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

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Evolutionists Invoke the Bear Dog

Darwin's disciples stray from their stated beliefs in purposeless evolution by using pantheism and animism, the bear dogs (amphicyonids) were not some kind of aboriginal spirits. Instead, it was a critter that is somewhat underrepresented in the fossil record. Some evolutionists think it was an ancestor of both bears and dogs, although the bear connection is weak, even according to their criteria.

Some evolutionary writers were claiming that the bear dog was an ancestor of dogs, then contradicted themselves by admitting there is no fossil evidence.
Amphicyon ingens reconstruction image credit: Wikimedia Commons / roman uchytel
A couple of writers discussed how dogs and bears shared this alleged common ancestor, and then proceeded to contradict themselves by admitting that there is little or no fossil evidence to support their claims. Fake evolution news in action, that's a mite deceptive, old sons. The fact remains that animals were created to reproduce after their kinds, not to turn into something else. This is what we observe, Yippie ky yay, Darwin!
The article cited paleontologist Susumu Tomiya and anatomist Jack Tseng. A search for their names found a 2016 technical report on beardogs written by them in the journal Royal Society Open Science. The pair re-analyzed two fossils previously labeled as generic carnivores by other scientists. New CT scans showed skull features that suggested both fossils belonged to the specific category of carnivores called beardogs. Does the name mean beardogs evolved into dogs or bears? Not at all. Here’s what I found.
To read the rest, click on "Beardogs: Bears, Dogs, or Something Else?"

Monday, July 30, 2018

A Fermi Commitment to Snipe Hunting

Yes, the title is a dreadful play on words based on the so-called Fermi Paradox. This concept is based on presuppositions rooted in abiogenesis (life from non-life), atoms-to-aliens evolution, and numbers. There are so many stars out yonder, there has to be life on many planets. Materialists have a firm commitment to the Fermi paradox, but there is not much reason to believe it anymore.

The Fermi Paradox is that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. A closer look indicates there is no paradox after all.
Credit: Freeimages / Can Berkol
Yes, I know that there are birds known as snipes, but this kind is not a bird and requires special methods for hunting. That's because the legendary critter is elusive because it doesn't exist. A snipe hunt is nonsensical, but people have fun with it. Searching for space aliens on exoplanets is an expensive waste of time, and doesn't seem to be pleasurable. That's because the Creator put Earth in a special place and did it recently, as well as making man in his own image. Materialists don't cotton to those notions.

Interesting that materialists suggest that the laws of physics were different or did not apply to the Big Bang, and that they are not consistent across the universe. I reckon that there is no reason according to their convoluted logic to expect that evolution occurred elsewhere.

The non-science of astrobiology relies on the Fermi Paradox and other assumptions that have no actual basis in science. Researchers did some calculations with more realistic numbers (possibly because the possibilities for habitable planets are fading), and are disappointing the adherents. See that cloud of dust over yonder? That's from the true believers circling the wagons against logic and drumming up some rescuing devices. They know there are snipes out there, and they're going to hunt them anyway.
Where are the aliens? Are we alone in the universe after all? The prevailing academic worldview is based around the secular humanistic, materialist premise that natural causes explain everything, and the universe is devoid of any over-arching meaning, purpose or design. Since life is asserted to have evolved here on Earth through unguided natural processes, it would seem to follow that we should expect to find it elsewhere in the universe also (because the alternative would imply that Earth and humanity are somehow special and unique, which is antithetical to the secularist worldview).

In cosmology, this secular viewpoint that humans are not special in the universe has been named the Copernican Principle, though the man himself would certainly not have agreed with its modern formulation. We are assumed to have a randomly-selected vantage point on the rest of the universe which does not reflect any privileged view.
To read the rest, click on "Dissolving the Fermi Paradox — Life is unique after all: Copernicus, Enrico Fermi, and Elon Musk weigh in". For a related article and more rescuing devices, see "Most Exoplanets Are Probably Not Habitable".

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Wretched Radiometric Dating and the Oldest Color on Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Last week, we had some fun with Wretched Radio, also examining how atheists and evolutionists ridicule Christians and creationists. Today, I have another audio excerpt made into video format from the show, which appears at the end of this post. In this informative and entertaining piece, some problems with radiometric dating and the alleged oldest color on Earth, pink, are discussed.

Using presuppositions, secular scientists claim to know the oldest color on Earth.

I thought that Todd and Tony would need me to saddle up and ride over there to help them up. That'll be the day! No help needed from this child. They are aware of the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ that Darwin's disciples utilize, and that proponents of deep time use unfounded assumptions. Also, secular scientists presuppose that Earth and the universe are extremely old. The Bearded Buddha (Darwin) requires huge amounts of time for his speculations to work, so his loyal followers do their best to give him all the time in the world.

