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

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Desperately Seeking Evolutionary Fish Legs

Darwinism is based on faith and wishful thinking, not science
Many people are familiar with the fish outline emblem that many Christians have on their autos, shirts, sites, and so forth. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have their versions as well, used to mock Christians. The most common of these is the fish with legs (some have "Darwin" stylistically imposed in them). This implies, "I don't believe in God the Creator, I believe in science!" They promote their views religiously.

There are some problems with the "Darwin fish" idea. Most notably, it began before there was anything to present as evidence for the mythology that life began in the sea, a fish flopped onto land, developed legs, and began evolving into the many critters we have today, as well as humans. They believe in the walking fish thing despite lack of evidence. That's not science, Skippy, that's blind faith.

Here we go again. I have to take us on a side trail for a few moments, so just ride along for a spell. There is often a problem with definitions. Regular readers know that I emphasize the fallacy of equivocation, the bait 'n' switch trick that atheists and evolutionists pull. If you have your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll see that when variations in organisms are observed, they are falsely called "evolution" (which is used to imply that Darwin was right). So, we have to nail down which definition of evolution is being employed.

Reminds me of the joke about the Buddhist that bought a newspaper. He asked the vendor, "Where's my change?", and the vendor reminded him that change comes from within. Ambiguity on the definition of change, you see.

Similarly, we are told that fish can walk. Tiktaalik was used as an example as a transitional form, rejected, but a few die-hards tried to bring it back. Interestingly, some owlhoots didn't get the memo, and try to tell creationists that it is still valid. Not hardly! But remember, definitions matter. What do they mean by walk? It is an extremely complicated and profoundly engineered process, even in humans. Flopping from one pond to another can hardly be considered "walking", old son. Also, legs themselves are quite detailed, and bumps or protrusions are not legs except in the imaginations of fundamentalist evolutionists.

Okay, we're back to the main trail. Darwin lived in the land of wishful thinking, because he knew that evidence was lacking or even in opposition to his speculations. Even today, the faithful grasp at straws and play weasel word games, but Darwin still fails big time. Again, that stuff is blind faith, not science. The evidence supports special creation, not the false god of evolutionism.
The Darwin Fish scientific method: Draw a fish. Draw legs on it to mock Christians who use it as a symbol. Then furiously hunt for evidence that a fish with feet existed.

Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales. The belief came prior to any evidence for fish with feet, because Darwin complained about the lack of transitional forms in his Origin of Species. He knew that most species appear abruptly in the rocks, and that his needed transitional forms were not found: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” he said (Origin 6th ed., p. 280). He did not, therefore, even speculate about how fish evolved into land creatures, although he hoped that transitional fossils would turn up some day.
To read the rest, click on "The Evolution of the Darwin Fish". Also, you may want to see "The False Evolutionary Icon of Walking Fish".

Source for the main part of the image at the top was found at Openclipart, then modified.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Western Australia and the Genesis Flood

Critics of Genesis Flood geology base their complaints on uniformitarian processes, and most seem unwilling to consider what creationary scientists have to present. I have even seen some owlhoots that claim that there are no models for Flood geology, while at the same time refusing to examine models that have been presented. Essentially, biblical creationists are wrong because evolution. After all, Darwin's philosophies require deep time, and scoffers don't cotton to evidence for the recent creation and the global Flood. They just "know" that biblical creationists are wrong. No logic nor education needed.

Land features in the western area of Australia fit the Genesis Model quite well
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
I reckon the best way to test a model is to see if it can deal with observed data. Australia is, according to Ray Comfort, an island off the coast of New Zealand. (Well, I think that's funny.) Although an island, it is the smallest continent, "small" being relative, because it's still a mighty big place. It is also the flattest and driest inhabited continent. To limit our focus, we can examine the western area. Land features are not very well explained by uniformitarian geology, but fit global Flood geology quite nicely. Let's take a look.
The geology of south-west Western Australia is characterized by exposed continental cratons, thick sedimentary deposits, vertical crustal tectonics, and widespread erosion. The timing of these features can be connected to the sequence of hydraulic and tectonic processes that occurred during the biblical Flood. The period during which the waters of Noah’s Flood were rising on the earth was marked by widespread deposition of thick sediments across the continent. The following period, when the waters of the Flood receded into the newly forming oceans, was dominated by erosion that planed kilometres of sediment from the cratons. The transition between these two periods was marked by vertical tectonics, initiating the opening of the Indian Ocean, the uplift of the continent, and the return of the floodwaters into the sea. This Flood interpretation was facilitated by connecting the processes identified in a biblical geological model with published geological cross-sections and other geological data for the region.
To read the rest, click on "Recessive Stage of Flood began in the mid-Cretaceous and eroded kilometres of sediment from continent".

Monday, February 26, 2018

Wisdom Teeth are not Evidence of Evolution

There are several things that are considered vestigial structures (or organs), which are essentially remnants of our alleged molecules-to-man evolutionary past. Part of this is because secular scientists presume Darwinism, and do not consider that the Master Engineer created organisms, and the parts therein, for specific purposes. Instead, they assume that if they cannot determine a purpose, then it must be leftover junk. Not hardly!

