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, March 31, 2018

Evosplaining Neanderthal Art, Spears, and Brains

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A word that has gained popularity in recent months is "—splaining". As you can see, it is based on explaining, but current lingo often means that someone is pretending have greater knowledge than he or she actually possesses. Also, it is done in a condescending manner. Advocates of muck-to-man evolution are fond of evosplaining to biblical creationists and the unwashed masses.

Bad evolutionary research says Neanderthals did not produce art, but spear throwing made them grow bigger brains.
Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain
Some owlhoots refuse to admit that Neanderthals were fully human. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they will seek out evoporn that makes them feel good about their preconceptions. One claim to keep the myth in the saddle is that Neanderthals did not make recognizable art. That story was based on evolutionary presuppositions that the art was done by more modern humans instead of Neanderthals. This idea was given a serious slap down a few years ago, and the fact of Neanderthal-made art has been gaining evidence more recently as well.

Scientists ignore research from other evolutionists, and then commence to ignoring other research to advance the storyline. Insisting that since Neanderthals did not produce art, they developed spear throwing ability instead. This supposedly led to them growing bigger brains, and therefore greater intelligence. Here we encounter another bit of data they conveniently ignore: brain size does not indicate intelligence! Neanderthals having bigger brain cases than modern humans is also ignored.

Also, according to dubious dating methods, spear throwing occurred further back in time than is convenient for the evolutionary storyline. Darwin's disciples seem to use the fallacy of exclusion frequently, don't they?


In addition, the whole thing stinks of Lamarckism. A quick summary of that concept is the famous "giraffes grew longer necks so they could eat leaves on trees" line. (Papa Darwin rejected most of Lamarck's ideas, but still held to a few anyway. Hedging his bets, I think.) Offspring of javelin hurlers may have physical structures conducive continuing the activity, but that comes from genetics, not learned physical skills that were passed along.

This spear-throwing business is yet another example of bad science dressed up as legitimate research. It is a weak rescuing device. Unfortunately, Darwin's Flying Monkeys© resort to confirmation bias in their evosplaining and use it to reject the truth of the Creator. Cowboy up, gang, the evidence — including "your" evidence — refutes evolution and supports recent creation.

Friday, March 30, 2018

Evolutionists Predicting the Demise of the Y Chromosome

There has been talk around the campfire and other places lately that the Y chromosome is fading away. Although it has many functions, it is the thing that is unique to men. Earlier, we saw that genetic entropy is affecting the health of men, but secular scientists are saying that maleness may become a thing of the past.

Evolutionary scientists claim that the Y chromosome, unique to men, is disappearing
Credit: Freeimages / WiseWander
If humans were as old as evolutionists want to believe humanity would have already died out. Genetic degradation rates are an evidence for a young earth, because everything was created recently. Our chromosomes are distinct markers of the two sexes, but the speculation is that because some critters may change over, a new sex may arise in humankind.


Because of poor research by scientists who make a whole passel of assumptions and use circular reasoning, the secular science media peddle Darwinporn for the thrill-seeking public. (It is also fitting with today's social trends, which is probably not a coincidence.) The actual science is much less impressive than what is presented.
Under the headline The Y chromosome is disappearing – so what will happen to men?, two genetics professors, Dr. Griffin and Dr. Ellis write, “The Y chromosome may be a symbol of masculinity, but it is becoming increasingly clear that it is anything but strong and enduring.” One wonders what evidence they have for making this prediction. Actually, none. Then where do they get this idea?

As most adults know, in most mammals two X chromosomes produce a female, and an X and Y produce a male. Thus, it is the presence of the Y chromosome that determines a male. Although the Y chromosome influences over 200 different traits, one area of this chromosome, specifically where the SRY genes are located, triggers the major traits that produce males. If the SRY genes transpose from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome, an XX female will develop into to a male. This condition is very rare, but it does happen occasionally.
To keep reading, click on "Is the Y Chromosome Disappearing?"

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Humans are also Designed to Throw

Lassoing a runaway steer takes muscle control and nervous system precision, but not a great deal of force over a long period of time. Compare that to a baseball pitcher that is firing that ball into a precise area at high speed, repeatedly, for several hours. Of the many engineered traits we have, humans are also designed to throw.

High-speed throwing, such as in baseball, is something that the Master Engineer designed for humans
Credit: Freeimages / Justin Taylor
Then there's the batter who has to hit the pellet. Well, it looks like one at that speed, it may take a half a second for the ball to be released until it hits the catcher's mitt or the batter gives it a smack. Don't be telling me that you could do better, either.


