such as the baryon asymmetry problem, but they don't let details interfere with good storytelling, yee haw boy howdy! In the case of baryon conservation, there should be equal numbers of matter and antimatter colliding and giving energy. Not happening. That's because the Big Bang did not happen in the first place, and the universe was created by God. That is the logical conclusion, and our Creator told us about it in his written Word.
Everything is made of matter. Matter is made of atoms, and atoms are made of smaller particles. Baryons are one of these subatomic particles, and the most common are protons and neutrons. They’re important because they make up most of the mass in the observable universe.

Baryon Conservation

The conservation of baryons means that the total number of baryons in any given nuclear reaction remains the same. In other words, the initial number of baryons involved in a reaction equals the number of baryons remaining afterward.
The article is short but technical. To read the rest, click on "Baryon Conservation and the Antimatter Mystery".

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

Monday, December 3, 2018

Super-Floods of the Distant Past

Evidence for the Genesis Flood is plentiful. Smaller floods in history show the power that large amounts of fast-moving water.
Our Creator has made himself known. Just look around and see the wonders of his work (Rom. 1:18-23), unless you are suppressing the truth. Likewise, there is a great deal of evidence all around us for the global Genesis Flood. Unfortunately, people prefer atheistic interpretations of geological information and choose to deny the Flood — which is something we were told would happen (1 Peter 2:3-7).

Inselbergs and other planation surfaces might be easily dismissed as anomalies, but they are found all around the world. Fossilization itself is evidence of the Flood as well, since there are billions of things buried all over and this requires a great deal of sediment and quick action. Indeed, secularists believe in long ages despite fossils that are found in "wrong places" according to their paradigm .

There are also many smaller floods to consider. I'll allow that these by themselves are not conclusive proof of the Genesis Flood, they add to the cumulative evidence. Some of them are residual effects of the Flood, such as the Lake Missoula flood,  the formation of the English Channel, and others. These also show the power of large amounts of fast-moving water on smaller scales than the big Flood.

This is where I will turn you over to another article, which is only slightly larger than this introduction. To read that, click on "Power of Past Super-Floods".

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

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Evolutionists and Statements Against Interest

One way to get someone mighty cranky is using his or her words in refutation of a stated position. If you spend some time looking at the sites of creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, you will invariably find quotes of Darwinists that work against evolution. When we do that, screams of "Quote mining!" can be heard at impressive distances.

Evolutionists get upset when creationists use their statements against them. Not only is this legitimate, but it is established in US law.
Made at Atom Smasher
You can often catch owlhoots like that in their double standards when they quote mine the Bible and misrepresent what is written.

I'll allow that some creationists imply that some quotes mean an evolutionists has gone over to creationism, and they should be clear. Imagine:"Fellow scientists, since we have to keep changing the evolutionary timelines every time a discovery is made, we have a serious problem." It would be a mite disingenuous to omit, "However, we still believe in evolution and reject a Creator" in this fictitious example. Illegitimate accusations of quote mining by citing George Wald prompted me to write, "That 'Quote Mining' Monkey Business".

The use of quotes of evolutionists against evolutionism (and atheists against atheism) is completely valid, despite sidewinders like Dan "Don't Quote From My Books Even Though They're For Sale in the Foyer" Barker. In fact, using these quotes correctly parallels US law, a thing called the statement against interest. Something is written or uttered outside the courtroom can be allowed in a proceeding when the statement works against the person making it.
Is it fair to refute evolutionists’ claims with their own words?
“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Yes, it’s fair to counter and judge someone’s argument by their own words. As Christ’s admonition quoted above shows, people invite condemnation by their own words. This applies to controversies involving evidentiary apologetics.
To read the rest, click on "Can and Will Be Used Against You".

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

Friday, November 30, 2018

Incredible Preservation of Lung Tissue

The subject of well-preserved soft tissues in dinosaurs is fascinating (and also infuriating for dust-to-diplodocus evolutionists). Reports of these discoveries in other critters are also noteworthy. Evolutionists have to work from deep time presuppositions, so they are flustered by discoveries that do not fit their worldview.

