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, September 29, 2018

Marvels of Monarch Migration

About this time of year in North America, a fascinating phenomenon occurs: monarch butterflies commence their migrations. Those west of the Rocky Mountains head over to the California area. Monarchs in South America have a migration as well, but those are not understood very well. Some of these insects stay put. The most interesting are the monarchs east of the Rockies, who head down Mexico way.


Monarch butterfly migration baffling for evolutionary speculations and testifies of the Master Engineer's skill.
Credit: USFWS / Jim Hudgins
Amazing how the Master Engineer equipped insects with such tiny brains to navigate huge distances. It's startling enough that Pacific salmon return to the places of their births, but monarchs go to areas they've never been before! Several critters make long journeys, and have various methods of navigation. Both migration, and the life cycle of monarchs, defy evolutionary thinking. 




via GIPHY

I don't know how it's done, but volunteers help track monarchs, especially since their habitats are dwindling and efforts are being undertaken to save them. If you study on it, monarchs are quite amazing in many ways, including their migration.
In the many years I worked as a specialist design engineer, I came across (and designed parts for) some very sophisticated electronic gadgetry, including navigation equipment for various space and defence projects. The level of technology in the circuits that guided men to the moon is phenomenal. However, the navigation equipment packed into the brain of the monarch butterfly shows, through the incredible feats of migration performed by that creature, that there is a far greater level of technology involved. And it is all packed into a brain no bigger than a pinhead!
This tiny, yet beautiful, insect can perform a migration flight of thousands of kilometres, navigating unerringly to reach a place it has never seen. For instance, some monarchs fly from Nova Scotia, Canada to the mountains west of Mexico City, some 5,000 kilometres (3,000 miles) in all. Not just to the very same place to which their forefathers migrated, but each one often to the very same tree!
To read the rest, flutter on over to "The magnificent migrating monarch".




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

Friday, September 28, 2018

Digging Deeper on Language and Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 10-06-2018

We have seen that language, speech, and communication are difficult things for Darwin's disciples to effectively expound. They will use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™, dodge the issue with "it evolved", or use other excuses excavated while riding for the Darwin brand on the Owlhoot Trail.


Biblical creationists know that language is a gift of our Creator.
Credit: Freeimages / Michal Zacharzewski
Obviously, humans need to communicate on levels much higher than those of critters. A good deal of language is based on conventions, and that includes slang or colloquialisms (Would I use such things? Not hardly!) as well as profanity. It seems that the only human languages that are standardized are artificial, especially those used in computer programming. Printed languages vary by regions and over time, as anyone who has read classics from previous centuries is well aware.

It was interesting to learn that in this science-denying, health-endangering, gender-confused society (get ready to pay a fine for incorrect pronoun usage), some children circumvented the "preferred pronoun" nonsense came up with yo as a gender-neutral pronoun! Don't be underestimating the young'uns, deaf children in Nicaragua developed their own sign language. Communication through language includes gestures as well, but be mighty careful what you do and where you do it. (Back in the old West, shooting three times in the air was a call for help. Now it's a ticket to jail.) For that matter, someone in your own neck of the woods with the same background as you can be "offended" at a common gesture if he has a mind to.

With all these things to consider, Darwinists feel the need to evosplain the origins of language and communications. They continually fail, because language itself testifies of the Creator, and a language study supports the biblical timeline.


Mostly made at Hetemeel.com
I shamelessly exploited a short segment from Wretched Radio. Todd Friel read a segment from BP News ("the gas station news source"), which was actually the Baptist Press, who in turn obtained it from the Christian news source called WORLD.




Koko the "talking" gorilla died, and we are learning that much of the success in gorillaspeak was actually fake news. Evolutionists seem desperate to establish kinship between us and various apes, so they use the aforementioned Making Things Up™ to "prove" their points. If they had science on their side, they wouldn't have to resort to shading the truth and outright deception, would they? You may also want to ask someone why a gorilla, which is supposedly not as closely related to humans, was such an interesting subject. Then spring on them that they really have no idea where to put gorillas on the family tree.

The facts remain that evolutionists cannot explain the origin and development of language, although they have some interesting Just-So Stories that have no basis in science. Biblical creationists know that language is a distinguishing gift to mankind from our Creator. In addition, a new study shows that primates are simply unable to have meaningful vocal communication. We were created separately, in God's image, and did not co-evolve with anything. You savvy?

You may want to save this post and consider it a creationary resource. There are several links that could be useful.



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

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Your Many Inner Clocks

You have probably heard about our inner clocks called the circadian rhythms —

"You mean those bugs in North America that go zzzzzzzzzzzz up in the trees, Cowboy Bob?"

Uh, you may be thinking of periodical cicadas that appear at 13 or 17 year intervals, or the regular ones that are found in many parts of the world. I hear them in August for the most part. And I see you've distracted me again.