A study was done on the mechanics of pitching. If it was just up to muscle doing the work, there would not be anywhere near as much velocity. That whole wind-up and pitching motion involves the shifting of balance, extension of the arms and wrists, hip rotation, and much more. 

The study also paid homage to Darwin, spoiling a good bit of research with guess, speculations, and other unscientific nonsense. They wondered where this kind of throwing evolved, why, and when. Chimpanzees cannot do it, and they've had enough time to evolve that, haven't they? No, they have not. The Master Engineer designed humans to be able to do such precise, sustained throwing, and designed chimpanzees to do their tree thing. It's not that difficult to see that evolution had nothing to do with either humans or chimps, you savvy?
What body structures uniquely equip humans to throw objects frequently, at high speeds, and—for the practiced—with great accuracy? Research has revealed that if the throwing motion depended directly on muscle, we could only generate half the force that the human frame can actually muster. In the course of answering the question of where the rest of the throwing force originates, one recent study stumbled on a number of reasons why the human body looks like the product of specialized and intentional creation.
To take a swing at reading the rest, click on "Why High-Speed Throwing Is Uniquely Human".

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Darwin and the Pigeons

Seems like when studying Darwinism, we hear quite a bit about "Darwin's finches". He did not know what kind of birds they were, by the way, and they were identified by ornithologist John Gould somewhere around 1837. Did you know that Charles Darwin took a fancy to pigeons for a spell? This is in the first chapter of his tedious, infamous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. I wonder if he ate any?

Darwin raised pigeons to obtain information about evolution. He failed, they remained pigeons, but with some variations.
Photo by Hybrid on Unsplash
He took to studying pigeons to get some firsthand observations for evolution through artificial selection. Some owlhoots consider this research to be strong evidence for his speculations, but what did he get? Pigeons. If he had paid attention to work of Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), he would have learned a thing or two about genetics and variations.


At any rate, like Lenski's research on bacteria yielded bacteria, Darwin's pigeon research yielded pigeons. This is because evolution is untrue, and organisms were created with the capacity for variation, not to change into something completely different. Chuckie failed, but Darwin bots continue the false message of his "success" at demonstrating evolution through birds in their efforts to deny the work of their Creator.
Darwin’s primary motivation for the task was to collect fuel for his Origin. By September, he was describing pigeon-fancying as a “noble and majestic pursuit”, in a letter to his son William (attending Rugby School in Warwickshire):
I am going up to London this evening and I shall start quite late, for I want to attend a meeting of the Colombarian Society, which meets at 7 o’clock near London Bridge. … I am going to bring a lot more pigeons back with me on Saturday, for it is a noble and majestic pursuit, and beats moths and butterflies, whatever you may say to the contrary …
It wasn’t long before Darwin had the information he wanted, and much of the first chapter of his Origin of Species.
No need to fly the coop. You can read the rest at "Pigeons don’t fancy Darwin — Pigeon fanciers’ fancy pigeons fuelled Darwin’s flights of fancy".

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Going Nuts over Squirrels

Seems like most people are familiar with squirrels in one form or another, since there is a huge variety of the furry varmints. Many people consider them pests, especially since they get relentless when trying to get food.

Squirrels help illustrate the design of the Creator
Credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service / Debra Turner
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Even when I'm chasing them off the patio, they keep on a-coming. Some turn on the charm and get up on their hind legs and give me the "I'm so cute, don't you want to feed me?" look. Then others come up and they commence to fighting over the food.

These bushy-tailed rodents are smart, too. They learn how to solve problems, and then use that knowledge to apply in other situations. We've found that "squirrel-proof bird feeders" are seldom effective, and they find various ways to get up to there (as can be seen in a video in the linked article, below). They get onto our second-floor patio and go after the bird feeders or the bread my wife puts out, then climb onto the screen for the sliding glass door and pee on the window. I get a mite irritated.

Squirrels are opportunists when it comes to getting their needs met, and they even have multiple homes. Something goes amiss, they move out. Then another opportunist might take over the abandoned nest.


They're famous for eating and burying nuts, but have unique habits for organizing their stashes — when they remember where they are. It's figured that squirrels forget where they put most of the nuts, which is helpful for other animals and tree planting.