One of the false evidence for evolution presented is wisdom teeth
Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
Evolutionists have embarrassed themselves and misled the public about the appendix, tonsils were routinely removed, parts of the genome that were not understood were called "junk" DNA, and so on. Also, wisdom teeth. Those have been removed many times, but it is often an unnecessary surgery.


There can be complications, but I'll allow they are seldom life-threatening. But still, unnecessary surgeries are unethical — albeit profitable. As far as their putative evolutionary past — hang on, that bronco's a-bucking!
Most people know wisdom teeth as those back molars that have to be taken out during high school or college. Whether you happen to be one of the few blessed people that never got any, whether they came in straight or whether you had them extracted, those old enough can all relate to them on some level. Personally, mine came in straight, and I never had any problems, but I have removed dozens of wisdom teeth on patients.
Why do we humans have so many problems with wisdom teeth? And does this imply a poor design by the Creator? In mainstream scientific thinking, wisdom teeth in humans are regarded as nothing more than unnecessary, evolutionary leftovers, useless remnants of mutation and natural selection. The term vestigial organs is a term commonly applied to wisdom teeth, which, in a subtle way, connotes these evolutionary sentiments. 
To gnaw on the rest of the article, click on "Are Wisdom Teeth Evidence for Evolution?"

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Sneaky Eugenics Conference

Back in the early 20th century, social Darwinism had a branch of "science" called eugenics. People wanted to be all sciency and stuff, so they accepted this method of evolutionary thinking. Essentially, the "unfit" were forcibly sterilized, or at least strongly discouraged from reporducing. Racist Maggie Sanger started Planned Parenthood to help eliminate black people through abortion. Eventually, Hitler took eugenics to its logical conclusion, which caused folks to shy away from that pseudoscience for a while.

Eugenics is still with us, but sometimes adherents choose to be deceptive
Colorized version of the International Eugenics Conference logo
But since evil Darwinian thinking persists, eugenics never completely went away. Some owlhoots try to deny social Darwinism, and even make up their own "facts":

This is the opposite of the truth. Liar? Uninformed? Anxious to contradict the st00pid creationist?
My vote is the first and third: lying, and desiring to contradict. Especially since he deleted the
Tweet after I said I would use it after I caught him lying; he deleted it and blocked me.

Sometimes, eugenics hides under different names (sort of like atheists calling themselves "brights" and so forth), but it's still just putting lipstick on a pig. Recently, a "London Conference on Intelligence" was held, but it was just another eugenics conference. Dishonesty promoting evolutionary thinking is consistent with such a wicked worldview, but some folks objected. Interesting, did anyone ask who decides the criteria as to who is unfit, and why? They don't seem to consider that life was designed by God, and that we are created in his image.
A breaking news story by the London Student in early January exposed a “secret” eugenics conference held annually at University College London (UCL) since 2014. The article clearly expressed indignation over the idea that some people still advocate for state-manipulated human reproductive practices. But similar outrage over the same disregard for human life sanctioned by the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision 45 years earlier on January 22 was strikingly absent from the report.
 To read the rest, click on "Secret Eugenics Conference Has Dark Darwinian Roots".

Friday, February 23, 2018

Secularists Still Confounded over Moon Origins

Know why adherents of long ages have so many speculations about the origins of the moon? Because none of them work. An idea gets the limelight for a while, gets shot down, someone dreams up a new lunar origin story and leads a cavalry charge to promote it, then that fizzles as well. After the scenario happens a few times, secular scientists try to prop up the best of the hypotheses that failed previously.

None of the secular science lunar origins stories fit the facts.
Silvery Moonlight, John Atkinson Grimshaw, 1882
The most popular view is that our moon was formed by an impact in the thrilling days of yesteryear, according to Darwinist time and assumptions. Even though water was found in lunar rocks, the impact concept was still embraced. The whole thing requires a bit of dealing from the bottom of the deck, but the impact thing still fails. Any cosmic evolution idea fails because none of them deal with the facts. Truth is, the solar system was created relatively recently, and the evidence is a far better fit for the facts.
Science built on naturalism has always struggled with the origin of our nearest neighbour, the moon. Three competing ideas have previously been suggested, only to all be shown to be highly improbable. These comprise the fission theory, in which the moon separated from the earth; the capture theory, in which the earth captured a wandering moon; and the condensation theory, in which the earth and moon formed from the condensation of the same dust cloud. Researchers rarely leave a theoretical vacuum.

After these ideas were disproved, planetary scientists invented the idea that the moon formed after a collision between the earth and a Mars-sized object. It is called the ‘giant impact hypothesis’ and has been the reigning model for the past 30 years. Some have come to believe this hypothesis as a fact.
To read the rest, click on "Confusion over moon origins — Naturalistic origin of the moon comes under hard times". You may also want to read about a new candidate at "Guessing Again about the Moon's Origin".