Our internal clocks are far more intricate than we ever could have imagined.
Credit: Pixabay / Wilfried Pohnke
We have the circadian rhythms inside us, sometimes waking us up before the alarm goes off. They get disrupted by jet lag and Daylight Savings Time, and some people compensate by taking an over-the-counter melatonin hormone supplement. We've heard about that inner clock. It's not found only in humans, and circadian rhythms are important for many life forms. See "We All Have Rhythm" for information about that.

I was surprised to learn that we have evolution-defying tiny timekeepers within us. These include communication networks between our metabolism and circadian rhythms. To read about this, take a look-see at "Your Body Talks to Itself". Things get even more interesting, if you can cognate that.

Time began at creation, when the Master Engineer set up 24-hour days, and so many life forms operate by that principle. You know that we have a master inner clock. More than that, there are trillions of little clocks inside us, regulator proteins, genetic switches, and more. Some jaspers will want to praise Darwin, but such specified complexity and intricate networks cannot be the product of time, chance, and random processes. You savvy?
But this central body clock is just the beginning of the amazing story. Humans, mice, and various animals not only have a centrally located master clock in their brains, but they also have many secondary (or “peripheral”) local clocks that run the different organs, tissues, and individual cells throughout their bodies. Moreover, just as a connected network of computers keep their times synced with a central server, the systems in your body keep their operations in perfect sync with the brain’s central clock. This amazing Creator-designed cellular communication unifies all the body parts and tissues in a systems-critical, time-based context.
Researchers are just beginning to unravel the indescribable complexity required to pull this off, and they are thoroughly amazed at what they are finding. In fact, scientists have now looked at many different tissues, including the kidneys, liver, and intestines, and in nearly every case they have found an independent clock that also takes cues from the hypothalamus.
As it turns out, almost every cell in the human body has a circadian clock. This enables each cell to figure out when to use energy, when to rest, when to make repairs, or when to divide and make more cells.
To read the entire article and this section in context (or download the audio version by my favorite reader), click on "A Time for Everything—Your Body’s Internal Clock".



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

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Dust Rings and Planet Origins

Secular astronomers are excited about exoplanet PDS 70b, which they say is a "newborn" planet. This is because they are basing all their calculations and interpretations on naturalistic presuppositions. One of these is accretion. Since none of the planetary origins ideas are effective, accretion (planetesimals stick together because of gravity and form big planets) is the best of the worst, and therefore the most popular. (After all, it is anathema to admit that the evidence favors recent creation.) The dust ring supposedly formed a planet around PDS 70, which was romantically named PDS 70b.


Secular astronomers claim to have discovered a "newborn" planet.
Credit: ESO / A. Müller, et al
The black spot is where the star was hidden, and the planet is just to the right
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The biggest problem with secular planet origins speculations is that they defy the laws of physics. In this case, we have dust and rings and stuff. Add the deep time guesswork, subtract observable evidence (no one really saw a planet, or a star, form), faith in cosmic evolution as the lodestar, and you have "science". If you ponder it a spell, you might reckon that even if a planet was seen forming, that would not mean that there is no Creator. Indeed, it could more reasonably mean that this stuff, which is far less complex than any life form, was doing what it was designed to do.
Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, are claiming to have captured a spectacular snapshot of planetary formation around a young dwarf star. They did this using the SPHERE instrument on the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. They found evidence of a giant gas planet with a mass a few times that of Jupiter near the orange dwarf star PDS 70, some 370 light-years from Earth. 
. . . 
The planetary companion to this star was found within an inner gap of what astronomers have termed a ‘protoplanetary disk’. Protoplanetary disks are believed to form from the leftovers of the molecular cloud that supposedly collapsed to form the star. But in this case, there is a gap between the dust and the star, making it look more like a donut than a disk. The doughnut-hole gap is called a transition disk because it is considered to be in transition from a formerly solid disk to a stellar planetary system, and large gaps have presumably begun to form.
To read the entire article, click on "Conclusive evidence that dust rings around some stars grow into planets?"





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

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Creation Science and Paleo-Biogeography Models

No need to be intimidated by the expensive words in the title. Break it down. First, paleo. People who study ancient things are paleontologists, and you read about them here quite often. It comes from Greek words that basically mean ancient being study. Bio, meaning life, such as biology, the study of life. Geography, the study of the earth, environments, and people. So, put it all together. 

A recent fossil discovery not only baffles evolutionists, but also supports a creation science Flood model.
Green Turaco image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ian Wilson (CC BY 2.0)
Both creationary and evolutionary scientists have worldviews, speculations, hypotheses, and models. Creationists have differing views on the mechanisms (but not the biblical reality) of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionists are constantly flustered by discoveries that don't comport with their belief system. This includes biogeography — "How did that get there"? One such recent discovery helps creationary paleontological research. It also helps these creationists develop their paleo-biogeography model about our recently-created world.
The recent report of a fossil bird discovered in Wyoming shows another glaring indicator of evolution’s failure to explain the story of life. Scientists analyzed the fossil and realized it’s related to the turaco, a living bird that’s only found in Africa. 
. . . 
If evolution were true, we should only find turaco-like bird fossils in Africa, not some distant land like western North America. The secular authors of the recent fossil bird paper openly acknowledge the evolutionary contradictions in their research field and state, “Many avian crown clades [living representatives of a group] with restricted extant distributions appear to have stem-group relatives [ancestral types] in very different parts of the world.” In light of evolution, these finds make no sense at all.
To read the entire article, click on "Building a Biblical Paleo-Biogeography Model".