Uniformitarian geologists and other secular scientists bamboozle and befuddle the masses with the radiometric dating shell game. (Of course, being modern scientists and such, they use plastic cups instead of shells.) Problem is, they have also deceived themselves.

Radiometric dating involves the decay rate of, say, potassium into argon,where potassium is the "parent" and argon is the "daughter". The two elements are compared and the decay rate is factored in. This requires assumptions of how much of the parent and daughter elements were present at the get-go, that there was no contamination (such as an increase or decrease of the two elements under consideration from external influences), and that the radioactive decay rate remained constant over huge amounts of time. Being confident in their guesswork, scientists make pronouncements and people say, "Oooooh! Aren't scientist smart? Earth must be really old because scientists say so".

Here's a link to that entire Wretched episode, and the pertinent excerpt follows below. I hope you like it as much as I did. Also, if you want to learn more about the wretched process of radiometric dating, I gave you some links that have a prairie schooner-full of more links to get you educated.

Friday, July 27, 2018

Lights Out for Star Formation Ideas

Sometimes we see pictures from deep space that claim to show stars forming, "stellar nurseries", and whatnot. In reality, nobody has ever seen a star form because it takes too many Darwin years. Not that stars are anywhere near as complicated as the cells in our bodies. The "star formation" is not from actual science. Instead, the story drives the presentation of what is observed.

Secular scientists tell stories of the formation of stars that do not fit actual science. Now some of these ideas have to be discarded and rewritten.
Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Univ. of Virginia
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
As we have seen here many times, indications reveal that the universe is far younger than naturalists want to admit. They still saddle up to ride for the evolution brand, preferring bad science and frustration to giving the Creator his due. Yes, I said frustration. Those speculations about how stars form and keep going need to be revised. Again. Distant galaxies have stars that "should not" be there because those stars are too young to be in old galaxies. Risible ideas of young stars having formed by collisions are offered. Red dwarf stars are lousy candidates to support life, but there are so many, cosmic evolutionists insist on playing a losing game of odds

No, science, logic, and especially the Bible tell us quite clearly that life was created right here. To read about the items listed just above and more, click on "Star Formation Theories Fail to Shine".

Thursday, July 26, 2018

A Biblical Approach to Physiology

When you need to shoe a horse, you get some basic tools to do the job. The shoe itself was made and given the proper shape through some other tools. Those tools can be considered simple, but they are designed to work together for the purpose of shooing.

Despite claims of Darwinists, human physiology is clearly the product of the Master Engineer.
Credit: Unsplash / Everton Vila
Another example is the bicycle. It has a drivetrain that transfers power from pedaling via chain and gears to the wheels, the rider steers the contraption (sometimes at comparatively high speeds) with handlebars, has a saddle that is supposed to be adjusted to optimal height, and brakes. Many of those can be considered machines by themselves, but don't do much good anywhere else.

Some tinhorns claim that organisms, Earth, the universe, all have the appearance of design and purpose, but that is not so. Such remarks are assertions of opinion and defy reason. People are designed by the Master Engineer. We can see the specified design and complexity of the ear, the eye, those molecular machines, the respiratory system, and too many more to list.

Darwinists insist that living things are the products of time, chance, random processes, external "pressures", and so on. Their "EvolutionDidIt" mantra hollers "Whoa!" to science. Let's focus on the human body. It makes far more sense to realize that our structure and functions were engineered to work as a unit; each item was put in place for a reason.
We have been created fearfully and wonderfully by our Creator God, and the human body showcases God’s intricate design. Design features are evident in the structures and functions of each of the body systems. In this paper, I present a design approach to the study of human anatomy and physiology from a biblical worldview. I establish a theology of the body as a foundation for the study of human structure and function. I then discuss key repeating themes in the human body systems as evidence for design and offer suggestions for biblical integration in the study of these themes. I also highlight the concept of overdesign in the human body as evidence for a Great Designer. I conclude the paper with a discussion of ways that a design approach to the study of anatomy and physiology could inspire praise, promote deeper reflection on God and His creation, and encourage a holistic view of stewardship of the body.
To finish reading Dr. Sled's paper, click on "Biblical Integration in Anatomy and Physiology: A Design Approach". For some of Dr. Sled's peer-reviewed publications, click here.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

The Origin of Consciousness

Have you ever thought about thought? More specifically, consciousness? According to Darwinian and other materialistic views, atheists and evolutionists have a passel of problems dreaming up plausible ideas on the origin of consciousness. After all, we are nothing but bundles of chemicals following our impulses.

Atheists, evolutionists, and other materialists are unable to explain the origin of consciousness.
Moments of Thoughtfulness, Charles Sprague Pearce, 1882
For materialists to complain about crimes and other moral outrages that most people find outrageous, they are standing on the Christian worldview instead of being consistent with their own paradigm. Indeed, some of us must be biblical creationists because we are born that way, just like they are materialists. However, it is not possible to be consistent with such a bleak outlook on life. This has tacit admittance when evolutionists attempt to find free will or the soul, which are intangible and related to consciousness. None are housed in the brain, and consciousness itself cannot be explained as something that happens through matter. Consciousness is the work of our Creator, who made us in his image. Those folks reject the Master Engineer and his work.

Here are two articles submitted for your thoughtful consideration. This is the first:
I have been contemplating consciousness for a long time. Back in high school I wrote a research paper for English class on the topic of consciousness. I argued that it could not be reduced to the mere outworking of physical matter in motion. I remember intuitively just understanding this upon reflection, but I was able to find a book at the library written by a philosopher of science, Dr James Fetzer, arguing that minds are not machines, and human consciousness is fundamentally different from how computers make ‘decisions’ and access memory. I understood that this was a vital issue in the debate over worldviews, because if our brains are all we are—if there is no soul—then everything we think and do must be traced back to only physical causes, just as the processes of a computer are.
To read the rest, click on "Consciousness is not an emergent property of matter". Then we'll continue with the next related article. 

If consciousness is not a property of matter, then where did it come from? The hands at the Darwin Ranch (up yonder near Deception Pass), have tried some interesting speculations. As is so often the case with materialists, some of their ideas are passed off as "science", but the empirical science they claim to employ was conspicuously absent.
A recent survey by Newman University, Birmingham, is very revealing. 1 in 5 UK atheists and 1 in 3 Canadian atheists are sympathetic to or even strongly agree with the statement, “Evolutionary processes cannot explain the existence of human consciousness.” They are not alone. In his book, Mind and Cosmos, philosopher Professor Thomas Nagel argues that the Darwinian process could not produce consciousness. (Being an atheist, however, he still clings to the belief that some as yet undiscovered natural process gave rise to it!)

Computers and intelligent machines might be very fast calculators but, ultimately, they only process information and make decisions determined by a program: they follow instructions blindly. In contrast, human beings are conscious, having a mind which is aware of both itself and its environment. We have perceptions, thoughts, feelings and beliefs, and make choices based upon them.
To finish reading, make a conscious choice to click on "The origin of human consciousness". Also, you can click here to see a refutation of Bertrand Russell's materialistic inconsistencies.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Targeted Changes and Engineered Adaptability

Last month, we looked at "Purposeful Changes and Engineered Adaptability". Now we're going to see some additional development of the subject.

Those advocating fish-to-fool evolution interpret data based on their presuppositions. Fine, we all do that. When they commence to forcing the data to fit the narrative and ignoring or downplaying facts that are none to friendly to their worldview, they are being unscientific and doing some indoctrination.

Evidence supports the targeted adaptation engineering model proposed by creationists.
Rocket engines / Freeimages / mike gieson
Darwinists get on the prod when creationists point out that their belief in many lucky accidents caused by external stimuli is not supported by evidence. Instead, organisms are engineered to adapt — the ability to change was built in, and it is very specific. There are many examples of adaptations that are baffling to evolutionary paradigms, including blind cave fish, stick spiders, beetles, certain reptiles, and so on. A creationary continuous environmental tracking (CET) framework fits the data and explains the Master Engineer's work.
If we observe what organisms actually do and achieve, it appears they continuously track environmental changes and self-adjust with suitable, often epigenetically heritable traits or behaviors that result in adaptation to the new environment. When we use the CET framework to interpret observations on the organism-environment interface, the data indicate that adaptive capacity resides solely within organisms. And adaptation often happens through highly regulated systems with elements that correspond to human-engineered tracking systems.
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Adaptive Solutions Are Targeted, Not Trial-and-Error".

Monday, July 23, 2018

Secularists Scrying the Origin of Planets

In the metaphysical monstrosities of materialism, secularists are becoming increasingly mystical. No, they are unlikely to come out and admit to having pantheistic views, but we have seen several times how advocates of cosmic-dust-to-cosmologist evolution have views and procedures that would be more at home with fortune tellers than in science.

Materialists present ideas on the formation of planets that defy both logic and physics, also doing the "scientific" equivalent of crystal gazing.
Image composed of elements from Openclipart
These owlhoots appeal to evolutionary magick for biology, but change the wording for use with cosmic evolution, and the same procedures apply. Planetologists are, in effect, scrying. That is, they are attempting to receive messages about both the past and the future by gazing on what they call GEMS: glass with embedded metal and sulfides out in space, then they extrapolate on planetary formations. Maybe they can get visions of their invisible imaginary friends in outer space that cannot exist.

Of course, they use a passel of circular reasoning by assuming that they "know" certain things about the imaginary past, but scry up some more things on the formation of planets that they pretend are facts. Of course, they also cover their speculations with vague terms so they can't get pinned down on their assertions. The obedient lapdog media sends out evolutionary pronouncements and speculations as if they were facts reached through actual science. 

Atheists make metaphysical statements of faith, such as the the universe and the earth seeming to be orderly, but are actually chaotic. Uh, not as chaotic as that horse apple, Hoss:

People should be able to see through their scams by using critical thinking, but that is discouraged nowadays. Just believe in evolutionism and ignore how secularists actually defy the laws of physics. Meanwhile, biblical creationists encourage critical thinking so we can learn the truth about what the Creator has done.
Materialists sound much more confident than they are about their theories for the origin of planets.

Evolutionists have mastered the art of bluffing. So confident are they in their worldview of big-bang-to-man evolution, they can leap over tall anomalies in a single sentence. It takes critical reading to see this. Usually, they will start a paper or article by asserting evolution as a fact, about which there is no controversy, in order to claim their turf.
To finish reading and learning, click on "Planet Origin Theories Contradict Physics". Also, I recommend "The Frantic Determination of Some Scientists to Discover Life Elsewhere".

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Slapping Down Christians and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Todd Friel of Wretched Radio had a couple of segments that I wanted to use, so I contacted him for permission. I could have gone the Fair Use route, preferred the direct approach. He gave me the go-ahead, and I'll give you the link to the full episode after the video-style excerpt.

Atheists and anti-creationists demonize conservative Christians.

On July 16, 2018, Mr. Friel posted on that Twitter thing that Christians should pray for Ken Ham because he is attacked so much:

Atheopaths, old earthers, and other owlhoots did the usual piranha thing and swarmed it. Notice the reply just below his message for one example. I was on the prod and challenged the writer:
"He deserves it. All of it." Who are YOU to decide that he deserves it? By what standard? Is it because you hate him, and hate God? "Let's try your "reasoning": I lack belief that atheists can use reason, so they deserve lots of ridicule. Howzat work for ya, Skippy?
Instead of attempting to explain himself according to his fundamentally flawed worldview, he dug himself in deeper:

Wow, I sure am unarmed in a battle of wits with that mocker! That one, and others, proved Mr. Friel right. People hate Ken Ham and treat him like a punching bag. I suspicion that it's because he is uncompromising, provides biblical and scientific evidence for his claims, and they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. There is more that I'll discuss below.

Can anti-creationists give reasoned responses? This guy certainly cannot. He prefers to demonize people who threaten his worldview with reality, spams people (even when they ask not to be sent his stuff), and has posted hundreds of libelous attacks on biblical creationists. Ken Ham and others ruin some foundations of atheism by refuting evolution and deep time, and supporting special creation. Darwin's loyalists need those years for their own machinations.

Notice that old earthers and theistic evolutionists give aid and comfort to enemies of God by saddling up with them to ride for the deep time brand? (I still maintain that TEs are likely Deists because of their low view of Scripture, and the way they treat people who believe that the Bible means what it says.) Members of that gang express disdain for intellectual, religious, academic, and speech freedoms when Question Evolution Day rolls around every year.

It's not just Ham, either. Ken, other biblical creationists, and other uncompromising Christians get attacked. Mr. Friel should not forget Mr. Comfort, for one primary example. I believe that the hatred exhibited for conservative Christians and biblical creationists is because they hate the truth (John 14:6, I John 3:13-14, Romans 1:18-23, 2 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 5:10-11). To unbelievers and those who reject God's Word, we stink in that our existence reminds them that we belong to God and they do not  (2 Cor. 2:15-16). Bible deniers, whether professing Christians as well as atheists, are in serious need of repentance.

Someone attacked Eric Hovind on my Cowboy Bob Page on Fazebook. Fake name, of course. I was going to copy 'n' paste some remarks, but I think the marshal of Fake Name Enforcement caught up to him. He made numerous assertions about Eric, and when I challenged him to back up his claims he (wait for it...) dodged them and attacked me. Keep them on topic. They can't stand that.

Most of the objections that village atheists use logical fallacies that are essentially red herrings — distractions. Worse than that, they are methods of emotional manipulation used while they evosplain our stupidity. Mr. Friel discussed an article on Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason site by Natasha Crain titled, "A Parent’s Guide to the 5 Skeptics Who Want to Shame Your Kids for Being Christian". (Note from the Irony Board: last I knew, Koukl is an old earther, but he isn't bushwhacking biblical creationists.) Atheists ridicule Christians for believing in miraculous events like creation, the Genesis Flood, the Resurrection of Jesus, and other things, but believe everything happened by chance, from nothing. They have their own secular miracles. That's okay to them, because atheism.

I have the excerpt that inspired this article below. You can hear the entire episode, free to listen online or download, by clicking here. I'm planning of giving another bit of news from Wretched Radio next week. Update: here it is: "Wretched Radiometric Dating and the Oldest Color on Earth".

Friday, July 20, 2018

Creation Science Geology in the Smoky Mountains

Over here in the eastern part of the United States, we have a mountain system called the Appalachians. Actually, part of them reach into Newfoundland, Canada, and down into Alabama. It has several regions or provinces. Here in southeastern New York, the Catskills are a part of the Appalachians. Following the line toward the south, you can reach the Smoky Mountains.

Creation science geological research in the Smoky Mountains shows further evidence of the young earth and the Genesis Flood.
Great Smoky Mountains image credit: Wikipedia / Terrill White
People who like autumn "color tours" may want to take a drive and visit the national park. You may even want to visit the highest point of the Smokies and the Appalachian Trail, a mountain called Klingon Dome.

"That's Clingmans Dome, Cowboy Bob!"


But enough of this travelogue. Let's be getting ourselves into some geology. More specifically, creation science geology. Dr. Andrew Snelling wanted to do some firsthand research. Way back when, during the catastrophic plate tectonics of the Genesis Flood, Africa smacked into North America in a hit-and-run maneuver. This caused mountains to pop up, metamorphosis, and all kinds of action. The rocks would have certain markers of that action, supporting the Flood model and a young earth.
As a creation geologist from Australia, I didn’t hear about the Smokies until I visited the United States to do research. A fellow geologist recommended the Smokies as a good place to sample rocks for an idea I wanted to test. My goal was to verify that certain rocks in the earth’s mountain ranges formed quickly (even in weeks!), not over millions of years. In my area of expertise, I knew that within a certain mineral there are telltale byproducts if the rocks formed rapidly. I just needed to find some of that mineral in rocks that formed under the right conditions.
To read the entire article (or download the audio, but you'll miss out on the illustrations), click on "Making More of the Mountains". Dr. Snelling mentioned some of his articles on polonium radiohalos (try this one for starters), and you may be interested in "Mysterious Radiohalos and the Genesis Flood" as well. 

Thursday, July 19, 2018

On the Origin of Agriculture

According to Darwin's disciples, it took a mighty long time for the cycle of evolution to happen all the way up to humanity. Then what? Apparently, our ancestors waited for their paint to dry by doing nothing much besides moving around and doing the occasional cave wall artwork. This is against human nature, and our timeline shows that we suddenly commenced to building things and developing agriculture.

Evolutionists have difficulty making sense of humanity's history with agriculture.
The Potato Growers by Jean-Francois Millet
For some reason, people were content to be "hunter-gatherers" for thousands of years until someone got the notion to put something in the ground, wait around, and then chow down on what grew. Eventually, farming developed and agricultural sciences. Evolutionists cannot support this mythology, and they are baffled by our agricultural history.


In reality, the biblical timeline has the answer. Not only were we created in God's image a few thousand years ago, Adam and Eve were intelligent. Evolution was not involved. Their first duties were to tend the garden, not to kill critters and paint caves. Things make sense when the Darwinist presuppositions and circular reasoning are set aside.
Evolutionists are at a loss to explain why agriculture arose suddenly in many regions relatively recently.

At the University of Colorado, postdoc Patrick Kavanaugh does his best to tip-toe around an evolutionary conundrum: If modern humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years, why did agriculture arise so quickly just a few thousand years ago? The University press release promises new clues but no credible answers. We’ll see why when we think about their proposal.
To read the rest, click on "Origin of Agriculture Defies Evolutionary Long Ages".

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

More Rumblings in the Cambrian Explosion

Secular scientists and Darwinian enthusiasts tell us that the fossil record shows a gradual progression of gradual to more complex life forms, from the oldest layers to the more complex (but "graveyards" of jumbled fossils put burrs under their saddles). One of the most frequent points raised by biblical creationists in support of the global Genesis Flood and recent creation is what is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion.

The "Cambrian Explosion" has baffled evolutionists and supported creation science for many years.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Mark A. Wilson
The Cambrian layer "exploded" with fossils of fully-formed organisms (including the complex trilobites), and most of these are plants and marine critters — which fits creation science models. Indeed, many have excellent preservation. Secular geologists naturally operate from their deep time views, and want to know what went on with layers they consider older than Cambrian. Not much happening there. One speculation is that fossilization conditions were not happening in the same way. That rescuing device has been refuted.
The scientists found there were similar opportunities for preservation in both the Cambrian and Precambrian rocks, and yet arthropod fossils and trace fossils are found only in the Cambrian sediments. “The lack of euarthropod body fossils in the Ediacaran biota is mirrored in all other preservational regimes in the Precambrian, including BSTs [Burgess Shale Type deposits], phosphatised microfossils, and chert deposits.”
They also found that euarthropod trace fossils are “strikingly absent” during the Ediacaran period.
To finish reading, click on "The Cambrian Explosion Mystery Deepens".

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Lymphocytes on Patrol

We are constantly bombarded by microbes — tiny intruders that try to ride roughshod over our health, such as bacteria, viruses, and other things. However, not all are bad, and several are actually necessary (for example, see "Bacteria are Everywhere — Fortunately"). Our Creator has designed several systems within us to police them.

Lymphocytes have several fascinating and unique abilities.
Credit: Unsplash / Ben Koorengevel
Let's take a look at white blood cells called lymphocytes. They deal with microbes that cause infections, and keep important areas like the lungs tidied up. B lymphocytes are unique in that they actually rearrange their genes for the production of proteins that mark invaders for elimination, and they also keep the good microbes from wandering off into the wrong territories. This is yet another example of Darwin-defying, creation-affirming specified complexity.
Lymphocytes are part of the acquired immune system. That means they adapt to new threats and provide defenses we do not have at birth. Lymphocytes circulate in the blood and the lymphatic system (the other fluid circulation system in humans) looking for microbes that might cause an infection. They can recognize foreign proteins produced by microbes, and they have the power to destroy the invader and call other white blood cells to help.
This is fascinating. To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "Lymphocytes—Our Body’s Dynamic Defenders". 

Monday, July 16, 2018

The Construction of Respiration

Ever get awakened by a child crying and say to yourself, "That kid's got a healthy set of lungs"? They are still growing, too. My father could make himself heard from quite a distance, and I inherited that — which paid off when I preached in a big old church that did not have a working amplifier.

Our respiratory system is another example of the Master Engineer's intricate work.
Image from Clker clipart
While lungs are extremely important, they are not the only part of our respiratory system. Indeed, the specified irreducible complexity of the Master Engineer's work confounds the hands at the Darwin Ranch. Ain't no way all the parts can come together through random processes and chance and still have all those intricate functions.

With few exceptions, respiration begins with the nose —

"Snot locker, Cowboy Bob!"

Well, let's sniff around with that aspect. We breathe in our air, exhale carbon dioxide (which plants love and return the favor by making oxygen), and keep cells working through our blood supply. However, there are impurities that need to be removed. Some of that gets caught in the nose (or expelled through sneezing), and our parts of our respiratory system get involved in cleaning things up.

There are many fascinating aspects of our intricate respiratory system. Our Creator has given us many comparisons where he uses terms about air, breath, and so on in Scripture. While secularists may claim that EvolutionDidIt, such a claim can be dismissed by thinking people.
The respiratory system has many distinctive design features, which show forth the providence of God. Breathing also illustrates our human vulnerability and complete dependence upon God. One easy experiment to show this is to try to hold our breath. For most of us, air hunger becomes painful well within a minute, and we would die in just a few more minutes if completely deprived of air. So, our breathing apparatus is one of our most vital systems—absolutely necessary to sustain us from moment to moment. How does it work?
To read the entire article, click on "The breath of life". 

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Bishop Bell and the Dinosaur

An annoyance for proponents of fish-to-fish warden evolutionists and other deep time enthusiasts are accounts of dragons in history. Remember, the word dinosaur had not been invented yet. The Bible also describes some critters that are only known to paleontology nowadays. After all, the Bible is a reliable history book.

A tomb in Carlisle Cathedral has what appears to be dinosaurs, like Spinophorosaurus, etched into the brass
Spinophorosaurus image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura (CC BY 3.0)
If you get a notion to head to England, then go north, you can find Carlisle Cathedral. (If you reach Lockerbie, you've passed it.) Why? Well, it's ancient, construction was begun in 1122. But for our purposes, there's the easily overlooked tomb of Bishop Richard Bell — it's under a rug in the floor. Etched in the brass are several critters, including some dinosaur-looking beasties. Long necks that look like they're dancing at a hootenanny, or maybe it's a bit of rasslin'. (I'm bringing that last one up because giraffes fight each other with their necks sometimes.) The creatures have spikes or clubs on their tales, which is something unknown on sauropods until 1989. The bishop was buried in 1496. 

While Darwin devotees will hand-wave this as something fanciful, it is very interesting to Bible believers. We don't know what lived in England at that time, but indications are that various dinosaurs migrated after the Genesis Flood to many areas. We do know, from Scripture and scientific evidence, that not only was life created, but the earth is far younger than secularists want to believe.
Within Bishop Bell’s tomb decorations, we saw true-to-form carvings of normal animals like an eel, a dog, a fish, and a bird. Others were trickier to identify, but none of them looked childish or fanciful. I took a closer look at the two dinosaur look-alikes. The palm of my hand could cover the whole design. It shows two long-tailed creatures with legs that go straight down like dinosaurs’ legs did, rather than angling to the side like those of modern crocodiles. Their long necks intertwine in a reptilian wrestling match. If I were trying to etch two sauropod dinosaurs in brass, I would carve something just like this.
To read the entire article, click on "Did Medieval Artists See Real Dinosaurs?"

Friday, July 13, 2018

Brain Plasticity and Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is a look behind the scenes of The Question Evolution Project. I do not post any old thing for the sake of posting, and I seek useful information to feature or add to my original articles. Several articles and such have been rejected for one reason or another in my screening process (guess that's the best name I can give it). A few were what I considered harmful, or were produced by people who have false biblical teachings. If I must feature something from a doubtful or even bad source, there will be a clear disclaimer or warning. For the post part, I give primary consideration to sources that I can trust.

Once in a while, someone wants us to add a horse to our corral by requesting a link to their sites. There was a very strange one a spell back, somebody wanted me to give a link to a fashion site and he thought we would be a good match, and offered me some kind of perks. (Should I become The Fashion Cowboy?) I ignored the letter. He wrote again, and I asked him if he had read the content on this site, since we have nothing in common. No further response.

Our Creator designed our brains to have plasticity, which is amazing and Darwin-defying
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
The latest venture involved an article on brain plasticity. I'm thinking that my correspondent was searching for keywords and found this site. I was conflicted because yes, it seemed legitimate, and had the ring of truth. Also, I had encountered some of this information before.

What was presented was a summary of material credited to the Huffington Post. This is a leftist publication, so that raised my suspicions. It gave a passel of supporting links, and I was pleasantly surprised that there was actual research mostly untainted with homage to the Bearded Buddha (Darwin), and I found nothing objectionable (such as atheistic evolutionism). The article sent to me continued with ten helpful hints summarized from a book by Dr. Michael Merzenich.

I could summarize the article as "make your brain better" self-help material similar to other things that we find on the web and shared on social media. Although it was strictly secular in outlook, I did not find anything wrong with it.

Interlude: a cool graphic.


There are some things that bothered me a mite. First, the email was supposedly from the author, but that site does not list any authors for their "improve your life" posts anywhere that I could find. 

Second, I checked the first of the uncredited images, and it can be found on a book cover, an article at Psychology Today, other places on the web, and especially at Shutterstock, where you pay to use the image and they want credit. People grab images all the time for their own projects, often without thinking that they could be doing something wrong.

Third, the site is in the business of selling supplements, most of which I am unfamiliar and cannot pronounce. While the blog material may be just fine, I do not want to be considered to be endorsing their products — which may also be just fine.

People liken the brain to computers, but that comparison is quite lacking. In the matter of brain plasticity, there was a link to an article in my post, "Evolving the Brain's Evolving". Our Creator engineered the brain to adapt and develop, and the neural pathways have multiple functions and make adjustments, such as the way memory is processed. To give universal common ancestor evolution credit for the amazing engineering and specified complexity of the human brain is fatuous. But no, Darwinoids prefer to exclude our Creator from receiving proper credit.

All this may feel like a tease, and you're chomping at the bit to see what in the world I'm talking about. So, knowing that I am not endorsing the site contents or merchandise, but the article sent to me looks very interesting, although godless, here it is: "Using Brain Plasticity to Supercharge Your Brain".

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Mechanisms of Memory

Sometimes we are frustrated when we forget some things, but if you study on it, we are bombarded with many details, large and small, throughout each day. We can be preoccupied with tasks at hand and hurriedly set our keys in a different place than usual, but paying attention and being mindful can be helpful. On the other hand, things we had forgotten for decades can suddenly come to mind by a subtle prompt. We also have direct prompts, such as setting email reminders in my calendar for my doctor appointment or to schedule a post for a certain day.

our brain sorts out the important things for us to remember.
Credit: Pixabay / Pezibear
Our senses can trigger memories. So do strong emotions. We make memory books with photographs, letters, and other physical objects and can reminisce about the events surrounding them. Certain fragrances can bring back people and places. Music can prompt thoughts about occasions, good or bad. Yet, we forget where we left those keys a few minutes ago. Several times, I have struggled to remember where I left something, only to have it come to mind in a quiet moment — the subconscious often keeps working on it.

The mind accesses the brain with various physical functions so we can process information. Although likened to computers, the resemblance is superficial, and the brain is far more efficient. The brain processes information and memories all the way down to the cellular level. Our Creator masterfully designed this part of our lives as well as many others, and it is irrational to believe that these things evolved through Darwinian means.
“Where’d I park my car?”

Our inability to remember details can be annoying. Yet if we understand how our brain works—why it forgets some things and remembers others—we can gain a whole new appreciation for this marvel.

Many people mistakenly believe that the brain permanently stores all the information it encounters, but we just can’t always access it. In fact, we forget many things, which appear to be gone forever. And that’s a good thing!
To keep reading, click on "What Memories Are Made Of". I suggest you do it now so you don't forget. Oh, and I forgot to add that you can download the audio version if you've a mind to.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Bad Science and Extraterrestrial Life

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch must have been ingesting peyote buttons again, since they were presenting some bizarre stuff lately — more so than usual. Since they cannot have discussions with their invisible friends from outer space, evolutionists are commencing to deal from the bottom of the deck again (they're not too spaced out to do that) and being irrational as well as deceitful in their pseudoscience. If the rumor is true, they could have stayed out of trouble by riding into town for a free Slurpee. Since that didn't happen, I have a couple of articles for your consideration.

Wishful thinking for life on Enceladus and elsewhere is making materialsts crazier.
Enceladus image credit: NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents. Not by a long shot.)
These tinhorns are getting our tax money to speculate on non-science such as astrobiology, promoting wishful thinking as scientific hypotheses, evolutionary presuppositions, circular reasoning, and so on. We are paying them to indoctrinate us in their materialistic religion. The secular media is obediently parroting (and possibly inflating) reports by scientists that "organic molecules" exist out yonder. Big deal. Those things are common here and in space, but they do not produce life. Organic chemicals exist on Enceladus, they exist in enchiladas, and they exist in the emissions from my automobile. None of those harbor or produce life, you savvy?

I reckon that some of the maybeness that is being reported is also downright dishonest. Jets and oceans, okay. Life exists without evidence, not okay. Okay? Scientists are assuming evolution and long ages, even though Enceladus and other moons present evidence of a young solar system. That really gets them on the prod!
Is water alive? Are organic molecules alive? No; they’re dead. Someone needs to bring some sense into reporting about life in outer space.

Here are the facts: some organic molecules have been found in the geysers erupting from the south pole of Enceladus, Saturn’s little Iowa-size moon. Is that a big deal? No; organic molecules are very common in the universe. You can find them in meteorites, comets, and interstellar clouds. “Organic” means anything that contains carbon. Your DNA is organic, but so is tailpipe soot. The category “organic” contains a vast number of molecules, all of which are dead. Even DNA is dead outside a cell; it will just sit there and decay, like it rapidly does in fossils. Life, in fact, consists of countless zillions of dead molecules. Only when they are organized into systems that function to metabolize, grow and reproduce do we consider the system a living thing.
To read more about that moon and other news in the area, jet over to "Breaking News! Enceladus Is Dead!" Don't forget to come back for the next section!

Materialists are committed to denying the Creator and finding evidence of evolution practically anywhere. The dealing from the bottom of the deck continues by building their stories on assumptions. People who use critical thinking skills will holler, "Whoa! First, prove that something is living out there, Zeke!"
  • Wackiness continues with the idea, "What if we meet space aliens, and it's necessary to kill them off?" Sure, buddy, collect your paycheck of my tax dollars, there's a good fellow. 
  • Another suggests, "Get every man jack to decode alien signals as a group effort". As long as there's no group hug involved. I don't cotton to group hugs.
  • "Maybe climate change killed them off." Maybe they didn't listen to pseudoscience scares and Nye lies like globalists on Earth, and they're doing right well.
  • "It's been discovered that life is way more common in the multiverse". Pics and papers, or it didn't happen. Just kidding, we know that no research happened.
  • NASA is slurping down the tax dollars in more of what David Coppedge calls Bio-Astrology.
Things are getting really wacky at our expense, both financially and intellectually. 
Week after week, month after month, year after year, evolutionists speculate about imaginary friends they have never seen.

Perhaps our headline appears uncharitable to eminent scientists and reporters. Our response is to just show you what they are saying and let you decide.
To finish this post and read the information at the possibly uncharitable headline, click on "What Is It About Space Aliens that Makes Evolutionists Go Nuts?"