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Origin of the Terms "Operational" and "Historical" Science

Seems that some advocates of universal common ancestor evolution get on the prod and feel the urge to contradict almost anything a biblical creationists or Intelligent Design proponent has to say. Some, although uneducated, will even argue with evolutionary scientists who agree with creationists (such as the owlhoot who refuses reasons that neither side of the origins controversy expects dinosaur fossils in the Grand Canyon. Interesting that the demoniac who continually attacks creationists on that matter does not challenge evolutionists). They must contradict and attack, it's who they are and what they do. Gotta protect that Darwinian death cult, don'tcha know.

Similarly, if you disagree with an atheist's arbitrary assertions and definitions of "reality" (long ages, no God, evolution, etc.), expect to be ridiculed. Not only your intelligence, but your morality as well: you are lying to distort reality. They can't defend their positions further than "because atheism", but you and I are still wrong. Right out of the Alinsky (and possibly Lenin) playbook, atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists accuse others of what they are doing. "Liar! Reality denier!" See how that works?

A common complaint is along the lines of, "You made that up!" I was accused of coining the words atheopath and atheopathy, but if people had saddled up their search engine ponies, they'd have found that these came from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (see footnote 1 here). There was another mindless attack, claiming that "YECs" invented the term archaic humans. (Someone decided to slap leather with that Darwin bot, proved him wrong, and suggested that he use the internet before he starts making foolish statements. So, the one who lost that shoot-out commenced to spamming folks in a desperate attempt to regain his nonexistent credibility. But I digress. Again.) Interesting that people do not complain about others who make up words, such as when Clinton Richard Dawkins' meme, and William Shakespeare invented words as well. So wordsmithing, in itself, is not necessarily a problem.

Anti-creationists falsely accuse creationists of making up words and phrases
Technician conducting experiments in CSIRO laboratories at Griffith, NSW. 1995.
Credit: CSIRO (CC BY 3.0)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents

The focus here is on the origins of the terms operational science and historical (or origins) science. Anti-creationists have made the uninformed assertion similar to the jasper mentioned earlier, that creationists made up the terms. Some say that it was done to influence people's thinking, which is an appeal to motive fallacy, and is unproved.

If creationists did come up with the distinction and the wording, so what? The distinctions are valid and even useful. Even so, those distinctions existed for a long time, and the current usage seems to be traceable back to the 1980s. It wasn't created by biblical creationists, either. Not that such a thing should matter.
Recently, some revisionist historians have attempted to label the terms origin science or historical science as YEC inventions for the sole purpose of discrediting evolution. If this is not a direct accusation, then it is at least a statement that YECs use these terms as a wedge to make a distinction between historical sciences versus operational science, so as to cause people to reject the age of the earth, while still affirming experimental science and technology. A recent example is an article on the BioLogos website titled “Is Historical Science Reliable?” Another strategy is to create strawman arguments and make the blanket claim that YECs are saying that science cannot tell us anything about what happened in the past, and that to make such claims would deny us the ability to know anything about the past, including even what we ate for breakfast. But is this really a fair argument?
To read the rest, click on "First Usage of Origins vs. Operational Science". I recommend that you save the link for future reference.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Mice Exhibit Gene Control Design

We have been seeing how Darwin and his followers have been using externalism, saying that external forces cause change in living things. They have it wrong. Taking the perspective that organisms are designed to change by the Master Engineer all the way down to genetics and epigenetics. Additional support for this view comes from analysis of the way mice digest food. 

Analysis of mouse digestion illustrates engineered adaptability given by the Creator
Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry
Some detailed research on the squeaky little critters' innards was conducted and led to some interesting results. "Epigenetic markers" work outside the genetic code, and show that these switches operate even with environmental changes. This adds to our knowledge that creatures were designed to adapt to continue to live in a changing world.
Darwin proposed that evolution happens externally, that the environment shapes organisms. But a growing amount of evidence suggests the opposite: Most changes happen because the organisms themselves sense, and react to, the environment. Thus, adaptation occurs internally because of superior design, not externally as a result of natural selection. A new report on gene regulation in mice intestines adds to the evidence of internal adaptation and design.
Previous research on mice intestine cells established that, as these cells absorb and process different nutrients from the gut, they rapidly express various metabolic proteins in order to accurately match specific nutrients. If this observation was analyzed from a design standpoint, it would suggest that there should be an innate cellular system to link the detection of specific available nutrients in the gut lumen to some type of logic mechanism regulating the cell’s genes to produce specific proteins.
To chew on the rest, click on "Gene Control in Mice Points Toward Design". 

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

"Junk" DNA Similar to Computer Memory?

One trait that atheists and evolutionists have when encountering information regarding intelligent design (especially from biblical creationists) is to ignore it and attack. For example, a recent post about the follies of secular astronomical predictions was ignored by an uneducated tinhorn who wanted to be smarter than everyone else in the room — he wanted to talk about an asteroid instead. Similarly, we get challenged at The Question Evolution Project by atheopaths who ignore the content of the posts, change the subject and (wait for it...) attack. It's who they are and what they do. As we shall see, this kind of thing happens in professional circles as well as from social media nitwits.