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

Monday, September 24, 2018

The Ownership of Science

There have been occasions where we have examined the use of science, between their science and our science, and how the interpretations of facts are the important factor. Now we need to ride up yonder hill and look back for an even bigger picture. That is, who owns science itself?


The "open access" movement to make science available to all raises many issues to be answered.
Credit: CSIRO / Frank Filippi (CC BY 3.0)
This raises many questions and "on the other hand" thoughts. People who do the research and produce valid papers (there is now considerable doubt that papers are useful) deserve to be paid. Does the public have the right to access the papers, especially if our taxes paid for the research? The secular science industry makes this very expensive in many cases, although hackers can still get in. Other people can look at summaries and abstracts, which make promises that may not be fulfilled in the content. 

Some creationist organizations have peer-reviewed journals that are only accessible to members, with some articles available on the web. Another option used is to hold the articles for a year (to be fair to subscribers), and then publishing them on the web.

Some secular science organizations are producing open access papers, out of the belief that science belongs to everybody. (Is it just me, or does that idea sound a bit socialist?) Open access brings up questions of quality control and theft of ideas; I've seen papers behind paywalls that were reproduced on other sites, and I wondered if I was seeing copyright infringement or something. Options for making science material are being considered, but there's a passel of details to be hashed out.
Journal editors are freaking out over the rise of Open Science initiatives, worried their reign over the perception of science is doomed.
Who owns science? In the old days, scientists were self-funded or supported by patrons. Nowadays, much of science is funded by governments. And yet the results of the research remain largely behind paywalls: journals that require subscription fees often beyond the reach of the common man. Universities and labs can afford site licenses that allow all or most employees of the institutions instant access to the latest published research. But again, citizens outside of those institutions stay outside the paywall. They only get open access to internet-based science news services (EurekAlert, Science Daily, Phys.org) which dish out predigested summaries of findings – and then, only after embargo dates expire. Often, however, those summaries are tainted with bias to make the researcher’s institution look good.
To read the rest, click on "Who Owns Science, Anyway?"

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

Saturday, September 22, 2018

How to Fly - a Little Birdie Told Me

There are several words used to describe the how humans copy things in the natural world for our own use. I use biomimetics, others use biomimicry, and today I learned a new one: bioinspiration. Has a nice sound to it, don't you think? Today, we take a lesson from Bicycle Repairman.


The creationist Wright brothers meticulously studied the design work of the Master Engineer.
First successful flight of the Wright Flyer by the Wright brothers
Image via Wikimedia Commons
I was getting a mite playful for a moment. This is about Wright brothers, who had several interests, including bicycles. They were firm creationary Christians, and wanted to know how to fly. The Wrights were right in studying birds, and they were very meticulous and scientific in their studies of how the Master Engineer created flight. 

They also looked at the failures of their contemporaries. Ever see old videos of "early flight attempts" or "flight failures"? Some were just weird, and many seemed to think that flight is a matter of flapping up and down, sometimes with paddles of other wing imitations. Studies show that wings have a far more intricate motion than we can see with the naked eye, but the brothers were able to analyze bird wings thoroughly enough so they could get their idea off the ground. First, gliders. Then they got going with powered flight. Not for long, at first, but they kept at it, as well as scientists and technicians that followed.

Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy and others of his ilk insist that evolution is necessary for science to progress. This science of flight had nothing to do with evolution, so that twaddle has been refuted yet again. He should find this troubling.
Humans have been endeavoring to soar like birds for millennia. After multiple failures, many people felt that manned, mechanized flight was impossible. After three years of test flights, Wilbur and Orville Wright’s first successful airborne attempt finally achieved the dream of mechanized flight in 1903, and it changed the world. And “throughout the story of the Wright brothers…birds figure prominently.”
To read the rest, fly on over to "Bioinspiration: The Birds Will Tell You". EDIT: A reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook supplied a link to another article that gives some additional information on the bros. Wright. To read that, click on "The Wright Brothers — Pioneers of the Skies".




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

Friday, September 21, 2018

Alfred Russel Wallace and Evolution

Instead of Darwinism, we almost had Wallacism. Alfred Russel Wallace was a contemporary of Darwin, and arrived at very similar ideas on evolution by natural selection. Perhaps they were both influence by Comte de Buffon. Like other evolutionists at that time, he had little or no formal scientific training (Darwin studied theology), but Wallace did a passel of fieldwork and did some real science. When Chuck found out about Alfie's ideas, he hurried up and had his book published first.