A bird fossil with remarkably-well preserved soft tissues was found in "dinosaur era" rocks. This further refutes the  dinosaur-to-bird evolution concept.
Archaeorhynchus fossil image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo (CC by-SA 4.0)
One "impossible" fossil discovery is of an arthropod where bits of neural tissue were preserved. Stormie Waters told me that there is considerable consternation up at the Darwin Ranch about another fossil find: a bird. Whether or not scientists are using fossil loosely, to mean permineralized or if the tissues themselves were intact. Either way, soft tissues are delicate things, and a true bird with avian lungs in the "dinosaur age" exists. The feathers were looking mighty good, too. This further refutes the dinosaur-to-bird evolution concept. Both dinosaurs and birds were created recently, evolution is not a factor. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
For the first time, soft tissue showing details of lung structure have been found in a fossil bird said to be 120 million years old.

PNAS just printed a paper with another soft-tissue bombshell: Wang et al., “Archaeorhynchus preserving significant soft tissue including probable fossilized lungs.” It’s not the first fossil of Archaeorhynchus spathula, a pigeon-sized bird sporting a fantail and avian lungs. It’s also not the first fossil with probable lung tissue. It is, however, the first fossil showing details of avian lung tissue so well-preserved as to determine the lung structure. The soft tissue traces appear in pairs, supporting the idea that they are preserved lungs rather than other organs.
To read the rest, click on "Soft Lung Tissue Found in Modern-Looking Bird from Dinosaur Era". Here is a similar article, "Fossilized Bird Lung Inflates Confidence in Creation".

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

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Microbal Disperson and the Genesis Flood

Both creationists and Darwinists study biogeography, which is the dispersal of living things around the globe. Creationists say that critters (more precisely, macroorganisms) dispersed after the Genesis Flood by various means. Some creationary suggestions (such as rafting) have been supported by secular scientists. What about on the microorganism level?

This is a slide culture of a Streptomyces sp. bacteria, which had been cultivated on tap water agar.
Credit: CDC / Dr. David Berd (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Microbes do not have a history of traveling well, but many of the same kinds (biblical kinds apply here as well as on the macroorganism level). The paper linked below discusses how evolutionists cannot explain the biogeography of microorganisms, but the Genesis Flood is the most plausible model. It is rather technical and lengthy, but people with knowledge of science can still get something out of it as well as those with advanced training.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the claims made within microbial biogeography to see how Noah’s Flood applies to it. In this paper, there will not be a treatment of all ecosystems, but more of a focus on soil ecosystems. To do this, the fossil record is surveyed as scientific evidence for a global Flood. Then, a brief survey of macroorganisms and microorganisms are offered to highlight apparent discrepancies in biogeography. From the discussion of microorganism biogeography, a definition of the microbial kind is proposed around the family or genus level. Having established the microbial kind, different dispersal mechanisms are evaluated for their plausibility in providing the global distribution of the microbial kind over land (which is discussed next). Then, the biblical case for Noah’s Flood becomes the primary mechanism in place for producing global biogeography of the microbial kind in soils. A model for the Flood as a mechanism of microbial biogeography is offered with a specific case study in the soil bacteria Streptomyces. Finally, evidence from microbial biogeography is briefly discussed in terms of competing worldviews.
To read the entire paper, click on "Living Evidence of a Global Catastrophe: How Microbial Biogeography Supports Noah’s Flood".

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

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Genetic Human Experimentation and Ethics

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Big news from Hong Kong. An announcement made in Hong Kong on Monday, November 26, 2018, that He Jiankui used CRISPR gene editing technology to produce the first modified babies. Many scientists are outraged. This kind of "medical research" is, to be blunt, human experimentation. It is also illegal in the United States and other parts of the world.

An announcement in China involves the birth of genetically modified babies. Such activity is illegal and considered unethical in most of the world, and many serious considerations are raised.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
A large part of the concern involves ethics. Some American scientists are upset that we did not do it first because we would have done it right. It sounds like their teeth are on edge from sour grapes at not being the first to succeed. Would they have done the genetic altering more ethically? That'll be the day! These people want laws changed to break "biological shackles" for their experimentation.