Evolutionists attack but are given the inconvenient facts and are refuted

The book Contested Bones dealt with, well, bones. Three pages of it involved other failures of evolution. What's a fundamentalist Darwinoid to do except ignore the majority of the text and attack those three pages? Sure, that's how scientific discourse works in the secular world nowadays. The complaint was yet another bit of dysteleology (we looked at this concept regarding the panda's "thumb"), where "We reject the Creator, but he wouldn't do it that way, therefore, evolution. Here, the risible claim is that there is too much redundancy in DNA.

After this nonsensical argument based on personal preference, ignorance, and prejudicial conjecture, I would have moved on. Well, maybe I would have added that even if the claim was true, computer systems have redundancy, and we're talking about life here. That's my opinion.

However, in the spirit of Proverbs 26:5, the challenges were answered with some devastating material. Seems like secularists would learn to clam up instead of getting mouthy with their uninformed personal opinions about things like DNA, which are not fully understood. Turns out that this "junk" DNA works like computer memory. Uh, oh. The Master Engineer is vindicated again, and evolutionists are refuted as usual.
Chris Rupe co-authored the book Contested Bones with John Sanford to tell about the inadequate evidence for human evolution. The book is almost entirely about bones and the fossil record, but there are 3 pages in that book that refute claims by evolutionary biologists that the human genome is badly designed because of repetitive DNA elements known as Alus.

Some 10-11% of the human genome is composed of repeats of a specific 300-base pattern called an Alu. Evolutionists claim this is bad design. Their reasoning goes something like this: ‘You only need one copy of a phone book in a house, maybe a few at most, certainly not millions of copies. Therefore the 1 million copies of Alus in the human genome is worthless junk. It doesn’t even code for something. Therefore Alus are bad design. Since it’s bad design, there is no reason to believe there is an Intelligent Designer.”
To read the rest or listen to the audio version, click on "Some ‘Junk DNA’ May Act as Computer Memory".

Monday, February 19, 2018

Refuting the "Jesus was an Alien" Story

Didn't plan it this way, but this post fits in with the recent article on catching bad arguments in a video, and thinking critically. 

Every once in a while, someone goes into the weird stories corral and trots out the story that Jesus was able to do those healings because he was an alien. While he did cross some regional borders, I mean alien as in from outer space. This idea is usually found among New Age enthusiasts, and they have a passel of aliens in their worldviews.

If you study on it, you'll notice that these beings claim to be more highly evolved, and traveled from way up yonder to our planet to show us the way. That way involves throwing away the Bible and believing what they say about Jesus and the coming world religion. For them, Jesus is not God the Son, the Creator, the second person of the Trinity. They "prove" their claim by assuming it (circular reasoning), and have lousy evidence. Their reasoning is sorely lacking as well. Aliens, the invisible friends of evolutionists, supposedly evolved somewhere, but cannot supersede the laws of physics, since they are not the Creator.

The idea that Jesus was a highly-evolved space alien is dispatched with truth and logic
I know this "meme" is a mite overused, but I just had to this time.
Notice that atheists, evolutionists, New Agers, and other cultists try to put biblical creationists on the defensive. They will make claim, such as "Jesus was an alien", and too many of us let them take the lead. It shouldn't be that way. We need to challenge them to substantiate their claims, and that such claims are self-refuting. Not only with weird cultic beliefs, but also with the many assertions made to support deep time and gunk-to-gunsmith evolutionism.

It reminds me of the "Jesus was a good moral teacher" nonsense. (Some atheists even claim to be "Christians" because they like some of Jesus' teachings!) Would a "good moral teacher" or an alien make the claims about himself that Jesus made, and fulfill prophesies? Not hardly! The best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture; don't be taking things out of context, and examine more than just a few cherry-picked verses to support circular reasoning. Ironically, they are rejecting the Bible while at the same time appealing to it. I can show you some atheists that "reason" the same way.

The following article shows how the alien Jesus claim is dispatched with truth and logic. There are also several helpful links included.
How can we show just how ludicrous the ‘alien Jesus’ conspiracy theory really is? Jian L. from Australia writes:
I’m not sure if this particular conspiracy is discussed here, but some people make the outrageous and ridiculous claim that Jesus was merely an alien and NOT the Son of God, pointing to his various miracles and resurrection as proof that he was an alien visitor. Apart from the impossibility of the existence of aliens and the infallibility, inerrancy and inspired nature proving that he is the Messiah, what would you say to these people?
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

There are several reasons beyond the ones you mention for why the ‘Jesus is an alien’ idea is a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
I hope you'll read the rest. To do so, just click on "Was Jesus an Alien?"