We almost had Wallacism instead of Darwinism.
Alfred Russel Wallace, circa 1895 via Wikimedia Commons
One major difference between Wallace and Darwin was the teleological (purpose and design) views of Wallace. For Darwin and his disciples, any hint of a Creator was bad medicine. Don't be disunderstanding me now, the two gents rode for the evolution brand for the most part, but Wallace was not an atheist. Although Darwin and Wallace had some disagreements, I am not aware that they went on letter-writing campaigns to discredit each other or say, "You're a liar!" Rational thinking does not work that way.

Wallace supported "Spiritualism" (really, it's spiritism) like A. Conan Doyle and other people in Victorian times. This spirit stuff detracted from the status of his work as a naturalist.

It is interesting that Wallace could be considered a forerunner of the Intelligent Design movement. I need to reign in a moment here and explain something. Biblical creationists tend to distance ourselves from the ID movement per se because their organizations reject unguided natural processes and believe that something, somewhere, was behind it. They do not proclaim the Creator as revealed in the Bible; their adherents include folks from several religions as well as agnostics. However, creationists use intelligent design examples and arguments quite frequently, but within a creationary framework. Seems that Alfred would have fit right in with some of the ID organizations that exist today.

It is interesting that Alfred rejected what is now the pseudoscience of astrobiology. When Percival Lowell said there was life on Mars and someone up there built canals, Wallace debunked the claims and also professed disbelief that life existed beyond Earth.

A few years ago, I posted material about Professor Michael Flannery, author of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life and his short documentary, Darwin's Heretic. Now we have some new material for you. Flannery has a new book, Nature's Prophet, and he was on Real Science Radio for an interview. It's in two parts, totaling just over an hour. Free to listen online or download, and there is some additional information at the site:
I have no idea if Flannery is a biblical creationist, but this interview was both interesting and informative. Unfortunately, I have to point out that while RSR host Bob Enyart has some excellent material supporting biblical creation, he supports "open theism", so I recommend suspicion of some of his theology.





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

Thursday, September 20, 2018

More Plain Truth about Planation Surfaces

Ever notice how some mountains are not pointy on top, but look like a giant sander came down and flattened them out? Those are planation surfaces. They span large areas in many cases. Geologists reckon that huge amounts of sediment has been removed from the mountains, but secular scientists have no idea how — and why it is not happening today.

Flat mountains are planation surfaces, and secular geologists cannot effectively explain them.
Cape Breton Highlands National Park
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dr. Wilson (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Geomorphology (the way the land gets shaped) of planation surfaces is very pronounced up in Canada, eh? Cypress Hills have a very big and very flat plateau, and they provide useful information about the Genesis Flood. Uniformitarian geologists say that something "looks old", but that is not science, that is opinion. After all, they have nothing with which to compare something and choose "young" or "old". Hint: the earth is young.
During the Recessive Stage of the Flood the mountains rose up and the valleys sank. This caused huge quantities of rock and dirt to wash into the new oceans of the world. The magnitude of this, such as the estimated thickness of sediment eroded, is largely undisputed among geologists of all persuasions. For example, it is accepted that erosion has removed about 6,000 m (20,000 ft) of rock from the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern USA. They are therefore said to ‘look old’—because the conventional (uniformitarian) notion is that it happened gradually, over millions of years, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To read the rest, click on "Testimony to the Flood — A remarkable planation surface in Canada". You may also like to see "Geologists Puzzled by Planation Surfaces".



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

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Design in Early Fruit Fly Development

A while ago, we had a short article on fruit flies, how they defy evolution and affirm creation. My wife detests the things. I have a slightly higher tolerance, but get a mite cranky when they try to fly up my nose. They are tiny, so pictures need to be magnified. Those of us who want to avoid fruit flies can avoid bringing fruit home, but they are attracted to other things as well. Because they eat decaying material, they are considered beneficial. Want to just wait until they die off? Sure, they live less than two months. But boy do they breed! So, it's not so easy.

The tiny fruit fly defies evolution and affirms creation.
Fruit fly liking a coffee fruit / Image credit: USDA-ARS
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Enough about the annoyance part. Now that scientists have the equipment to see tiny things, and are learning more about proteins and mRNAs, we can see that they testify to the genius of the Master Engineer. There is no logical place for evolutionary ideas in the life cycle of the lil' ol' fruit fly. I have to warn you about something. The following article is made available here, and was written for people with a strong science background, not us reg'lar folk. The author his his doctorate in biochemistry.
While design may be seen in all living creatures as well as many nonliving objects, the early development of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, clearly shows that the making of a “simple” fruit fly exhibits forethought. The Lord had to predetermine where the head (rostral or anterior), the tail (caudal or posterior), the back (dorsal) and belly (ventral), all the organs, and appendages would be in the finished product. In other words, God had to envision what the final product would look like before beginning construction, then bring together in the proper juxtaposition all the pieces necessary for construction.
The entire can be found at "Early Development of the Fruit Fly as Evidence of Design".



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

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Astrobiology and the Other Richter Scale

Purveyors of universal common ancestor evolution cannot explain the origin of life on Earth, so they give the problem to their imaginary invisible friends, the space aliens. Evolutionists presuppose their belief system, and then insist that life must have not only originated, but evolved somewhere far away. Then they want to commence with conversation. That's assuming the aliens exist, are advanced enough to receive and send signals, everyone's using the proper signals, they want to talk in the first place, and so on. Not to mention the time lag, since they are supposedly zillions of light years away.


The search for extraterrestrials is getting more desperate for evolutionists.
Credit: Pixabay / VirajTamakuwala
There was a time that people played the odds (the so-called Fermi Paradox) and insisted that life had to exist on other worlds. Problem is, the more scientists learn about the hazards of space and the "habitable zone", the less likely those odds are going to play out. From a biblical creationist perspective, most of us reject ETs on both scientific and theological grounds.

Some of those jaspers get all het up about alien life, saying how it will be one of the most important discoveries for humanity. Maybe they'll dazzle us with their know-how. I lack belief that such a claim is true. Farmers will still have to farm, medical professionals will still have to do medical stuff, delivery drivers will still have to drive, politicians will still have to do whatever it is they do — you get the idea. I also think that if we found alien life, they would still go around doing alien stuff like they were before.

Reading the speculations about the search for life out there — well, it seems increasingly desperate. There is a prairie schooner-full of words like "maybe", "could be", "perhaps", "scientists think possibly", and so on. It sounds like schoolchildren playing make-believe, which is not such a faulty analogy. F'rinstance, Jupiter may have been a watery world before it became a gas giant, and water means life, hey presto! Or, globular cluster like Omega Centauri could — oh, wait. No they couldn't. You can read about these and other stories by clicking on "Astrobiology Survives on Passionate Hope", then you can come back for the next item, below.

If I told my boss that although I had zero production, I had papers describing how wonderful it would be if I actually worked, just give me more time and eventually I'll produce results — you can guess how long I'd be employed. Alien enthusiasts want our tax dollars for a "science" that has no results and really has no right to exist; you can't have a science without something to study, old son. They had to move on and go with donations, but they hope to get more government handouts like other Darwinists who produce nothing. 

They even has a scale of importance, and this importance is entirely subjective. Sure is a lot of work to deny special creation and to reject the Creator who gave us life! Dr. Henry Richter has a list of important factors for habitability, and making a "Richter Scale" with reasonable estimates makes ET unlikely to phone home, have a home, or exist in the first place.
Should the government fleece taxpayers again for a project with almost zero chance for success? Consider two “Richter scales” that should inform hopes.

NASA has gritted its teeth ever since SETI went on the government-funding chopping block in the 1990s. They keep titillating the public with hopes for finding their invisible friends in space. Microbes are not enough, even though NASA gets loads of money for “astrobiology,” the big-tent search for even one-celled life. They want someone to talk to. Let’s see how they express their motivations:
To finish reading about all this far-out bioastrology stuff, click on "Richter Scaling: Is Funding for Astrobiology and SETI Justified?"



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

Monday, September 17, 2018

Galapagos Islands Showcase Creation

Devotees of Darwin can head down yonder to Ecuador and take a jaunt into the Pacific Ocean to see the sacred site known as the Galapagos Islands. Even though we hear about all the scientific research being conducted, people take vacations there. The Bearded Buddha made many observations there while making his voyage on the Beagle, but made seriously erroneous conclusions.

A Darwinist called the Galapagos Islands a "laboratory for evolution". Wrong.
Credit: RGBStock / Stella Bogdanic
One writer referred to the Galapagos Islands as a "laboratory for evolution". Unfortunately, Darwin's disciples deceive others as well as themselves by conflating variation with evolution, implying dust-to-deceiver evolution. What we see is a passel of different critters, and varieties of those critters, just as the Master Engineer designed them to have. We do not observe evolution.
A recent Livescience article is entitled “The Galápagos Islands: Laboratory of Evolution.” It addresses, among other things, “unique examples of plant and animal life.” The islands contain a variety of biota (the animal and plant life in a particular area), such as the Galápagos giant tortoise, sea lions, the varieties of finches, waved albatrosses, penguins, marine iguanas, and hundreds of native plants. A wide variety of unique species are normal for environments around the world, but where is evidence for real, demonstrative, vertical evolution that the title of the article alludes to? 
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Are the Galápagos Islands a Laboratory of Evolution?"




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

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Rewriting Dinosaur Evolution Again

Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have to put in overtime at the propaganda mill. This is because the story dinosaur evolution needs to be reconfigured and rewritten yet again. This post will link to three articles — I have five or six available, but that is asking too much of y'all.


Evolutionists have to rewrite the history of dinosaur evolution again.
Original image: The Passion of Creation by Leonid Pasternak, 1880s
"Why does it need rewriting again, Cowboy Bob?"

Evolutionists and other old-earth believers have their anti-creation assumptions and presuppositions. Then, they commence to plugging in data where it fits. When the data are recalcitrant to evolution, they torture the facts until they confess to whatever is needed. This includes changing the storyline. In today's exciting episode, we see how the narrative of dinosaur evolution keeps on shifting.

What really takes the rag off the bush is when Darwinists claim that they have evidence for evolution that actually works against evolution, or get all fired up over facts that simply lay there doing nothing. In this first article, we have a nice change where papers on largest dinosaur foot ever discovered prudently omitted evolution. We also have a huge dinosaur found in China that causes consternation, "appearing much earlier than expected" and forces timeline rewriting. Another big boy was discovered that also fouls up the timelines because of its development.
You have to squint hard to see the image of Charles Darwin in these bones. It works better if you close your eyes.

Evolutionists do not ‘own’ the history of dinosaurs, even though they pretend to. Do these fossils support the idea that dinosaurs evolved from smaller, simpler animals?
You can read about the three items listed above, and more, by clicking on "Dinosaur Era Fossils Fail to Support Evolution". Our panel of experts agree: no evidence for evolution.



Next up, we have a big pterosaur that evolutionists call "primitive". Why is it primitive? Because it is in the strata where critters existed that Darwinists have arbitrarily assigned "primitive" status. Also, a tinhorn managed to bring global warming into the story!
A large pterosaur in Utah is 65 million Darwin Years older than thought, but was already built for flying.

Very few pterosaurs are known from Triassic rock; this one is amazingly well preserved. What does evolutionary paleontologist Steven Brusatte think of it? He tells the BBC News,
Find out what Steve said, and more about bad pterosaur tales, by clicking on "Good-Flying Cosmopolitan Pterosaur Found Earlier Than Thought".

Finally, the first article linked above touched on the subject of a longneck dinosaur being found in the "wrong place". This one goes into more detail, and shows how Darwinoids are on the prod because the facts are a mite recalcitrant to their metaphysical opinions — that is, their beliefs are not based on actual science, but on rewriting history.
One of their most surprising results was that the new dinosaur was found in rocks well below all other similar diplodocoid discoveries. This fossil stretches the global time span of sauropods to include the early Middle Jurassic—about 174 million years ago, according to secular thinking. However, most diplodocoids, and sauropods in general, do not appear in strata until the Late Jurassic System which was supposedly about 160 million years ago.
To read the entire article, click on "Diplodocoid Dinosaurs Found in Unexpected Place". All of these instances of facts slapping leather with a good story could be mitigated if scientists had the proper starting point. Deep time, evolution, and other creation-defying assumptions simply do not work. The truth is that the world was created recently, and the Genesis Flood explains what has been found far better than secular beliefs.



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

Friday, September 14, 2018

Physical Death Provides for Life

"Sure is mighty hot, Luke. You sure we can make it to the next town?"

"Yep. Not much father, Clem. Then you, me, and these hosses will get watered."

"Them vultures look impatient for us to give up the ghost."

"They gotta eat too, ya know. But it won't be us."

Luke was right, and after plenty of water and cooling down, Clem commenced to cogitating on the physical part of life and death. We see carrion birds eating roadkill, and know that some scavengers are not too proud to drag off a carcass as a present for the wife and kids. But there is a great deal of activity in death of which we are unaware.

Our Creator provided life for animals and organisms through death.
Credit: US National Park Service / Sally King (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Our Creator knew that with sin, death would enter the world (Romans 5:12). Things die, but can't just lay there. He made provision for them to go away — eventually. It's interesting that some of the microscopic organisms that help creatures survive also help break them down. Sort of like working at a gathering and then having to help with the cleanup detail afterward. No chance of fossilization happening under normal conditions, old son.

Now I'm going to warn you that the disgust factor is very high in the rest of this post. Scavengers are not the only things benefiting from death. There are microbes in the decay process, the patch of land gets fertilized, predators eat scavengers, and so on. The whole process is both disgusting and fascinating. Even more interesting is that Jesus died, but his body did not have decay before he arose from the dead — which fulfilled prophesy (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:37).

By the way, I reckon that people who get afraid of the "zombie apocalypse", where dead people attack the living, seem to put science aside, and know nothing of the necrobiome. If decay stops, then it's magic or aliens, and you have just another sci-fi horror story. But I'm just speculating here.
Quick show of hands. How many of you have spent time watching an animal decay? Anyone? Unless you live on a farm, the closest you’ve come is probably a squashed squirrel or skunk. You catch a flash of innards as you drive by and that’s enough. Yuck!

But all vertebrates (animals with backbones) go through a similar process when they die. In fact, by all appearances, God put in place a sophisticated system to deal with dead things. Death wasn’t part of the original “very good” world (Genesis 1–3), but we can be glad that after Adam’s sin brought death into the world, the Creator made sure dead animals get absorbed back into the dirt.
For more "yucks" (but still a very interesting subject), click on "Death's Cleanup Crew". 




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

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Rapid Adaptation Supports Engineered Adaptability Model

Votaries of minerals-to-monk evolution generally accept the view promulgated by Darwin that evolution is the result of external "pressures". These cause organisms to adapt and evolve very slowly, eventually turning into something else. Some owlhoots support evolution through fake science and bad papers that often go unnoticed. Creation science, meanwhile, presents reality: designed, targeted, rapid adaptations programmed by the Master Engineer.

Engineered adaptability theorizes rapid change, evolution is the opposite
Assembled and modified using components from Clker clipart and Paint.NET
Instead of external influences on organisms, evidence supports the continuous environmental tracking model. Things change, and they do it far more quickly than Darwin's disciples want. How about the showshoe hare? We know that it changes color from white to brown, and then back again. The change has changed as well according to the environment.


Some evolutionists are admitting that things change quickly. Then they deal from the bottom of the deck and refer to adaptation and change as evolution. Not hardly! Rabbits are still rabbits, geckos are still geckos, killifish are still killifish, and so on. I reckon that they've illegitimately smuggled in the word evolution so much that they've deceived their ownselves; they want to believe, evidence or not. The facts remain that Darwin was wrong, and our Creator is right.
The Institute for Creation Research is developing an engineering-based, organism-focused model called continuous environmental tracking (CET) to explain how organisms self-adjust to changing conditions. Our model anticipates that the adaptive solutions creatures express can also be characterized as directed, rapid, and highly targeted. As we’ve highlighted in this Engineered Adaptability article series, research results are aligning with this expectation.
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Fast Adaptation Confirms Design-Based Model".
 

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

If Physicists Knew SUSI...

The articles linked here should have more appeal to people with physics and mathematics background.

Secular physicists have been attempting to salvage their Big Bang concepts, but they only have theoretical constructs, not experimental support. The Higgs boson was thought to be a way to hitch a new team of mules to the old wagon, but that did not work so well. In fact, some scientists speculated that the universe should not even exist. Later, they came up with supersymmetry (SUSY), where bosons and fermions would find their superpartners. Guess they could dance the night away. They don't know SUSI like I know SUSI.


Secular scientists failed to find "supersymmetry" involving quantum fields.
Dance in the City, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1883
It was hoped that experiments at CERN would help lonely particles find their partners and help salvage the dark matter concept (the other team of mules hitched to the wagon for rescuing the failed Big Bang), and also the string theory ideas. Nope. For more about those subjects, see "SUSY is not the solution to the dark matter crisis".



There was also hope that the experiments could verify speculations that top quarks saddled up with the Higgs field gave particles larger mass. This seems to have some experimental support. However, a need for new physics was felt, since the numbers would cancel out somehow, leaving small values. Although the Standard Model has some validity, the Big Bang still lacks support. Since supersymmetry only works on paper, it can never be disproved; materialists can keep their Creator-denying faith in cosmic evolution rolling along. They're waiting for the big dance that will never happen.

No one knows the reason that some particles interact strongly with the Higgs field, giving them a large mass, while other particles react weakly, giving them a smaller mass. These so-called coupling strengths are treated as constants of nature that must be measured. According to the very successful Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the Higgs mass should be 1017 (a hundred million billion) times larger than the 126 GeV that has been observed at the Large Hadron Collider, due to quantum mechanical (QM) interactions among the underlying quantum fields. This must mean that the QM interactions that make large positive contributions dozens of digits long to the Higgs mass have added to the large negative contributions dozens of digits long to give the Higgs its tiny resulting mass (cf. proton’s mass = 0.938 GeV).
To read the entire article, click on "Higgs boson and top quark coupled together — What does it mean?"



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

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The Pandemic of Unchallenged Darwinism

Here in these United States, we have laws against monopolies and racketeering. Sometimes they are even enforced. Unfortunately, since secular humanism (atheism, really) is the de facto state religion here and in other parts of the world, and monopolies on information cannot be restrained, evolutionary thought is mostly unchallenged. Especially in secular science publications, as even a hint of Darwin doubt is intolerable.


Since they refuse challenge, secularists have a great deal of nonsense passed off as actual science.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
On rare occasions, the censorship against creationists and Intelligent Design proponents is lifted enough so that something not overtly threatening to evolution is allowed for publication. But if those same folks knock at the science department's front door and says, "I have some science that challenges Darwin and/or deep time", then it's "Katie, bar the door!" and Darwin's disciples scurry away through the escape tunnel in the storage room. Meanwhile, creationists have to use their own resources to make information available because of the bigotry inherent in the secular science industry.


via GIPHY

True science thrives on challenge and discussion, not on consensus and monopoly, old son. 