For being wild animals, they get used to humans mighty fast and can be relatively tame. I had them eating peanuts from my fingers (which was a mistake, since they expect an endless supply). There are many stories of people basically making them into pets. I don't advise bringing them into your domicile, though. Seems to work for some folks, though.
The squirrel family (Sciuridae) is quite extensive, including species such as chipmunks, flying squirrels, and ground squirrels (among them woodchucks and prairie dogs). Squirrels live on almost every continent in the world and come in many sizes and colors. Red and gray squirrels are common in the United States. Some states have black squirrels, and Brevard, North Carolina, is famous for its white squirrels. Africa has the tiny two-inch pygmy squirrel; India has the giant squirrel, which is three feet long and weighs four pounds; and Kazakhstan has the nearly 20-pound gray marmot. It’s hard to go anywhere without running into a squirrel. In fact, throughout my life, I’ve encountered quite a few up close.
To read the rest, head on over to "The Not-So-Nutty Habits of Squirrels".

Monday, March 26, 2018

Creation Science Research on the Sauk Megasequence

Both creationary and secular geologists have proposed ideas about how much of the continents were covered by water. Of course, biblical creationists want to answer questions about what went on during the Genesis Flood, and their counterparts have worked up the sea level curve model. Creationists generally believe that the Sauk Megasequence shows early stages of Flood coverage.

Research by creationists challenge some of the secular deep time models
Credit: Pixabay / James Alexander
Some owlhoots claim that creationists do not conduct research. That is false, but why let the facts stand in the way of prejudicial conjecture? Anyway, in this case, the folks at the Institute for Creation Research wanted to map the extent of the sedimentary rocks and test the sea level curve model. They learned that North America had minimal coverage during the Flood. Anti-creationists detest evidence for the Flood because it refutes their deep time mythology.
Numerous authors have speculated on the extent of the early floodwaters and on when the Flood peaked. Many questions remain unanswered. For example, did the Flood cover the continents early in the Flood year, recede, and then rise again? Did the waters rise once and peak around Day 150? Or was it some combination? Our latest research provides some answers.
To read the rest, click on "Minimal Continental Coverage During the Early Flood". For a more detailed article, see "The Sedimentary Record Demonstrates Minimal Flooding of the Continents During Sauk Deposition".

Saturday, March 24, 2018

An Interstellar Asteroid?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article is going to take a somewhat different approach, but I think you will find the information interesting. It is about that asteroid that could have originated outside of our solar system homestead. That chuck of rock is called ‘Oumuamua (specifically, 1I/2017 U1, which is rather boring). ‘Oumuamua is Hawaiian for “a messenger from afar arriving first”. Really? Kind of presumptuous, don't you think? The word sounds like high society air kisses: "Oh, it's so good to see you, oh, mua, mua [makes smacking noises]! Here, have a cigar." Or maybe not.

‘Oumuamua is not well understood by astronomers
Artist’s concept of asteroid `Oumuamua
Credit: European Southern Observatory (CC BY 4.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
‘Oumuamua is not well understood by astronomers as creationary astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner points out. One rancorous owlhoot is so passionate about evolutionism that he made the gelastic claim that this one chunk of rock negates all of biblical creation science! (He's sort of like the mean kid that pokes a horse in the rump with a stick until he gets kicked with a dose of reality, cries about it — and does it again.) A claim like his requires not only fanatical blind faith in naturalism, but also the rejection of discoveries in astronomy that indicate a young universe — such as recent news about Ceres. A young solar system means we have a young Earth, old son.


Pronouncements should not be made based on things that are not understood very well, but folks still get the bit in their teeth and go running off with the "news" anyway. The obedient secular science media is great for purveying a secularist worldview with only preliminary findings. It does not help matters that many secular scientists lack critical thinking skills and the secular science industry has a leftist agenda, so we have bad science and lapdog media spreading fake science news. EDIT: Now scientists think it may be a baffling comet.

But you are bright people and knew many of those things already.

Here is where this post take a different turn from our usual fare. There is a hypothesis called the "electric universe", studying the presence of electricity throughout the universe. This is not a creationary movement by any means. I have been receiving emails from a biblical creationist who is fascinated by videos from The Thunderbolts Project. They appear to be more honest than many other secularists, and do not seem to be promoting the mythology of the secular science establishment. 

Here are two videos with guest physicist Eugene Bagashov of the Joint Institute for Power and Nuclear Research in Minsk, Belarus. Although he is not presenting evidence for special creation, he does have some very interesting material regarding the baffling ‘Oumuamua. The pair of these videos will only take you about 33 minutes. Hope you can take the time.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Predicting Natural Selection — and Failing

Proponents of atoms-to-entomologist evolution include natural selection as a means of evolution, although that has been largely abandoned. Except when it is convenient to equate natural selection with evolution. It is often included with mutation as a means of upward changes. Evolution itself is not operational (observable) science, but is historical science instead. Also, science needs to make predictions, which is something that evolution fails more often than not.