Bible-believing Christians know that people are created in the image of God. Materialists have a worldview that advocate Scientism and evolution, and they reduce humans to mere biological functions. Their view of ethics does not have a consistent moral foundation, so it would not be surprising to this child to learn that secular scientists in the West modified their ethics as well as the genes of children. Indeed, they are not meddling with the immediate child or children, but subsequent generations.

Complaints of secular scientists do not hold much credibility when given examination, especially their actions and attitudes in recent history. This kind of thing has serious ramifications, and such tinkering will only escalate since our Creator is not allowed in the lab. Someday , such science may become Orwellian. It is getting closer to that in China, since they are far less opposed to ethical and moral considerations in science. Not surprising, since China is known for trampling human rights in general.

The inspiration for this article came from an insightful podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. I'd be much obliged if you'd read the transcript or listen to it. To do so, click and look for "As scientist claims first babies have been born using gene-editing technology CRISPR, the ethical implications are massive". The rest of the podcast should be mighty interesting for you as well. 

This article may be expanded later if additional relevant information becomes available.

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

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

The Engineered Adaptability of Sorghum

Many of us are familiar with having syrup on our flapjacks or splurging on the sweeter (but more expensive) real maple syrup. Ever had sorghum syrup? It is similar to molasses and can be quite sweet, to go easy on it until you know what you want. There are other uses for this flowering grain that is in the grass family. Some varieties of this genus can grow as tall as an adult. Sorghum has many uses including cereal and feed for livestock. It also has a way of thwarting evolutionary tales.

Sorghum is drought-resistant. Researchers have seen the relationship between microbes on the roots and how they all adapt to drought conditions.
Sorghum crop near the coastal town of Ayr in central Queensland
Credit: CSIRO /  John Coppi (CC by 3.0)
This stuff is resistant to drought, which is one reason it is popular in many parts of the world. Research on Sorghum bicolor shows that when it detects a drought coming on, it changes its root system to compensate. Microbes on the roots that have had the pleasure of a mutually-beneficial relationship fade away, and other microbes take over. And back again, as needed. Proselytizers of particles-to-plant evolution can only hem and haw, offering no reasonable model or explanation for this activity. Yet again, we see that the Master Engineer has designed something to adapt to its environment.
The drought tolerance of a popular grain, sorghum, makes it an important global food crop. A recent study finds that sorghum manipulates soil conditions to promote a beneficial change in the microbes living on its roots when water is scarce. The complex systems conferring such tight cooperation between plants and microbes point to a wise Creator for their origin far more reasonably than the mystical scenarios invoking strong “positive” and “negative” selection events offered by the researchers.
To read the rest, click on "Sorghum and Bacteria Cooperative Design".

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

Monday, November 26, 2018

Secular Miracles for the Big Bang

If you use a common but erroneous secular definition of miracle as meaning, "Something is impossible, but it happens anyway", then Big Bang stories are loaded with them. The original Big Bang has been patched together like a Frankenstein's monster and has little resemblance to the original tale. Since it does not work, secularists resort to Making Things Up™ and buffaloing the public with cosmic evolution stories.

The Big Bang does not work. To rescue it, secularists use propaganda and appeal to their own version of "miracles".
Image derived from a NASA illustration
(Usage of original does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Atheists have their own secular "miracles", and secular cosmologists add ponies to the miracle corral as well. Apparatchiks will come up with big talk about how the Big Bang has answers to all sorts of cosmogony questions — except when they don't. For that matter, they invoke bad science and secular miracles to explain the origin of our lil' ol' solar system.) Quite a lot of work to deny the work of the Creator.
A leading cosmologist’s account of the current big bang theory makes no sense unless the hearer is already committed to believing it.