Since secularists control the information monopoly on science, weird stuff gets through unchallenged. Some of it is even contradictory. But because it was presented by secularists, they are given a pat on the head, a lollipop — and more grant money. Evolution made the laziest the most fit. No, wait! H. erectus was driven to extinction by laziness, never mind that neither fairy tale has any science or facts. Birds and plants in the cities show variations like their cousins in the wild, then Darwin is imported and conflation occurs.

You can read about the unchallenged nonsense presented as science, plus a bit more, by clicking on "Silly Evolution Speculations Would Cease If Media Allowed Fair Debate".



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

Monday, September 10, 2018

Seismites Support the Genesis Flood

One benefit of writing up these here posts is that I get a prairie schooner-full of education on all sorts of sciences. It is actually rather fun. In this case, a couple of new words to describe rapid geological deposits — and they do not appear in older geology dictionaries.


Rock formations known as seismites are troubling to secular geologists.
Seismite photo from Wikimedia Commons / Mark A. Wilson
If you think on it a spell, you can see the roots of these words. One is tempestites, because deposits were made by storms (tempests), and the other is a word for what we're going to look at right here, seismites (shaped by earthquakes).

Secular and creationist geologists agree that plate tectonics occur. However, secularists are married up with deep time and uniformitarianism, so they cannot explain how plate tectonics even began. Creation science can tell them, but secularists don't like the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics, even though the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for plate tectonics.

Continents get to careening down the expressway, texting while driving, and smash into other continents, which results in damage and lawsuits. Okay, so it's not quite the way it works. What we do see with tempestites is that sediment that is still wet and the earthquakes influence the rock layers before new sediments are laid over them.
A seismite would make a great “marker bed.” It’s like a vast sheet that is different from every layer below it and above it. If geologists could identify this sheet, they would know whether dinosaurs were buried earlier than the earthquake (below it), or later than the earthquake (above it), or maybe even as a result of the earthquake. That’s important to reading history from the rocks (to geologists, anyway).
. . .

What catastrophe could cause an earthquake big enough to disrupt 30 feet of the earth’s surface? Secular geologists don’t have an explanation. Not even an asteroid impact can explain such huge seismites, especially in rapid succession. Asteroid impacts are the most powerful geologic processes known to conventional geologists, who often postulate that one killed off the dinosaurs!
To read the entire article or download the MP3 version, click on "When Continents Collide".



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

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Evolution and Lying

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Darwinists keep refuting themselves in the foot by attempting to define intangible things with empirical methods. This time, they are trying again to grapple with morality, specifically with lying. Why do we do it, when is it wrong, when is it right, and (get out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring©) how lying evolved. 


Evolutionists are trying once again to grapple with the morality of lying. What they found confirms what Bible believers have known for centuries.
Composed at Image Chef
Keep in mind that these sidewinders have hijacked science to promote pantheistic evolutionism, and are living up to their abysmal standards such as "survival of the fittest" and "the end justifies the means" (especially in science education, why lying is acceptable). Since they are materialists, things like logic, the soul, and morality cannot be determined through their systems. By doing so, they are riding onto the Metaphysics Trail and outside of the empirical sciences they claim to uphold.

Let's take a side trail of our own, if'n y'all don't mind. What is lying? Some folks say something like, "I had scrambled eggs for breakfast — oh, I lied, they were poached". I detest that expression, because someone is correcting a mistake. Lying is not a disagreement on the interpretations of facts (Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein had disagreements, but the doesn't seem to be a record of them calling each other liars or somesuch). One angry popinjay spammer insists on calling me, and other biblical creationists, "liars" because he does not like what we say, so defamation is one of his weak attempts to silence us. How does he prove his claims? By diverting challenges and frantically reasserting that he has done so. Yet, with him and others of his species, the challenge of, "Suppose I really was lying, as you claim. How is that wrong according to an atheistic worldview?" hog ties them. To say that lying (or any other moral impropriety is wrong requires them to stand on the biblical worldview! 

Secular psychologists are rooted in evolutionary ideas. Dr. Albert Mohler discussed a report in The Washington Post, and one thing that stands out is how researchers determined that lying changes us in that it becomes easier to lie. That's not very startling to Christians. The apostle Paul refers to apostates (and, I believe he also refers to unbelievers) who are liars and had their consciences seared (1 Tim. 4:2). Our consciences testify to the moral law of God (Romans 1:32, 2:14-15). Even those who claim that they do not know God have their inner judge, the conscience, that contradicts them (Romans 1:18-23). A seared conscience is a dangerous thing.

Now I'm going to strongly urge you to listen to or read the first installment of The Briefing for August 29, 2018. Dr. Mohler has some very interesting remarks from a Christian worldview perspective about lying, evolutionary thinking, and secular science.




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

Labels