A study of the stick insect failed to make natural selection seem predictable
Walking stick image credit: Aurea Moragón, US Department of Agriculture
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
A study of those stick insects ("walking sticks") was undertaken to see if random chance could be predictable. Yes, it doesn't make sense to me either: random doesn't lend itself to predictability. What did researchers find? Disagreement.


David Coppedge, the author of the article linked just below, shows how the concepts of Darwin and his successors fit the "Stuff Happens Law". This law is just as scientific as Darwinism (and the they have some things in common), as he explains after the link.
Every once in awhile, biologists argue over whether evolution is predictable. The latest flap over stick insects sticks up for predictability, but flops.
An international group of scientists, publishing in the journal Science, studied stick insects—those long, skinny walking insects that try to blend in with plants by mimicking twigs. In their paper, “Natural selection and the predictability of evolution in Timema stick insects,” they do their best to estimate the trajectory of these bugs. Laura Zahn, however, in a summary of the paper in the same issue of Science, has this to say:
Not happening here. To find out what Zahn said, the study findings, and the Stuff Happens Law, click on "Natural Selection Is Not Predictable".

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Lizard Adaptation and Places in the Environment

Researchers studying South American tree iguanas were a mite stumped because they were not doing what they are supposed to do. Namely, adapt and evolve. Instead, males and females of some species were taking ecological niches that could have been filled by variations. A recent study of these iguanas does not support universal common ancestor evolution.

A study on tree ignuanas does not show evolution, but it does show adaptation
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ryan Kaldari
The Master Engineer designed critters and other organisms to adapt and fill various niches. This is part of how they were designed to keep from going extinct, especially after the changes on Earth after the Genesis Flood. Darwin's disciples falsely call these variations "evolution", but nothing is changing into something completely different.
In a recent study of South American lizards of the Liolaemus genus (commonly called tree iguanas), native to Chile and Argentina, researchers discovered that interspecies sexual size dimorphism (hereafter called SSD according to the journal article) may be limiting speciation. The ecological niches, which can normally be filled by different species, may in fact be exploited by different sexes of the same species.

According to the prevailing theory, if SSD is driven by ecological opportunity alone, there should be no clear-cut trend for size dimorphism among males or females. Alternatively, if SSD is driven primarily by sexual selection, the expectation is that females would be consistently larger than males or vice versa.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Battle of the Sexes or Designed Lizard Niches?"


Wednesday, March 21, 2018

False Evidence for Horse Evolution

Horses have been popular with people for a mighty long time as pack animals, to do the work, scouting, in battle, pleasure riding, cowboy work, and much more. (A bit of trivia: the American Plains Indians had no word for horses at first, since they were unknown on this side of the Atlantic until the Spanish brought them over.) Darwin's disciples have insisted that the evolution of the horse has a strong evidence.

Evidence supports the creation of the horse and not its evolution
Prospecting for Cattle Range, Frederic Remington, 1889
If you study on the displays a spell, you'll realize that this evidence is flimsy and inconsistent; it only exists in textbooks and museum displays, not in reality. The critter presented as the earliest horse, Hyracotherium, was discovered by Richard Owen. He called it that because of its strong resemblance to the rock badger. It was later called the "dawn horse" because: evolution.


The number of toes and ribs changes with each specimen, and loss of features is falsely called evolution. In reality, horses have genetic variability, as is seen today and evidenced in the past. Even the teeth have been used as evidence for evolution, and that is also weak. No, the Creator designed them with variation and adaptability. The "family tree" of horse evolution is incoherent. The "well-attested" icon of horse evolution is another failure, old son.
For the last century or so, this fine animal has been put to a more unfortunate use. Its alleged ancestry has been used as one of the key ‘proofs’ of evolution. It started in 1879 with the American paleontologist O.C. Marsh and the famous evolutionist T.H. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’ Since then, many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe, while all that is left of the other two are ‘vestigial’ splint bones. Some of the diagrams also show trends in tooth changes, with increasing hypsodonty (high-crowned teeth). This is supposed to demonstrate a change from browsing on bushes to grazing on grass.
To read the entire article, ride on over to "The non-evolution of the horse". Also, if you've a mind to read something more recent and more detailed there's a link provided at "Horsing Around with Evolution".

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Planarian Puzzles Evolutionists

A planarian is a flatworm, and there are quite a few variations. They tend to be on the small side and can be found in all sorts of watery environments, including moving water such as streams. A few of these are parasitic. Yes, the tapeworm that gets into some people's digestive tracts is a flatworm, but you are not going to get it by wading. Planaria are hermaphrodites (both male and female sex organs). They are not likely to be kept as pets, being rather unattractive among other things.