. . .
Sutter is an astrophysicist at Ohio State University, and a popularizer of astronomy for radio, tours and magazines. He begins with his typical dramatic flair, glamorizing the big bang theory . . .
. . .
Maybe you have been in a situation where someone makes a presentation, talks up his project or widget, gets everybody excited, then says, “There’s just one little problem….” He proceeds to mention a difficulty that is fatal to the project, undermining all the prior hype. That’s what Sutter does next:
To find out what this is all about, click on "Big Bang Cosmology Needs Miracles". You may also like Dr. Henry Richter's article, "The frantic search for extraterrestrial life".

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

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Dating Methods, Archaeology, and the Bible

Archaeology is a fascinating area of study when it is used properly. It is certainly something I would not want to do, what with carefully digging in specific areas and examining things in the rain, under the hot sun, and so on. Be careful, can't break something important! My back wouldn't tolerate that. (Even more challenging by my way for reckoning is underwater archaeology.) Originally, archaeologists knew that the Bible was accurate, but secularists would still try to find excuses to scoff at it.

Although the Bible has been proven reliable, archaeologists use flawed secular methods to obtain inaccurate results.
Credit: US National Park Service
One famous case was that of the Hittites. People would say something to the effect of, "Archaeology has never found the Hittites, therefore, the Bible is wrong." That is an inexcusably fallacious argument from silence. It ignores the antiquity of the regions, and the fact that some folks are so selfish, they actually build homes and cities where archaeologists want to excavate. The nerve of some people, living and stuff. By the way, the "no Hittites found" remark was made even more foolish by the discovery of those ancient Hittites.

There are archaeological digs in places that have comparatively recent history, and many are supplemented by eyewitness accounts. Obviously, the further back you go, the more uncertain the dating can be. Then archaeologists bring in uncertain dating methods. The results obtained often conflict with history, such as the Viking bones in England.

What about the dates in the Bible as opposed to carbon-14 dating? Since the Bible has many details about dates, we can get a pretty good idea of when certain things happened. Of course, some owlhoots will say, "The Chinese civilization is older than the fairytales about your God that were written down by illiterate goat herders!" Good going, Poindexter. You just negated all historical writing by indicating it had to be written by eyewitnesses. Worse, you presuppose that the Bible is wrong and that the carbon-14, dendrochronology, and other dating methods of secularists are always right. Instead of using the eyewitness accounts in the Bible, secular scientists prefer their erroneous dating methods. This is probably because their ways are "more scientific" because they help support deep time speculations. We presuppose the truth of the Bible, which is self-affirming.
But what of claims of civilisations that, according to the biblical timeline, would pre-date the Flood? Is it reasonable to accept that a wheel discovered in Slovenia is between 5,100 and 5,350 years old, or that agriculture flourished and building projects were undertaken 12,000 years ago? Are these dates still in the biblical ‘ball-park’? Where do we draw the line when archaeologists claim that the oldest pottery is 18,300 years old, or the remains of “Mungo Man”, (the first reported Australian human), are 62,000 years old? Are these more recent ‘dates’ derived by more reliable methods than the highly questionable radiometric dating techniques used to argue that rocks are millions of years old?
To read the entire article, click on "How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible".

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

Friday, November 23, 2018

Engineered Adaptability through Logic

Some folks get a mite intimidated by the subject of logic, expecting highfalutin philosophical lingo and such. We are not going into that, even though it can be interesting. Everyone uses logic, but most do not even realize it. It is also the basis of computers and other electronic equipment.

Darwin was wrong. Instead of organisms responding to "pressures" that cause change, they were designed to adapt. Living things even use logic switches, all the way down to the cellular level!
Original image from Clker clipart, then modified
The basis for logic in electronics is very binary. Zero or one, on or off, yes or no, and so on. Contingencies are built on that ("If yes, then do this thing, else do something else") based on the sophistication of programs. It is amazing that living things have built-in logic systems.


The continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is being designed by the Institute for Creation Research is demonstrating that Darwin was wrong. He utilized pantheism, such as external "forces", natural selection, and vague "pressures" to cause organisms to evolve. In reality, organisms are designed to adapt by the Master Engineer through internal mechanisms. Living creatures have internal logic switches all the way down to the cellular level.
When it comes to the biological function of adaptability, ICR’s model hypothesizes that if human engineers can use a tracking system to detect and maintain surveillance of a moving target, then creatures could employ a similar strategy to track and adapt to changing conditions. Human-engineered tracking systems incorporate three well-matched elements: input sensors, programmed logic mechanisms to regulate an internal selection of adaptable responses, and output “actuators” to execute responses.