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Aliens Among Us and Evolutionary Propaganda

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Did you know that aliens have visited us in the past, and are among us now, but we don't know it? It has to be true because I saw it on YouTube. (I also obtained from there proof the earth is flat and life evolved from a primordial scum.) Some people are gullible, and this can be seen when they want to prove evolution, and have evidence of imaginary invisible friends from outer space. Put fake news in video format and show the world? Sure, the end justifies the means for some owlhoots.

Evidence for ancient aliens is based on bad logic, evolution, and bad presuppositions.
Credit: Pixabay / LionFive
Here is where I get into some critical thinking with y'all. Ask yourself some questions, such as, "If space aliens are such a secret, how does the video maker know?" From some of the stories about such aliens, you may want to ask, "Why is the video maker still alive, and why wasn't the video and all evidence destroyed?" Some folks don't cotton to having their secrets revealed, after all, so it seems unlikely that such big secrets are being revealed.

Here is a video that has seventeen claims in ten minutes, and the maker seems intent on convincing us of ancient alien visitations. I'd be much obliged if you'd watch it, see what errors in reasoning you can catch, and then read what I came up with. Deal?

I'm going to indulge in some reification for the sake of convenience. That is, I'll say "the video" instead of "the makers of the video" and things like that.

It starts out with words like maybe, perhaps, seem to, and so on. While the video pretends to leave it up to the viewer to decide what the evidence indicates and asks what you believe, there is clearly an agenda behind it — especially with the claim that aliens have visited Earth in the past.

Many questions came to mind: Do historical records or even long-standing legends that pertain to the structures, artwork, and so forth exist? Did they mention aliens, "gods", and that kind of thing? Did they have more prosaic explanations that the video conveniently neglected? Historical records can be very helpful.
  • First, "there is no denying" that paintings depict ancient aliens. Interesting that the video mixes ancient pictures with modern fantasy art (some of which you might find at Pixabay), which strikes me as a bit misleading. Some of the statements do not allow for alternative explanations, such as when art supposedly depicts "beings in protective suits". That is the only possibility? (This is something that evolutionists use as well: only presenting the possibility that suits their conjecture.) A comment was made that there are plenty of pictures “that we’re not even aware of”. So how do you know, kitten?
  • A claim that government files were opened, and then the video shows pictures that are not from government files. More fantasy art and such. Many sightings of UFOs have indeed been explained, but some are not so easily dismissed. Therefore, aliens. No, therefore the bifurcation fallacy. Here are some articles on aliens that you may want to consider.
  • Big rocks that didn't roll in the old Inca capital's fortress. The stones are fitted together perfectly. (I guess we have to take the video's word for that.) A remark about the "rope and lever" method of transport is mentioned dismissively. It does not prove aliens were involved.
  • Paul Hellyer is the former Canadian Minister of National Defense. We are asked why he would say something that could ruin his reputation. Red flags there, it is an appeal to motive fallacy as well as an appeal to authority. After all, this government official says something that fits with the video's agenda. “You really want to believe him”. Why should I? We are also told that he is active in the UFO community, so that shows a bit of a bias. He says there eighty species of aliens, and they want to help humanity. How does he know these things? Who supports him aside from other UFO enthusiasts? 
  • Another segment about paintings and drawings, and this is very brief. The Madonna with Saint Giovannino by Domenico Ghirlandaio is referred to as "The UFO Painting" because some people think it depicts a space ship in the distance. (As if Dom just sat there and painted a space ship, and the pilot was considerate enough to pose.) The prosaic explanation is waved off in favor of the sensational view.
  • Here we go with rocks again. "How it got there, no one will ever know." Maybe, maybe not. Because of the way the contents of the video are framed, this is almost an argument from silence, implying it must be the work of aliens.
  • The segment on our galaxy being suited for life has been discussed by Christians and creationists for many years. It is a teleological argument, and does indeed show that our Creator knew what he was doing. We are then told that our galaxy is not hospitable to aliens, but other galaxies are suited to their existence. How do you know this? Those strange assertions are based on unknown presuppositions about alien life. Apparently, someone didn't do some research, because the opposite is true. By the way, it seems that UFO enthusiasts are unaware of how large our galaxy is, and the distance between galaxies. Then some people believe the line, "I have come from another galaxy to guide you". Oh, shut up. No, you're not. Next time, bring bacon wraps and tell the truth. I like bacon wraps and the truth.
  • Next up for bidding is the segment on the Nazca lines, one of the "best examples" that aliens visited Earth. Not hardly! I first heard this line (see what I did there?) from Erich von Däniken, who has some serious problems with facts and logic. He doesn't seem to be taken seriously outside the circles of his fans. As with so much of the material in this video, the Nazca Lines can be better explained than by their being the work of aliens.
  • More structures. This time, Pyramid of the Sun, in Teotihuacan, Mexico. Nice buildings, well put together and solid. The video says the pyramids are aligned to a planet. I wonder which one? Also, these buildings were not possible with ancient technology, especially since they assume that humans were freshly minted from evolution, and were pretty much stupid. (Actually, humans have always been smart.) So, the pyramids were too advanced for pre-Aztec Mexico. But that is an assertion based on the presumptions of evolution and ancient aliens.
  • This video majors on big rocks and ancient buildings. This time, Bolivia. The temple complex had (guess what?) heavy rocks. Seems like people didn't contract out to the cheapest bidder, but wanted quality work that would last a mighty long time. I suspicion they expected to be using such things indefinitely.“Rogue historians are convinced aliens assisted in building this near-flawless site”. Yeah, we've seen what kind of scholarship those tinhorns produce. I'm almost hearing, "They may be nutty, fringe historians, but they agree with our preconceptions, so they're valid. Unnamed, but valid". My cynicism is creeping in here, isn't it?
  • Stonehenge! I would have been disappointed if this classic of ancient alien mythology was omitted. It was a landing pad for spaceships. No, it was an observatory. Wait, it was... At any rate, it must have been built by aliens because humans were stupid back then. Don't be too sure, Shirley.
  • A sarcophagus lid in a distant jungle supposedly shows someone operating controls of a space ship. It is “proof of alien interaction with humans –according to alien theorists". Notice the claim, and then backing off again by adding the "alien theorists" part? Still, the video is using loaded terminology and steering the viewer to accept this "evidence" of aliens. It seems to do that quite a bit.
  • Great balls of stone in Costa Rica. This tiny segment talks about big balls, little balls, apparently made by hand. They excited alien theorists. Of course, since those people seem to be too biased to consider other options. At least, this is the impression I am getting from this video about alien theorists.
  • Speaking of balls, how about Ball Island? Wonder why this island in the Tasman Sea has such a name, since it is in the shape of a pyramid? The assertion is that the island is too flawless to have been made by nature. Implied is, "Therefore, aliens". There is a reference to dragons because if you squint just right, something looks a little like a claw. Maybe the island was built by dragons. How about very clever birds? Crows, ravens, blue jays, and the like are rather smart, you know.
  • As a Christian, I'd be a mite reluctant to visit Baalbek in Lebanon. The Baal part of the name is not a coincidence with Old Testament demonic cults, after all. Anyway, we have more big rocks. Again. This is allegedly a landing site or beacon for alien aircraft. (How do you know that?) It would also be a challenge to build today. So, that leaves aliens, again?
  • Egyptian hieroglyphs have an assortment of objects, and some of them resemble modern vehicles. And spacecraft. Must be aliens, since there is no other explanation. Sure, buddy.
Lots of rocks, buildings, and a bit of art. Several segments could have been consolidated. Did you notice that some of the segments were tiny, about fifteen seconds long? Yeah, there's some compelling evidence, Hoss. This video is for modern people with short attention spans. Serious claims would require longer, more detailed videos that involved research.


The video was saturated with circular reasoning (assuming ancient aliens to prove ancient aliens), and ignoring other possible explanations. A great deal of the video is based on evolutionary presuppositions, especially that humans were stupid brutes way back yonder. That concept keeps on putting a burr under the saddles of evolutionists. Do some research from less gullible places and you'll see that many of the mysteries do have explanations. The same goes for claims from evolutionists who are funded by our tax money. I strongly recommend that people ask questions about origins and consider other explanations, especially form biblical creation science sources.

I hope my remarks rejecting visitors from outer space haven't alienated y'all. I'll allow that I was unable to remain objective because I was put off by the video, which I found very unconvincing. And I'm biased by my biblical creationist worldview, where I lack belief that God made intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Anyway, I have something for you to try your hand with a short video about five alien species that live with us today. Then, use some critical thinking when encountering "evidence" presented for goo-to-you evolution.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Simple Human Traits are Not Really

Sometimes I wonder if over-simplifying and rushing through a job so it can be called "done" is a symptom of harried, scheduled-to-the-minute Western culture. Repairs on autos, computers, connections, and so on are often incomplete. Proper diagnostics are not performed and necessary questions are not answered. Although saying that something "should not be so" is akin to wishful thinking, I think I am on solid ground when I say that scientific pursuits should be done properly. This is clearly seen when evolutionary scientists do the "rush to market" approach with their pronouncements, especially in the area of genetics.

Evolutionists embarrassed, simple traits not genetically simple after all
Background image credit: Rgbstock / Tomislav Alajbeg
The human genome was examined with selected information and outdated equipment, and it was discovered that scientists were full of hooey regarding "junk" DNA. Worse, the human-chimpanzee genome similarity myth was done with a prairie schooner-load of bad science and circular reasoning, but the "98 percent similar" myth still lives on with Darwin's uninformed disciples. Scientific research should not stop when secularists get the results they desire, old son.


Some human traits that are called "simple", are not simple. Some scientists took a notion to do some actual science work, and found that ear lobes and skin color are not controlled by the simple genetics they had at first believed. We are the creation, not the Creator. He is wise, and has shown his skill through methods we are only beginning to understand. The hubris of secularists is embarrassing to the rest of us.
Many people were told in biology class that some basic human traits reflect simple genetic principles. One example is how earlobes are attached. When I was in high school, our biology teacher told us to examine each other’s ears and see how many had attached versus unattached earlobes. Attached earlobes do not have a lobe that dangles. In general, there were many more students with unattached than attached earlobes. We were told the attached variant is an example of a classic single-gene recessive trait, an explanation that makes genetics appear overly simple.
To read the rest of this short article, click on " Human Traits Not So Simple After All".