Evolutionists are puzzled by a planerian because the genome does not fit with their views.
Schmidtea mediterranea image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado
The version for our purpose is the Schmidtea mediterranea, a freshwater palanerian that is not a parasite. What has caused fascination among zoologists is the way planerians can be sliced and diced, and then the parts can grow into full-fledged planeria. Their ability to regenerate is not to be confused with that of Time Lords, which are one at a time and tend to have quirky personalities. But I digress. Regeneration is being studied for possible applications with humans and animals.

Recent sequencing of its unique genome is what caused trouble for the Darwinist timeline. Things are supposed to progress from simple to more advanced, but according to evolutionary views, 452 genes common among living things were missing, which puzzles evolutionists. Many of these were existing in "earlier" life forms, as well as those considered more recent. Such things are not supposed to happen according to Darwin's disciples, but biblical creationists are right at home with the truth: recent creation by the Master Engineer.
The planaria, a type of flatworm, has an amazing capacity to regenerate a new body from just fragments of tissue. Its genome has just been sequenced. The surprising result is a completely unexpected evolutionary conundrum.

Planarians (S. mediterranea) are a type of freshwater flatworm commonly found between about 3 to 15 mm in length. Their size can actually self-adjust within a 50-fold range depending on the amount of available resources.
To read the rest, click on "Planaria Genome Loaded with Design Evidence".

Monday, March 19, 2018

Feathered Headbangers Do Not Hurt Themselves

The word headbanger is associated with heavy metal music, supposedly because fans became so excited at concerts, they would literally bang their heads on the stage. These jaspers were known to hurt themselves, too. (Some with a grain of sense would go through the motions and make their long hair fly around, so they had to settle for hearing loss from loud music.) You aren't built to do that, old son. However, there's a critter that is built to bang its head.

The woodpecker is another evidence against evolution and supporting special creation.
The Great Black Woodpecker, Akseli Gallen-Kallela, 1893
Ever heard a woodpecker pecking wood? They may be drumming to communicate, but they use their engineered bird parts to get food. The beak is extra strong, so is the skull, and it has a special sticky tongue to snag the snack that is trying to escape. Before the term irreducible complexity was termed, I was presenting the concept years ago when I discussed the woodpecker in creation science lectures. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

So, why don't they get brain damage like some rock music fans? New research attempts to pay homage to Papa Darwin, but it shows even more evidence that woodpeckers were specially created to do their thing. Another thing they do is refute evolution.
Any one of these adaptations would challenge Darwinian evolution, but all of them together in head-banging bird?
How do you protect your head against 1,400 G’s when your life’s work requires you to bang your head repeatedly to find food in wood? Woodpeckers don’t die of concussions. Surely they must suffer some brain injury, don’t they?
At Live Science, Mindy Waisberger reports on examination of brain tissue in woodpeckers. Three scientists, publishing their results in PLoS One, found the presence of tau protein in the tissue. Since that is often associated with brain injury in humans, they initially thought this shows that woodpeckers do suffer from the repeated pounding to the head. Another possibility, though, is that the tau protein cushions the birds’ brains.
To read the rest, click on "Woodpeckers Have Multiple Protections Against Brain Injury".

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Butterfly and Flower Evolution Problems

If you have a mind to, check some of the last few posts. There is an unintended theme of sorts regarding how evidence in astronomy, geology, and biology work against the timelines and belief systems of secular scientists. They try to tame those wild stallions and bring them into the corral by coming up with all sorts of rescuing devices.

Butterfiles existed before flowering plants supposedly evolved, evolutionists are busy making rescuing devices
Credit: Freeimages / luis rock
Here is another series of reports regarding butterflies, moths, and flowers. The fluttering insects were found to have existed many millions of Darwin years before flowering plants were supposed to have evolved. But butterflies live off the nectar of flowers. Also, they have that very long strawlike mouth thing (proboscis) that is specialized, but would be pretty much superfluous until flowering plants got around to evolving. I reckon believing in universal common ancestor evolution is akin to believing in leprechauns, since both require believing despite logic and evidence, not because of them.

Rescuing devices were proposed, but as we saw before, they only raised other questions and did not help the situation much. What really happened is that plants and insects were created within a short time of each other just a few thousand years ago. No excuse-making needed when you deal with the truth.
New fossil evidence puts the squeeze on Darwinians, making butterflies appear suddenly, with complex mouth parts, before there were any flowers to pollinate. Time to rescue the theory again.