Research demonstrates that organisms utilize these same elements to track changing conditions and produce highly regulated, targeted results that are typically characterized as rapid and repeatable.1 A previous article in this series discussed the key role of the sensors creatures use to track changing conditions. Three take-home lessons were:
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Logic Mechanisms Direct Creatures' Innate Adaptability".

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

Thursday, November 22, 2018

Giving Thanks to our Creator

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although this is Thanksgiving Day in these here United States, this article is not only for today, nor is it just for Americans. People get overwrought about their concerns (some of them are mighty small if you get the right perspective), and we tend to shilly-shally about thanking God for the things we do have.

It is Thanksgiving Day in America, but giving thanks to God applies to everyone. Not just on this one day, either.
Credit: Unsplash / Priscilla Du Preez
Some of us commence to feasting with our friends and kinfolk, watch the Big Game, doze off (blaming it on the nonexistent "turkey coma"), have a few laughs, and saddle up for home. I hope y'all thanked your hosts for the victuals and hospitality. Did you say a prayer of thanks earlier? Just curious. Some people get their Thanksgiving meal at the homeless shelter. No, I'm not feeling bad about the good things I have, and neither should you. Just giving a bit of perspective.

There's something called grace.

"She passed away thirty years ago, Cowboy Bob!"

No, I'm not talking about a person. It gets a mite confusing, and mayhaps someone can explain it to me simple-like so I can understand it better. What I do understand is that the grace of God is a free gift; it is his unmerited favor that cannot be earned. God set the stars in the sky, made the sun and moon, established laws of physics, gave us understanding of the laws of logic, lets the rain fall on the just and the unjust —all of this is called common grace. Atheists mock God, and too many of God's people want the gifts, but not the Giver of gifts (Rom. 1: 19, 21). I reckon that when we are ungrateful for God's gifts, we are being like unbelievers, saying in our hearts that there is no God (Psalm 14:1). That is, when we take God's grace for granted or choose to sin against him, we are acting like he is not there. You savvy that?

We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9), even though we deserve death (Rom. 3:23). Salvation is his gift (Rom. 5:8, Rom. 6:23) and we become children of God (John 1:12). Jesus died on the cross for your sins and mine. He was buried and then bodily rose from the dead on the third day, defeating death. God's justice requires Hell for us because we are all wretched sinners, but in his mercy (giving us what we do not deserve), we can repent and have eternal life. When Christians sin, we can make things right with God (1 John 1:9). Giving thanks to God is important! Learn a bit about how thankfulness is expressed in Scripture. It is seen in the Psalms, and look for the word "thanks" in the New Testament as well. 

Followers of Jesus have been redeemed by the blood of God the Son, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Stop and ponder all that he has done for you, and give thanks.

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

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Dance of the Binary Stars

You may not realize it, but when you look up at the stars and say, "That one there!", there is a good chance that it is a binary system. Yes, there are quite a few pairs of stars. Secular cosmologists base their speculations on the Big Bang and assume that the universe is billions of years old. From there, they work up to the idea that binary star systems are very old. That is not necessarily the case.

Secular cosmologists believe that binary stars develop over billions of years because of the Big Bang. Creation science research shows that is not the case.
Credit: NASA, ESA, H. Bond (STScI), and M. Barstow (University of Leicester)
via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

While all scientists work from their presuppositions, scientists can also be hindered by them. Why investigate when you "know" what is happening? There are several instances of creationists doing research and upsetting various evolutionary ideas — including stellar evolution.

Another atheopath troll making up his own reality (click for full size)

Binary stars are fun for both professional and amateur astronomers because they can see the changes in them. In their dance, they eclipse each other and transfer energy. This slows them down in their orbits, and this has been seen to occur much more rapidly than is expected in deep time conjectures. The actual results indicate a much younger universe than secularists want to believe.
The variation in a binary star’s apparent brightness during an eclipse reveals helpful details about both stars, including their temperature, atmosphere, geometry, mass, and much more. Without binary stars, we could only guess what the nature of stars is! We find that they are suns similar to our own, burning in the heavens!

As a creationist who believes God created the universe only a few thousand years ago, I have discovered that these fascinating two-in-one stars shed light on another aspect of our vast, mysterious universe. These stars must be young . . . a finding that undermines deep time theories of binary star evolution!
To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "New Light from Binary Stars".

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

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Replay the Tape of Life

Two main philosophies in evolutionism seem to be contradictory, but some folks try to marry them up anyhow. One of these is contingency, where many factors influence evolution and no one can predict what will happen. They must be annoyed with other evolutionists who (falsely) claim to have made evolutionary predictions.

Two main philosophies in evolution are at odds, and pantheism is more blatant.
Credit: Pixabay / Joshua Wilson (modified)
The opposite view is structuralism, where the universe causes biology to make certain kinds of organisms. Natural selection is given credit for making choices and having directionality. You can see why paganism and goddess worship are more blatant in evolutionary "science" nowadays, and that any kind of design has nothing to do with the Master Engineer. Whatever philosophy these secularists choose, they are still working on a form of the satirical-but-accurate Stuff Happens Law.
Similar features show up in evolutionary-unrelated groups. What does this mean?

Stephen Jay Gould famously asked what what happen in evolution if one could “replay the tape of life” and start over. Would humans result, or would the products of natural selection be unrecognizable? Gould strongly defended the latter position. He even doubted that intelligence or consciousness would emerge.
To read the rest, click on "Does the Stuff Happens Law Converge?"

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

Monday, November 19, 2018

Insects, Arachnids, and Surviving Cold Weather

Here in the Northern Hemisphere, winter is about a month away according to the calendar — as if seasons actually obeyed calendars. Meanwhile, the Southern Hemisphere is anticipating spring. Various creatures have to deal with the weather if they live in areas of extreme temperatures. 

Various creatures have ways of adapting to extreme cold when they have to. Have you wondered about those crawling and flying things?
Winter NightKonstantin Korovin, 1910
If you think on it for a spell, you might get to wondering why there are so many different ways that living things survive the cold. Not many can stay indoors and watch a John Wayne picture like I can. Seems like if evolution were true, there would be some uniformity for survival, but all we hear is something like, "EvolutionDidIt". The Master Engineer seems to like variety. Some creatures have a kind of antifreeze, like the Eastern box turtle or Antarctic icefish, for example. What about insects and arachnids? They have their ways as well.
On hot July days you might miss winter’s chill. In higher latitudes, however, it’s the coldness that needs mitigation. For example, Arctic insects and arachnids are cold-blooded, so freezing to death is a real possibility!
How can insects and arachnids withstand frigid forces of frost and freezing The answer highlights a strong apologetics argument for creation. Evolutionists are routinely guilty of the oversimplification fallacy, as if creature survival traits implement “one size fits all” simplicity.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Withstanding Winter Weather".

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

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Psychology, Creation, and Awe

A university science project had a good start but was very incomplete. The students wanted to study awe. Different people have a sense of awe in different ways. Saddle up and ride over to the Grand Canyon in Arizona, or maybe venture to Victoria Falls on the  Zambezi River. Perhaps kayaking in Norway will do it for you. I get a sense of awe looking up at the night sky and thinking about our Creator's handiwork. But how can someone measure awe?

University students did a psychological study on the nature of awe. Psychology attempts to replace Christianity with its own materialistic, atheistic, and evolutionary views.
Credit: Freeimages / Henning W. Smith
The university study looked good at first, but there were many variables that needed to be included. In addition, psychology is by its nature evolutionary, atheistic, and materialistic , so the research was biased in that direction. Also, it can be debated whether or not psychology as a whole is a science. Worse, psychologists attempt to replace Christianity and creation with a false religion. Awe can best be experienced by getting in touch with the Creator and praising his work.
Psychologists get their hands into everything, but the objectivity of their science is questionable.