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Wild Origin of Life Speculations

You would think that the hands at the Darwin Ranch would be too busy with running the propaganda mill, counting up the grant money, and passing off conjectures as scientific research to indulge in peyote gnawing. I mean, some of the downright weird concepts they're coming up with for the origin of life. Facts and science are not included, those cost extra.

Origin of life stories are getting more wild, ignoring facts and science.
Credit: Pixabay / ar130405
The origin of life (OOL), chemical evolution, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, wishful thinking — whatever you want to call it — is scientifically untenable. As we've seen here before, those owlhoots just keep on a-trying. Recent results are getting very, very strange. So, here we go again.


How about the hydrocarbon soup out yonder, at Saturn's largest moon? Not hardly! The scientist who came up with this one seems to have forgotten (or never learned) basic chemistry and biology; it won't work, snookums. Or maybe life-based organisms did not originate in water, but took the shuttle later on. Uh, how about no? Then there's the one using assumptions that we're all "star stuff", so dust in the cosmic wind brought life here. Again I ask, "Who pays these jaspers?" A great deal of time and money is being foolishly spent in efforts to deny the work of our Creator and Redeemer.

To read about these stories and more, click on "Origin-of-Life Speculation Is Out of ContrOOL".

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Pacific Salmon Guidance Systems

One of the most popular kinds of fish that people eat is salmon, but the good stuff is a mite pricey. Worth it, in my view, but you had best be cooking it up proper-like. Other critters like wolves, birds of prey, and bears eat salmon. You have probably seen movies or documentaries of bears scooping fish out of the stream. It is easier when the streams are full of salmon that are heading up to spawn.

Life cycle and internal navigation systems of Pacific salmon testify of the genius of our Creator
Adult fall Chinook salmon in the Priest Rapids Hatchery, state of Washington
Courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The progress of Pacific salmon is fascinating. They are born in streams, grow up in freshwater areas, then move on to the ocean. This means they are able to adapt from fresh to salt water. When it's time to commence spawning, their guidance systems take them to their places of  birth (adapting again to fresh water), spawn, change color, and die. Interestingly, Atlantic salmon do not die right away, but can do their routine several times.


On a side note, I remember how freshwater salmon in Lake Michigan would go upriver to spawn, and were "snagged". This was done by throwing weighted hooks with multiple points in the water, gouging them, yanking them out, then repeat. "Look at me, I'm a sport fisherman!" No, you're not, Percival. The practice struck me as barbaric, and was outlawed later. But enough of my carping about that.

Salmon are yet another example of our Creator's amazing design abilities, none of which can be explained by fish-to-fish warden philosophies.
One of the great resources of the west coast of the United States and Canada is the multitude of salmon in the coastal ocean and rivers.
The life cycle and habits of salmon have been studied in detail because of the fish's usefulness as a food resource — not only for the people of this region, but also as a major export.
The building of dams on many of the rivers where salmon return to spawn has made it necessary to invent ways to divert returning fish into artificial hatcheries or to create man-made channels where the fish can return to spawn as naturally as possible. Both methods have proved effective in enhancing the salmon industry and preserving many salmon runs which would otherwise have been destroyed.
Hopefully, you're hooked. To read the rest, click on "Pacific salmon — The ocean’s high achievers".

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Three Gasses Essential for Life

Some of us are old enough to remember, and others listen to classic rock radio stations, when The Sweet had a song in 1978 called "Love is Like Oxygen". They said, "...you get to much, you get too high, not enough and you're gonna die". They are correct that we need just enough oxygen, but the part about love can be disputed. There are three gasses in our atmosphere (and in us to some extent) that are essential for life. They need to be in the correct proportions, too.

Our Creator engineered three gasses that are essential for life, including at the cellular level.
Credit: Freeimages / dumitru ionut
We hear about the "Goldilocks Zone" where, if a planet is in that zone (not too hot, not too cold), then Darwinists consider it a candidate for life to have evolved. There are many more factors involved, but one that seems to be overlooked is atmospheric pressure. If the pressure is wrong, then we cannot breathe. Three gasses are present and under the proper pressure on this planet our Creator has given us, and he engineered them for numerous functions that make life possible, including at the cellular level.
In this article we shall look at the gaseous components of our atmosphere: oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Nitrogen constitutes the major component (approximately 78%) with oxygen following at about 21%, and carbon dioxide at 0.04%. Though carbon dioxide constitutes a minor part of the atmosphere, life, as we know it, could not exist without it. Life depends on all three of these elements being in the gaseous form.
To finish reading, take a deep breath and click on "Proportionally Perfect for Life: O2, CO2, N2".

Monday, February 12, 2018

Evolution, Discrimination, and Freedom from Thought

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The subject of this post is very fitting for the seventh annual Question Evolution Day, but it is very important for Christians, creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, lovers of intellectual and academic freedoms, and other people. There is some startling information in the main post that will be linked, exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the evolutionary establishment. Although that 1995 article focuses on academia, many of the principles apply to the persecution of Christians, biblical creationists, and others. Since it was written, things have only grown worse, and atheo-fascism is increasing.

Question Evolution Day is relevant to those receiving discrimination and persecution for creation beliefs

Students who believe in creation science or Intelligent Design (which is not creation science) are advised to keep mum about their lack of belief in evolutionism lest they be denied advanced degrees. It is difficult for a creationist student to keep his or her integrity and also write an assigned paper on evolution. Indeed, some academics believe that it is perfectly acceptable to persecute creationists, deny tenure to professors, and even retroactively remove awarded degrees! Someone who does quality work, meets the standards, earns a degree only to have it rescinded on theological grounds (rejecting the religion of evolutionism) should at the very least receive a refund for tuition and fees. Strange to say that Christians and creationists are the persecuted minority class; bigotry is allowed and has no reprisals. Some creationists have received threats of physical violence and even death.

Someone may ask, "Why don't the students or professors file charges? Religious discrimination is illegal". Yes it is. However, laws are useless if they are not enforced, and it is culturally and politically justified to persecute creationists. People with materialistic presuppositions assume that a creationist has an erroneous view of reality via the fallacy of ipse dixit. Atheism and materialism are irrational and incoherent, and reason is left tied to a chair in the saloon while circular reasoning is in control: since someone rejects our atheistic worldview where we define reality according to our paradigm, that person is dishonest or even insane. So much for "tolerance"!

Free speech is mighty fine, as long as it fits the views of those in power who use arbitrary definitions and assertions. After all, evolution must be protected from scrutiny; it would not do to have people actually questioning evolution and seeing its flaws. Worse, some people are seeing that science and Scripture support recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Perhaps fear of thought is a reason that some universities actively ban presentations of creation science by students as well as by instructors. After all, it puts a damper on their indoctrination of students.) Sounds a bit like the Soviet Union, where anyone teaching in a university was required to sign an affirmation of atheism.

When secularists paint us with a broad brush, saying that we are "fundamentalists" (a once valid word that has become a pejorative) and indicating that we all think and act alike. Labeling with illogical, emotive words is used in lieu of actual thought and rational discourse. Perhaps one reason we are a threat to secularists is because we promote critical thinking, and people who are able to discern logical fallacies are more likely to notice emotional manipulation when it is employed.

Those people who label Christians, creationists, and ID proponents (essentially anyone who denies Darwin) often imagine what we may do (sometimes citing the actions of oddball professing Christians in a sweeping generalization), therefore we become dangerous in their minds. In a way, we are dangerous but not physically. Instead, we are "dangerous" according to the thought police of leftists and atheists, because we take a stand for what we believe, and have science supporting our contention that evolution is wrong. The Creator exists, and he has made himself known. This means we are accountable to him, and there is a final Judgement.

Journals operated by atheists, leftists, and secularists in general tend to downplay or even ignore overt discrimination against Christians. This is in stark contrast to the abundance of reports of this very thing reported in Conservative and Christian journals. The secularists do damage by selectively reporting and ignoring material that interferes with their narratives.


The "alternative media", which includes weblogs, social media, and other things, is important. We can get present information that is suppressed by the secular science industry, atheists, evolutionists, and the like. It also means that people like you and I have voices. (I work for a living, and do not make money doing this.) You can share this post, others like it, to support Question Evolution Day as well as intellectual, academic, speech and thought freedoms.

Maybe if I let you read this fascinating report (heavily researched, with 83 supporting references), that will help motivate you. Also, there's an excellent video below.
The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.
To read the rest, click on "Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview".

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Sensors Engineered in Living Things

People who have watched or read science fiction are probably familiar with the phrase, "Sensors indicate..." We are all mighty happy that y'all have sensors, but what are they sensing? We have a great deal of information bombarding us constantly, but need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff; I am using "selective hearing" to ignore the television in the other room at this moment.

The Master Engineer equipped living things with sensors to obtain and process the proper information
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Charles Darwin focused on externalism, where outside forces supposedly caused organisms to change and evolve into better things. His disciples followed suit, and are constantly trying to wedge facts into their failed conjectures. Doesn't work.


The whole heap of speculations would have been more accurate if they had considered internalism, which we have discussed before. Living things are equipped with sensors that were put in place by the Master Engineer, and which defy evolution. Many of them have additional functions than simply determining what information to ignore and what to process.
Sensors trigger many life-saving processes within both human-made devices and living creatures. They also enable human-engineered entities to adapt. We know organisms make suitable self-adjustments to solve multitudes of environmental challenges, a process that allows them to colonize new niches. What if that adaptive process begins with their sensors?
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Sensor Triggers Affirm Intelligently Designed Internalism".