Keeping the evolutionary story consistent is like having to modify a play with the characters constantly making their entry earlier than they were supposed to. We’ve seen that numerous times. The latest is about butterflies (Lepidopterans), the darlings of the insect world. Reporters are scrambling to keep the crown on King Charles (Darwin) in the aftermath of fossil butterfly scales found in Jurassic rock they claim is 70 million Darwin Years older than the evolution script says they were supposed to appear on stage. This means they appeared already as modern-looking butterflies 200 million Darwin Years ago.
To read the rest, click on "Butterfly Evolution Pushed 70 Million Years Before Flowers".

Friday, March 16, 2018

The Genesis Flood Boundary Discussions

When reading creation science publications, you are likely to see the expression "Flood model" in geology. (Regular readers have seen it here.) The way I figure it, this is a sort of general expression because there are actually several models of the Genesis Flood processes, but most are in agreement over the main points.

Genesis Flood geology has models, hypotheses, disagreements and discussion
Credit: RGBstock / Aureliy Movila
Geologists of the biblical creation persuasion agree that the Genesis Flood actually happened, and it happened a few thousand years ago. Their models are far more effective at describing what is observed in geomorphology and other areas than secular uniformitarian dogma. Flood geologists have their hypotheses and models. However, when scientists do science stuff, they disagree on details. Was there a post-Flood boundary? If so, where? How does it compare to other boundaries? Why do secular scientists shy away from the unique continental shelf and slope?

Models are run up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes them. There is disagreement, and serious dialog is requested from several geological disciplines. Some hope to reach a consensus so they don't have all those models floating around.
An integral part of any comprehensive Flood model is discerning the distinction between Flood processes and post-Flood catastrophism in the rock record. The characteristics of the continental shelf, slope, and rise suggest that the location of the boundary was reasonably synchronous on a global scale. However, there is no consensus among Flood geologists on where the post-Flood boundary should be placed. The geological column concept provides a useful framework of discourse for examining different approaches to the post-Flood boundary among creationists. There are three main schools of thought: (1) the Precambrian/Paleozoic Boundary Model, (2) the K/T Boundary Model, and (3) the Late Cenozoic Boundary Model. Each one makes different assumptions and has specific issues that need addressing. Multiple criteria spanning several fields of study need to be used to examine this issue since just one can be equivocal.
To read the rest of this rather specialized article, click on "The Cenozoic, Flood processes, and post-Flood catastrophism—problems and parameters".

Thursday, March 15, 2018

More Lithium-Rich Stars Confound Secular Cosmologists

Big Bang cosmology has an expected sequence of events, but the cosmos is not cooperating with the stories. We have already seen that lithium, the lightest metal, is only expected to appear in certain stars. Instead, it gets secular cosmologists on the prod because it keeps showing up where it is not supposed to be.

The wrong stars contain lithium, according to Big Bang cosmologists
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The existence of lithium is detected through spectroscopic analysis. (Kids, if you're looking for a career in science, consider spectroscopy, since it is used in many areas.) More stars have been detected to be rich in lithium, and as usual, the cosmic evolution excuse mill has been working overtime.


Unfortunately for secularists, the speculations used to possibly solve the problem raise more questions. The biggest problem is their insistence on cosmic evolution instead of admitting that the universe was created recently. Then they wouldn't have these conundrums.
In a recent paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of Chinese and Japanese astronomers reported on high-lithium concentrations in 12 newly discovered low-mass, metal-poor, main-sequence, and red giant stars in the Milky Way halo. All of the stars have larger than expected excesses of lithium (Li), and one star has more than 100 times higher Li abundance than the normally expected values, which is the largest excess in such metal-poor stars known to date. The Li content was determined using spectroscopic analysis, and standard abundance analysis was carried out using local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and checked against nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) model stellar photospheres.
To keep reading, click on "Lithium-Rich Stars Confound Astronomers".

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Human-Chimp Hybrids?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Barash wants human-chimpanzee hybrids, which rejects the value of human life and pushes ethical standards
Secular psychologist David P. Barash decided that it is time to make human-chimpanzee hybrids, which would cross a significant number of ethical and moral guidelines. Psychology is not exactly a biological science, but the secular science industry as a whole, including psychology, is firmly entrenched in materialistic worldviews with evolution as the cornerstone. To push the boundaries and tamper with embryos and genetics is consistent with their fundamentally flawed paradigms.