People are complex beings. They can be manipulated, but they can also resist manipulation. It’s impossible to know all the background factors and variables they may exhibit in certain situations. Let’s see how well science can measure “awe” – which psychologists at the University of Buffalo took on as a science project. Did they gather true knowledge, or just buffalo their readers?
To read the rest, click on "Can Psychology Measure Awe?"

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

Friday, November 16, 2018

The Science of Cuteness

Most of us have probably had the experience of approaching a group of people that are raving about how something is so cute and adorable. They are often excited about a baby, whether human or otherwise, or a pet. Those adjectives are subjective; cutness is often in the eye of the beholder. However, we seem to have an innate reaction to young'uns. Part of this may be a reaction to their helplessness.

Basement Cat is "cute-ing", as I call it.
Cat experts claim that laying on the back like this is a sign of trust and contentment.
Aside from making with the cooing sounds, responding to something we find as cute actually has an emotionar reaction within us to protect, and also releases the hormone oxytocin, which is good for us.  Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution basically say EvolutionDidIt in their homage to Darwin, but they really have no idea why we react to cuteness.

Biblical creationists have a far different take on our reactions. Before I continue, I want to mention that when I submitted an article, I was cautioned against asserting that a benefit (in this case, our response to cuteness) is really the result of the Master Engineer's design. We can infer and draw from other lines of reasoning, but should be careful about asserting too forcefully. That said, there are indications that our Creator did indeed have a purpose for our responses. One of these is that he facilitates relationships, and wants us to have empathy for creatures under our care.
How did you respond the last time you saw an adorable bunny, a rambunctious kitty, a big-eyed bear cub, or a delightful puppy? Your warm feelings are no accident. Scientists are discovering that everyone (or nearly everyone) has them.

. . .

Meanwhile, the pet industry is booming. Other organizations are dedicated entirely to rescuing abused animals. Commercials tug at our heart-strings and provoke outrage simply by showing a needy animal.

. . .

Have you ever wondered why we find certain animals so adorable? Interestingly, this question has spurred much curiosity in both the creation and evolution communities. The evolutionist wonders what survival benefits “adorable” imparts to an organism. A creationist wonders if the Creator intentionally included cute in His plan for creation.
To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "The Science of Adorable".

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

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Searching for Space Aliens Increasingly Preposterous

Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass have been gnawing on the peyote buttons. Huge amounts of money are being spent on SETI and other efforts to find their imaginary friends: space aliens. They reckon that if intelligent life is out there, wants to be found, and has a hankering to talk with us, that would justify their faith in evolution and rejection of the Creator.

The SETI cult is getting more outlandish in its unscientific speculations.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach (click for larger)
After all, since life cannot happen by chance here, so it must have happened out there and made its way here later. That does not solve the abiogenesis problem. I heard a phrase that applies: they're just kicking the can down the road. The SETI people are acting like a cult, using intelligently-designed equipment to search for signs of intelligence from creatures that were supposedly not formed by intelligence.

A "study" suggests that aliens might be purple. Why is that? What is the evidence, since nobody has actually had one come up and say, "Howdy! I'm not from around these parts, I'm from way far away up yonder." The MeerKAT radio telescope array is going to be more accurate in searching for — they don't rightly know. No, wait! Dark matter and dark energy (occult forces of physics that have never been seen) may have the answer. Some French folks say that just because we don't find aliens, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Funny how ghost searchers can't use that logic, or if we use it on atheists who reject evidence for God, they ridicule the statement.

That interstellar asteroid ‘Oumuamua cruised within telescope range and then took off for parts unknown. Scientists still do not know what it is, especially since it didn't move in an expected manner. Is it an asteroid? A comet? Maybe it's an alien probe that's just passing through. Or a different kind of alien spacecraft that was using a kind of sail technology. Could it be a probe using a sail?

You can read about these items and more by clicking on "SETI: A Fact-Free Occult Cult with Money". Also recommended: "The Origin of Life Circus Adds Old and New Acts". Remember, people get paid for making unsupportable statements and calling them "science", especially when it promotes the Bearded Buddha.

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