Not too long ago, scientists were lamenting that they were constrained against extending the lives of human embryos in a dish (evolutionary thinking supports abortion), wanting to keep them alive a bit longer. The chimera experimentation through CRISPR is increasing (see "Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview" for more about this). Believing the false science that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to that of humans, that molecules-to-monkey evolution is a fact, a materialistic worldview — these add up to contempt for human life.

Biblical creationists know that, although there are similarities in biology between humans and animals, we were created separately by the Master Engineer in his image — we are not just another type of animal. Secularists want to be in complete control of science and ethics. They have their own criteria for morality and value, and we are already seeing that the boundaries are being moved.

The inspiration for this article came from Dr. James R. White's March 13, 2018 episode of The Dividing Line. He did a good part of my work for me in the first few minutes. I would like to suggest that you keep going for a bit more, as he discusses:
. . . a video from Jordan Peterson and interacting with the concepts of suffering and human purpose in his lectures.  Dr. Peterson has been great in exposing the fundamental flaws and simple irrationality of many of the left’s pet projects today, and we can be very thankful for that, but we cannot use that as an excuse to not point out that the best a Jungian evolutionary worldview can produce (consistently) is a form of Pelagianism, a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” moralism that lacks the key ingredients provided by full gospel proclamation.
Normally, I am reluctant to embed longer videos (I'm not asking you to watch the whole thing unless you have a mind to), but it shouldn't slow the site down too much. Hope you can spare some time. Also, the audio can be downloaded here. See the addendum, below.

ADDENDUM: Creation Ministries International addressed this issue on March 22, 2018. See "The Humanzee — Responding to the horrific suggestions of a modern academic".

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Science Needs Critical Thinking

The ability to think logically is indispensable in daily life. People can do it without even being aware that it is happening, often with extreme rapidity. Although logical thinking is often synonymous with critical thinking, to think critically requires the ability or discipline to examine all aspects of a situation or conundrum to reach a conclusion. This often necessitates putting aside emotional involvement, personal preferences, biases, and so on. Unfortunately, scientists are surprisingly unskilled in critical thinking.

Scientists are not being trained to think critically
Credit: Pixabay / Noupload
I have encountered people online who are scientists, but display lamentable logic. One owlhoot in particular claimed to be a scientist, but I lacked belief that this was true because of the biases displayed and terrible reasoning skills. It seems that universities these days are more interested in getting payment and awarding certificates because someone passed the tests instead of actually learning how to reason.

As we have seen, evolutionary scientists make pronouncements based on conjectures and limited datasets. Important information is omitted or brushed aside for the sake of establishing spurious "evidence" for geological deep time as well as cosmic or biological evolution. Creationary organizations want to encourage people how to think, while secularists tell people what to think. Evolutionists are more concerned with riding the profit trail instead of considering all the facts. When the logical conclusion is that the Creator was involved, that is anathema to them, and their presuppositions interfere with rational thought. Darwinism degrades humanity through bad logic. Evolution's true believers believe this stuff because they are also untrained to think critically. Why do you think logic is largely untaught in schools? Only the biblical creation view has the evidence and coherence to explain humanity.
A trainer of graduate students at a prestigious university wants to put the Ph back in PhD.
Can scientists be good at detail work but dumb at logic? Gundula Bosch thinks so. She directs the R3 Graduate Science Initiative at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. In Nature, she says she’s on a campaign to “Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists.” She explains an alarming trend in graduate schools that betrays the historic purpose of a top-level education:
 To read the rest, click on "Scientists Not Always Trained to Be Critical Thinkers".

Monday, March 12, 2018

Petrified Forests at Yellowstone Invalidate Long Ages

We know that for Darwin's speculations to have anything resembling plausibility, they require Mucho Grande amounts of time. Like evolutionists will finagle ways to convince people that they are right, often dealing from the bottom of the deck and finding other ways to cheat (or at least obfuscate), their pals in geology will also find ways to make Earth appear older than it was from the time of creation. One way to do this is to deny the Genesis Flood, which is a far better explanation of landforms and such than uniformitarianism (present processes are the key to the past). Views of origins and geology are forensic, attempting to reconstruct what happened way back when.

Petrified forests do not refute the Genesis Flood. Instead, they testify of it.
Tall petrified tree trunks credit: US National Park Service / William W Dunmire, 1966
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
A story told to discredit the Genesis Flood is about how petrified trees, including the petrified forests at Yellowstone National Park, formed over long periods of time. (They don't tell us if woodpeckers are confused by these things.) However, the stories are just that: stories. The jaspers who tell those ignore inconvenient facts, and their icon of refutation is refuted by actual science. Petrification, like fossilization, requires the proper conditions, not great amounts of time. Indeed, the petrified forests at Yellowstone are examples of catastrophe. Namely, the same Flood that secularist storytellers try to reject. The following article includes a verified prediction by a creationary geologist.
Yellowstone National Park, the oldest national park in the United States, spans parts of three states: Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. It is famous for its geothermal activity, including 10,000 hot springs and 200 geysers, including ‘Old Faithful.’ There are also mountains, including one of black obsidian (volcanic glass), cooled and hardened basalt lava flows, deep valleys and canyons, rivers, lakes, forests, petrified wood (wood turned into rock), and wildlife.
Petrified forests?
In some places in Yellowstone Park, erosion of a hillside reveals layers of upright petrified trees. At Specimen Ridge, there are said to be 27 layers, while Specimen Creek contains about 50. This means that the Specimen Creek formation is especially huge—its total vertical height is 1,000 meters (3,400 feet). This raises the question: how did the petrified tree layers form?
To learn the rest of the hard facts, click on "The Yellowstone petrified forests — Evidence of catastrophe".

Saturday, March 10, 2018

A Proposed Creation Science Model on Plants and their Pollinators

Like their secular counterparts, creationary scientists have hypotheses, theories, models, and so on. We have seen several times that everyone has an ultimate starting point. Materialists reject the Creator and rely on naturalistic presuppositions, while those who believe in biblical creation science start with the truth of the Bible and build from there.

What happened with plants and their pollinators after the Genesis Flood?
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Suriya Kankliang
Contrary to common claims of anti-creationist tinhorns, biblical creationists do not cease investigation by declaring, "GodDidIt". While we do believe that God did things, we want to know how he made things, the structures he engineered, the refutation of evolution and affirmation of special creation, and more. Creationary scientists are fully credentialed; they did not get their degrees from Billy Joe's Bible Church Academy and Bait Shop.


Scientists who believe in the Genesis Flood have many questions to address. In this example, what happened before and after the Flood regarding plants and their pollinators? (While we often think of bees pollinating flowers, other critters get involved in that process as well.) Further, the Master Engineer equipped organisms to adapt and change — yes, creationists do believe accept speciation, but do not believe that is evidence of fish-to-florist evolution. Dr. Gordon Wilson has proposed a model, freely stating that models come and go, but the Word of God is held fast.
Insect pollinators were created after plants (Day Three) on Day Five or Six (probably both). I think it is reasonable to assume that plant kinds (off the Ark) and insect kinds (those without aquatic larval stages likely on the Ark) that survived the Flood were more generalized anatomically, physiologically, and behaviorally. Because both plants and insects had the divinely designed genetic and epigenetic potential to form highly specialized plant-pollinator relationships, many did so to minimize competition and niche overlap during ecological succession in the centuries after the Flood.

Nevertheless there are always niche opportunities available for generalists that excel in changing or disturbed habitats. Our creationist models seeking to answer these and other interesting questions should remain in an open hand while attempting to be faithful to Scripture and the scientific evidence.
To read the rest, click on "The Creation of Plants, Pollinators, and their Post-Flood Adaptations".

Friday, March 9, 2018

The Peppered Moth and Evolutionary Fake News

On the plus side, Darwin bots can get away with bad science, dishonesty, and outright fraud for decades. However, the down side is that the embarrassing truth is often discovered. Those of us who appreciate truth in science (and science reporting) do not cotton to being deceived for the sake of getting us to believe in evolution.

Peppered moth evolution was never real, and has been further shown to be fake news
Light and dark varieties of peppered moths
Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (link to top is here, link to bottom is here)
One of the oldest "proofs" of evolution is the peppered moth. Essentially, the dark version supposedly alighted on soot-covered trees in England and were left alone while the light version was victuals for birds. The population of the lighter critters decreased. "Aha! Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" No. Most of the story was fake news.

Actually, it may have been an example of natural selection (a concept that creationists also accept), but they were still moths. Nothing changed into something else. I get to cognating that people are very gullible when it comes to what "scientists say", whether real ones or failed television comedians. Basic observation should tell practically anyone that there were no significant changes. Asking questions about research to back the assertions would have been helpful, whether street waif or scientist, and anyone in between.

On a similar note, Dr. James White says that we must "demythologize scholarship". Just because someone has a bunch of letters after their name does not mean you cannot challenge their presuppositional errors.  

A more recent genetic study confirms that there was no evolution. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Moths were created to be moths, and not to turn into something completely different.
Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs. New genetic research validates those criticisms.
The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.
That story helped rescue Darwin's conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.
To read the rest of this rather short article, click on "Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving".