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, May 18, 2019

Understanding the Opposition

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the May 2, 2019 episode of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discussed Emperor Naruhito taking the throne in Japan after his father's abdication. Al presented some fascinating history about World War II, Douglas MacArthur and then-emperor Hirohito. I saw some things that can apply to Christians and creationists when dealing with atheists and evolutionists.

Taking some lessons from history like Douglas MacArthur and the Japanese, we see that we need to understand atheism and evolutionism. Our apologetic methods must be better than those of mockers.
General Douglas MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito, September 27,1945
US Army photo by Lt. Gaetano Faillace
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Army)
The Japanese and American cultures were vastly different, and Americans seemed to have a superficial understanding of the Japanese people. If you know your World War II history, an invasion of Japan to end the war would have resulted in a horrendous loss of life on both sides, so the decisions were made to drop two atomic bombs to cause Japanese surrender. Some people wanted to have Hirohito stand trial as a war criminal and then execute him. However, MacArthur had different ideas. 

Shintoism was the dominant religion of Japan, and the people revered their emperors as either gods or conduits to the gods, which was probably one reason they would not surrender despite being defeated. MacArthur understood the importance of their religion to the Japanese people. The Allies had just wrecked Japan, but we operated from Christian foundations and could not leave them devastated. If Hirohito was executed, it would send Japan into a further decline or possibly cause a massive rebellion against the occupiers. Instead, a mutually acceptable arrangement was made that helped Japan recover.

Look just a few miles to the west. Those of us who know a bit about the invasion and ongoing occupation of Tibet can understand that the Chinese worldview was (and is) rooted in atheistic brutality. The Tibetans wanted to be left to their own devices. The Bon religion was prominent in Tibet until they became predominantly Mahayana Buddhist (some version of Bon are merged with Buddhism). The religion and culture were intertwined, but the ChiComs were heavy-handed and showed contempt for the Tibetans and their culture. This has backfired on the Chinese.

On a side note, the day I began writing this article, Dr. Mohler discussed another change of monarchy. King Maha Vajiralongkorn became both a deity and a king in Thailand.

While it can be fascinating to examine history and cultures that are foreign to those of us in the West, we can find some practical applications for Christians and creationists. The religion of atheism is not exactly unified. People identify themselves as weak, strong, Christian (yes, really) atheists, atheist-agnostic, and more. While there are several "leaders" of atheism, they do not necessarily get along or even trust each other. When engaging professing atheists (or agnostics), we need to find out what individuals believe and deal with them on that level, giving them a critique of their worldviews.

In a similar way, molecules-to-man evolutionism is very disjointed. Not all accept certain alleged transitional forms, there is disagreement whether or not dinosaurs evolved into birds, the evolutionary timeline is constantly being rewritten, and so on. Those of us who are serious about biblical creation science need to keep up on the material, which educates us on what is happening for both creationist and evolutionist ideas. (On social media, we often need to correct skeptics on their own mythology.) Then we can engage those who are honestly seeking answers.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)
Conversely, atheists and anti-creationists seldom seek to follow General MacArthur's example, seeking to at least understand where we are coming from so they can have rational discussions with us. They prefer to use misrepresentation and ridicule, and demonstrate a lack of familiarity with reason — which they ironically claim to uphold. Both atheists and evolutionists (and we have seen this many times on this site alone) argue from materialistic presuppositions and biases.

We also argue from our presuppositions and biases. However, science, logic, reason, and truth are on our side. While we seek to understand where others are coming from, we have no business setting aside the Bible. Wisdom and logic come from God, who makes science even possible in the first place. I maintain that atheism and evolutionism are not about facts and logic, else everyone would have a biblical creationist worldview. It is a spiritual problem. 

For the glory of God and properly presenting the gospel, we have to be better than those who hate us in our apologetics. That includes trying to understand where they are coming from, even if they have no desire to understand us.

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

Friday, May 17, 2019

Another Solar System Formation Model Fails

Purveyors of starstuff-to-security guard evolution are still saddling up that old swayback of the nebular hypothesis for the formation of our solar system. Other conjectures fail even more, so they keep going back to the best of bad. This time, a new computer model lets them down.

Secular astronomers have tried several ideas for the formation of the solar system, and stay with the best of the bad. A new model shows that this idea will still not work.
Credit: NASA / Jenny Mottar (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We saw that programming a robot to simulate flight evolution is ridiculous because programmers get the results they expect. In this computer solar system model, however, programmers are constrained with actual facts. The model indicated that secularists still have many problems; naturalism cannot explain the origin of the solar system. Want to know why? It did not happen by chance, but was created by the Master Engineer — and it was created much more recently than they want to admit.
The simulations do not even start with the gas/dust nebular cloud from which the solar system is supposed to have evolved, but start at a point where it is assumed that planet-sized bodies have already formed from accumulation of mass, thus skipping other potential problems. The ‘embryos’ present at the start of these simulations are 10 or 20 large planet-size bodies, and several thousand small planetesimals, at most a few hundred kilometres across.

Then computer simulations are run (or ‘allowed to evolve’ under standard gravitational physics) with various initial parameters in an effort to produce the solar system we observe.
To read the entire article, click on "How did the Solar System form?"

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

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Flight Evolution and Robots

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are all a-twitter because of a robot bird that has been developed. Not so much the robot bird itself since that has been done before, but making a version of Caudipteryx, a disputed "dinosaur with feathers". Yee ha boy howdy, it flapped its robot wings when it ran.

In their futile quest to demonstrate dinosaur-to-bird evolution, researchers made a robot that flapped its wings when it ran. This proves that they can build a robot to do what they want.
Caudipteryx Hendrickx image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Christophe Hendrickx (CC by-SA 3.0)
There's a wagon train-load of assumptions (and wishful thinking) happening. First, researchers assume that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Second, they assumed evolution itself is not a myth. Third, the way it moved was assumed. Fourth, since all we have are fossils, many assumptions were made about its appearance. 

Using these and other assumptions, they made a robot that flapped when it ran. Of course. Any programming, including artificial intelligence, begins with the input given by the programmers. Like evidence, if you torture programming enough, it will confess to anything.

What kind of effort was put into the mimicking of flight and running? Running is very complex, and the flight is not to be underestimated. When people attempted to mimic birds, they tended to utilize the up-and-down flapping motion that they could see. It wasn't until more recent times that special cameras could capture the intricacies of flight as designed by the Master Engineer.

Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), the whole thing is absurd. Indeed, it seems that Darwin's disciples are becoming more and more desperate to validate their false worldview in light of the truth from biblical creation science. Everything was created recently, evolutionary machinations notwithstanding.
This is silly. A robot model with outstretched arms cannot begin to say how dinosaurs took wing.

“Robot dinosaurs help unlock the evolution of flight” shouts a headline at New Atlas. Michael Irving uses standard hype language to try to interest a bored public dazed by non-stop evolutionary myths:
To finish reading, click on "Flight: If You Can’t Evolve It, Model Your Imagination".

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

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Biology and the Young Earth

The propaganda mill of the secular science industry has been effective in convincing people that Earth is billions of years old. True believers point to tendentious (but highly unreliable) numbers from radiometric dating to support their viewpoint, ignoring evidences for the young earth using their own methods against them (such as ocean salinity, for example). You might be surprised to learn that there are biological evidences for our blue marble being young.

Although there are many evidences for a young earth in geology, there are also biological evidences. These refute deep time and evolutionary claims.
Background image credit: RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg
Sure, biblical creationists have a passel of evidences from geology and other sciences. I reckon a planet's age would most likely be inferred from geology. Physical sciences to not stand alone, but interact with each other. When we bring up examples from science, anti-creationists go haywire and pretend they do not exist. Here are just a few instance from biology for Earth and life on it being recently created.
What does the Bible tell us about the age of the earth? Not only does the Bible describe how God created Earth and its life forms in six days, Genesis also contains detailed genealogies and chronologies. Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, one can deduce Earth’s age to be about 6,000 years. In contrast, evolutionists believe Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life here got going about 3.5 billion years ago.

While the evolutionary story is just naturalistic speculation, the Bible gives a fairly complete history and timeline that provide the basis for what is often called a young-earth creationist view. But do the scientific facts demonstrate a young age for Earth? This article will show that a young earth is well supported by the biological data.
To read the rest, click on "Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth". A similar article may be of interest, "Circular Reasoning Surrounds Human Origins, but Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day".

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

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Disparity, Diversity, and the Cambrian Explosion

One of the greatest problems for deep time geologists and evolutionists is the Cambrian explosion. The name may bring to mind images of loud noises, flashes, and smoke, but it actually means that a passel of critters seemed to explode on the scene in the Cambrian layer.

The disparity of life forms found in the Cambrian explosion are often downplay or make excuses to avoid the problems that it has caused their belief system for many years. Release the rescuing devices.
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
I'll allow that creationists tend to oversimplify the importance of the Cambrian explosion (myself included) by pointing out the diversity of life that, according to evolutionists, suddenly appeared on the scene. While that is not wrong, it is incomplete. There is disparity of life forms. That is, there are markedly different life forms near the top of the biological classification table. (Diversity may be more appropriately applied to creatures lower on the table, such as species or genus.) According to evolutionary thinking, there was no time for all these things to develop. What we see is evidence for recent creation, not deep time and evolution.

Mostly made at Hetemeel.com
Sure, Darwin's disciples try to find rescuing devices and evosplain it, but those invariably fail. Some just wave it off; I had an atheopath lie about what fossils were involved and the importance of their sudden appearance. Hand-waving is not scientific, nor is simply asserting that creationist arguments have been refuted — especially when the problems continue to mount for evolution. Downplaying the Cambrian problem will not help, either. So, what about lengthening the timeframe? Will that help?
Gage C. from the United States writes:
Dear CMI,

I’ve recently been going through a time of doubt and during my search for answers I’ve hit something of a stumbling block. I’ve come across a number of articles written in the past 4–5 years describing the Cambrian Explosion as having occurred over the course of about 25–55 million years. The suggesting being that the developments seen are compatible with an evolutionary time scale as there is plenty of time for life to develop into newer forms. This question is furthered by the claim that many of the fossils found show a steady change linking back to a common ancestor. I’m sorry if my question has been answered by one of your prior articles, but I could not find anything addressing these claims. I don’t know how to respond to those who say our arguments have been “long refuted.” I look forward to your response and hope to see a day when we are no looked down on for our beliefs.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
I'd take it mighty kindly if you would read the response. There is some excellent information there. Just click on "Doubt and the Cambrian explosion". Some other items for your consideration: "Showing Backbone in the Cambrian Explosion", "More Rumblings in the Cambrian Explosion", and "Magical Mystery Evolutionary Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion".

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

Monday, May 13, 2019

Cursed Snakes and Genetics

When some folks see a snake, they light a shuck out of there. That may be a good practice in the great outdoors if you are unskilled in recognizing reptiles. Most want to go about their business and be left alone. I think some might be on the prod because of the curse way back in Genesis 3:14.

Research on snake genes shows what we learned back in Genesis. Namely, that they lost their limbs.
Credit: Pixabay / Tahlia Stanton
One part of the curse is that snakes would "eat dust". Not that it was intended to be their primary diet by any means, but they do "eat" dust to some extent. Apparently the serpent in Genesis had limbs, but we are not told if the curse was instantaneous or it took a long time, but you don't see a snake taking a stroll nowadays.

Some genes are regulated according to where they are located in a body, so the gene can work in one place but is switched off in another. Those affecting limbs did not interfere with the ability of snakes to reproduce (obviously). Purveyors of particles-to-python evolution cannot explain why snakes didn't simply die out because of their loss of abilities. They also have to deal with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
All snakes today are limbless, and from written historical records going back thousands of years, that is also how they are described. The fossil record of snakes is robust, and even baby snakes have been found in Cretaceous amber, conventionally dated at 99 MY.  . . . But one thing that can be stated with certainty is that snakes were cursed, and genetic insight is beginning to reveal just how extensively.

A recent study was published purporting to explain how snakes lost their limbs, and it revealed some surprising findings. The study mentioned above not only probed the question of snake limbs but also sightless subterranean mammals. In the latter case, there was a widespread loss of genes responsible for different components of sight, but in the case of snakes, there was only one gene lost (HoxD12), but hundreds of limb regulatory elements were substantially altered and non/miss-expressed.
To read the entire article, move on over to "Snakes Appear to Live a Cursed Life". The video below has some amazing camera work:

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

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Brian Sims and the Increasing Fanaticism of Abortionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who support abortion are frequently vehement in their views, but it should give Brian Sims (a Democrat member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives) reason to pause when both pro-life and pro-abortion people agree that he is out of line. It is obvious that he is a bully. However, I am not going to spend much time dealing with what has already been covered in the news. Instead, we are going to ride along a slightly different trail and learn some important things.

Abortionist Brian Sims is in the news and in trouble for harassing pro-life people. We can learn some things from his diatribe.
Credit: Freestocks / Joanna Malinowska
Before we return to Brian Sims, some other items need to be mentioned. I learned quite a bit from The Chris Stigall Show podcasts, including interviews and his own insight, so I thank him for that. I recommend the podcast called "The Great Pushback" at the 19 min. 34 sec. mark for an excellent discussion. Free to listen online or download.

The Evolution Deception

Regular readers know that I am strongly pro-life. A child is fully human from conception, and this is supported both biblically and by medical science. Biblical creationists uphold the sanctity of life, maintaining that humans are uniquely created in the image of God and are not "just another animal".

The secular science industry has been acting like coyotes, pretending to be doing science work but instead, they are smuggling leftist ideas into the mainstream. We have seen these things here many times regarding fish-to-fool evolution, but secularists are also promoting abortion.

It was more subtle in the past. Abortionists would add to their "it's just a clump of cells" or "conceptus" lie by saying the child is going through previous stages of evolution. Some would pretend to prove it with Ernst Haeckel's drawings. Those drawings have been known to be fraudulent for many years. Even so, abortionists use that Haeckel evolution excuse to justify murdering children. For more about this, see "Evolution and Abortion". Because PP has such a negative image, they are trying to rebrand themselves.

Planned Profithood

Brian Sims was asking for donations to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they allegedly stand for "reproductive freedom". If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that such a term actually implies that women carry human children, not reproducing something else. Again, why support that company? Not only do they receive our tax dollars (despite the objections of many Americans), PP is also highly profitable. I reckon there's something wrong with people who donate to well-heeled organizations in the first place.

Founded on Racism

In the videos, Sims called the people he bushwhacked "racists". Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a firm racist and eugenicist, implementing the "Negro Project" as a thinly-veiled effort to reduce the population of black Americans. Ever notice that the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority areas?

People Know They Are Killing Children

Despite using fake science as an excuse for abortion and forming other excuses, people do know that they are killing children.Some even freely admit it, and are proud of what they are doing. Many in the pro-life community (such as anti-creationist, anti-Bible Matt Walsh) want to educate people about the unborn child being a person, but the hearts of abortionists are the problem, not their minds. They wish to continue with their immorality and selfishness. The Word of God is the answer, despite Walsh's apparent contempt for it. See Sye Ten Bruggencate's discussion in his video, "How To Answer Matt Walsh Part 1". I want to add that Sye spends a bit more time than necessary refuting Matt's claim that Sye used a bad analogy, but I recommend staying with the video. He also provided some links below the video that you may find helpful.

Learning from Brian Sims

I have pointed out several times that atheists and anti-creationists try to control discussions, and we should not let them put us on the defensive. Instead, we need to keep them on-topic, and asking them good questions is very helpful. This concept also applies in pro-life discussions. However, when it becomes clear that someone is unwilling to act in a rational manner and prefers to justify his or her rebellion against God, it is usually time to move on.

Even though Sims was harassing people (and getting himself in trouble in the process), we can learn from what happened (you can follow the link just above and find links to his videos). First of all, why does it matter that the people he picked on were white (with one embarrassing exception: "I'm pretty far from white")? It is irrelevant, but he follows it up with the risible falsehood that what they were doing was "racist".

Sims also used the question-begging epithet "pseudo-Christians", and said, "What you are doing is far from Christian!" According to what standard? How do you define Christian? The Bible tells Christians to defend life and defend the helpless. How does encouraging the murder of unborn children make someone a better Christian? Chris Stigall suggests that Brian should "redirect his ire and concern for inclusivity, tolerance, and respect elsewhere" to be consistent. Uh, Chris, you spelled his name wrong.

Sims also kept repeating "shame on you" and making other accusations. Again, by what standard should these people be ashamed? Is there a reason he picked on Roman Catholics? They have a right to practice their religion in a peaceful manner, and it was clear that they were doing just that. (Although I am a Protestant, I support their rights.) Also, he demanded, "How many children have you clothed today?..."How many children have you put shoes on their feet today?" Two things wrong with that. First, those questions were an irrelevant thesis, a kind of straw man or red herring that has nothing to do with the situation. Second, he tacitly admitted that PP is killing children!

Leftists like Sims would like to invite people like me to a necktie party. I am a Christian, biblical creationist, white, male, heterosexual, politically Conservative. And my apologetics approach is rooted in a presuppositional framework.

The Noetic Effect

Brian relishes his sin and is so angry that he cannot think clearly. He is (or was) an attorney, but he is doing things that he knows are illegal. He is in grave danger. Romans 1:24 NASB has a phrase that should be chilling: God gave them over. To put it another way, God is saying, "You reject me, so have it your way." Sin touches every area of our lives, and is worse when we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans. 1:18).

Thinking is clouded, especially on areas of morality. This is the noetic effect of sin. I have seen people who are rational in some areas, but when it comes to the truth about God, they go off the rails and become incoherent. Truth, science itself, logic, morality — all come from God. Many folks (like one mentioned here) invent a god that makes them comfortable, but they cannot use reason consistently. Notice how Sims was infuriated by the calm responses from people who would not react to his provocations?

Most Important

As a pro-life Christian and a biblical creationist, I implore Brian Sims and others to repent. They cannot save themselves through activism on one side or the other. Religion cannot save you. Nor can politics. We all will stand before our Creator Jesus Christ and confess that he is Lord of all (Romans 14:11, Isaiah 45:23, Philippians 2:10-11). I am ready for that day. Are you?

Some other items for your consideration. First, "Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use". Next, you may want to see Tucker Carlson's interview with the mother of the teenagers who were harassed by Brian Sims. Here is a link to material on logical fallacies that we frequently encounter. Finally, the video "Seven Reasons" is presented below.

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

Friday, May 10, 2019

Breeding Humans and Chimpanzees

In my early 2018 article "Human-Chimp Hybrids?",  I discussed some of the science philosophy and ethical concerns with this breeding concept. The article linked below deals with some of the science as well as other problems.

 Purveyors of molecules-to-monkey evolution and other secularists have long sought to do away with the Creator in regards to their version of science. Charles Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's ideas of geology, and Lyell wanted to divorce geology "from Moses". A similar view has been used in attempts to breed humans with chimpanzees.

In their efforts to reject the Creator, some evolutionists want to attempt hybridizing humans and chimpanzees. There are serious problems with the entire process.
Credit: RGBStock / Stella Bogdanic
No, we're not talking about actual physical contact, as breeding between the two does not and cannot happen in nature. Efforts have been made to make it happen artificially (with a racist approach, no less), but always failed. Now another sidewinder wants to use the CRISPR gene editing device to try again. He argues that humans are just animals and not created separately in God's image. One major problem with his view is the debunked claim that humans and chimps have extremely similar DNA.

There is also the problem of ethics. Indeed, secularists have few qualms in tinkering with DNA and chimeras. This was clearly seen when Dr. He Jiankui produced the first genetically-modified babies. The ethics of human-chimp hybrids should not cause many qualms with creation deniers.
A new movement headed by Professor David Barash to prove evolution by breeding humans with our claimed closest relative, the chimpanzee has gained credence. A core teaching of Neo-Darwinism is that humans are simply another animal produced by evolution. Researchers have produced many hybrids, even between two animals once classified as different species. . . .

Professor Barash concluded from this observation that it is “by no means impossible or even unlikely that a hybrid or a chimera combining a human being and a chimpanzee could be produced in a laboratory. After all, human and chimp (or bonobo) share, by most estimates, roughly 99 percent of their nuclear DNA.”He added that the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR...is regularly used to deliberately modify the genome of many life-forms. . . .

Consequently, Barash added, “it is not unreasonable to foresee the possibility—eventually, perhaps, the likelihood—of producing ‘humanzees’ or ‘chimp-humans.’ Such an individual would … be neither human nor chimp: rather, something in between.” Some evolutionists believe after humans and chimps separated from our common ancestor and became separate species we were still able to interbreed. Consequently, since we used to interbreed, to do so today would not be unexpected.
To read the entire article, click on "Leading Darwinist Advocates Breeding Humans with Chimps".

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

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Extraordinary Erosion of the Genesis Flood

It is usually evident when an area has undergone a flood. Water has marked trees and buildings, debris has been moved, and so on. Obviously, the larger the flood, the more telltale signs. When creation science geologists discuss the Genesis Flood that happened a few thousand years ago, they point out amazing amounts of erosion all over the world.

Erosion and other physical evidence of the Genesis Flood baffles secular geologists. Creation science Flood geology models explain what is observed.
From the New York State Education Department. Kaateskill. Internet.
Available from http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research-collections/geology/resources/kaaterskill;
accessed May 2, 2010 (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Up here in my neck of the woods near the Catskill Mountains, we have planation surfaces (large, flat areas on mountains) such as nearby Kaaterskill. There is also an escarpment (sharp incline) that covers three counties, and you can hike a good part of it. Planation surfaces, escarpments, and I may as well add those stand-alone lumps called inselbergs are baffling to uniformitarian geologists because there is no sign of them happening today. Lots of flood water is fast and powerful.

Then we have phenomenal erosion. When folks tell the cutesy version of the Noah's Ark story, they usually present a silly bathtub Ark and talk about forty days and nights of rain. Some even add that the fountains of the great deep opened up. But there is much more to it than that. Not only do we have catastrophic plate tectonics, but the Flood was in stages. The Recessive Stage caused phenomenal erosion (much of this was deposited in the continental margins). Creation science Flood geology models explain what is observed far better than deep time secular models.
The Recessive Stage of the Flood was a time of intense continental erosion. The erosional debris formed the continental margin—a continuous wedge of mostly compacted sediments surrounding the continents. If we can determine which part of this wedge is composed primarily of detritus eroded during the Recessive Stage, some later cementing to sedimentary rock, then estimating the volume of those sediments and rocks could provide a rough quantitative estimate of material eroded from the continents. At present, a total value is not possible, but such an estimate can be made for select areas, providing a methodology that can be expanded to other marginal areas. One such area is the central Appalachian Mountains of the United States and its downgradient continental margin. Research shows an approximate average of 6,000 m of erosion across the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces. Another area is the continental margin off south-western Africa. Estimates there show an average 2,400 m of rock eroded off the adjacent continent. Erosion was probably greater in the coastal mountains and plains. Evidence from inselbergs on the coastal plain indicates that this erosional event was as rapid as it was significant. If representative, these studies show that much more sedimentary rocks and sediments existed on the continents than the present average of 1,800 m. Since a large proportion (about 30% or more) of the margin sedimentary rocks are Cenozoic, the Flood/post-Flood boundary must be in the late Cenozoic, assuming the geological column is an accurate chronostratigraphic representation of the rock record.
Yes, it's rather technical. To read the rest, click on "Tremendous erosion of continents during the Recessive Stage of the Flood".

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

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Folding Molecules and the Origin of Life

When someone says protein, the first thing I think of is how I can fold it. Just kidding, I think of protein-rich foods. There are millions of kinds of proteins which are classified according to their functions and other criteria. Folding is a very specific biological process.

Research into the folding of a molecule was applied to guesswork about proteins in the distant past and evolution. This part of the research is not science.
Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens
Protein folding is not fully understood, but it is vitally important because it is the way proteins take their shapes so they can be useful. If they don't fold properly, they are useless, and the particles can actually be harmful. Some researchers got a molecule to fold, and remarked that maybe complex molecules can be had before evolution began. This is based on materialistic presuppositions, not on actual scientific evidence. Abiogenesis has been refuted long ago, but that doesn't stop some materialists in blind faith denial of our Creator.

Click for larger
Reporting from the secular science industry focused on the historical assumptions about the origin of life, so these owlhoots were celebrating what they consider to be another nail in the Creator's coffin. But this is not only historical science speculations, it is also applying the folding of a molecule to that of proteins in the alleged distant past. This aspect is not science. The press ignored the majority of the paper about the chemistry research.
Recently published research discusses the synthesis and characterization of a large molecule which folds into a ring pattern with five-fold symmetry. The size and shape of any given molecule have many implications in its usefulness as a catalyst, a chemical sensor, a scaffold for further reactions, or in its medicinal applications. However, the use of terminology including spontaneous, chemical evolution and even a subheading “Origin of Life” through the article displays the mindset of the authors. Our responsibility as Christians is to discern the difference between the discussion of results and the statements made which are interpreted through an anti-biblical worldview.
To read the entire article, click on "Folding Molecules Give Insight to Origin of Life".

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

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Termite Mounds and Creation

Once again, we need to leave our aversion to an annoying creature back at the stable so we can commence to pondering the work of the Master Engineer. In an earlier post, we looked at how small things can have an impact on their environment, such as termite skyscrapers. So, what is the story with termite nests?

While few of us like termites, we can appreciate the work of the Master Engineer who gave these evolution-defying insects the ability to build their amazing homes.
Credit: John P. Mosesso, USGS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some of those nests are mighty impressive mounds that house millions of termites. Others are less impressive, but either way, they have to be built to successfully accommodate their residents. Our Creator gave them the ability to act like they have one mind to build and maintain their nests, even to the point of windows to deal with the buildup of carbon dioxide. This alone is evidence for creation, but it gets worse for Darwin's disciples when the fossil record show that termites have always been termites. No evolution here, Hoss!
Termites (order Isoptera) are eusocial—animals with an advanced social organization—insects that can number in the millions, producing something biologists call a superorganism. This is defined as a colony of termites having features of organization analogous to the properties of a single creature. These insects have the ability to digest wood due to symbiotic gut-dwelling flagellates, single-celled eukaryotic creatures that have enzymes capable of breaking down cellulose.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Termite Nest Architectural Design Is Clearly Seen".

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

Monday, May 6, 2019

A Wealth of Feathered Dinosaur Fossils in China?

There are times when it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Certain areas of China contain a wealth of fossils from all sorts of critters including dinosaurs and birds. All that good stuff for paleontologists, but they are unable to find transitional forms. Then they have the problem of fakes.

Many fossils are discovered in China, and quite a few are fake. Especially alleged feathered dinosaurs. There are still no transitional forms.
Photo of Sinosauropteryx prima holotype slab
at Wikimedia Commons by James St. John  (CC by 2.0)
China is a repressive communist country, so impoverished farmers are giving scientists what they want: feathered dinosaur fossils. There are so many fakes being produced that papers have been retracted by science journals and people are more cautious. Don't want another Archaeoraptor humiliation, do we?

Another part of the problem is that dinosaur-to-bird enthusiasts "see" what they want, and not necessarily what is actually discovered. The narrative drives the science, just like the Piltdown man fraud that fooled evolutionists for over forty years, or the deception of the "walking whale". Secularists (and a few creationists) imagine that there are feathers in them thar fossils, but the story is skewed and other more plausible explanations are ignored.

Some creationists have indicated that if a fossil was discovered that was indisputably a feathered dinosaur, so what? It would not prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds. It would be quite a find, because true feathers are complex. Even so, evolutionists would still need to find evidence of transitional forms, of which none exist. We are not seeing any evidence for evolution, but the evidence does point toward special creation and the global Genesis Flood.
Not only dinosaur fossils have been found in the Liaoning region, but an entire, well-preserved ancient world, a picture of the world as it existed in the distant past, which was dated in the Darwin timescale at 131 to 120 million years ago. This is an important window when evolutionists believe dinosaurs were evolving into birds; thus, we could expect to find some clear evidence of transitional creatures. The cache of the Liaoning region so far includes 24 winged flying reptiles called pterosaurs, and over 53 ancient bird species, plus flowering plants, spiders, and a variety of crustaceans, insects, snails, clams, and even algae and moss. The area must have at one time been a forest because ferns, pine, cypress, ginkgo and other trees were found there. The fossils found are mostly articulated skeletons located in slabs of stone that have to be split in half or broken open to locate the skeleton. They look like “something had swatted the bird out of the sky and instantly entombed it in rock,” something like a giant flood.
To read the rest, click on "Why Is China the Leader in Feathered Dinosaur Fossils?" You may also like "Chines Fossils, Facts, and Fraud".

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

Saturday, May 4, 2019

The Dancing Organelles

The title of this post sounds like an entertainment event. It is, in a way. There are so many rhythms to be found in life, and scientists discovered something going on within cells that reminded them of intricate dancing in cell compartments.

Scientists were surprised to see something resembling dances within cells. Organelles are sharing information and materials according to their design.
Made at Atom Smasher
Organelles are like compartments in cells because some activities are not to be shared. However, some of them do communicate information and share certain materials. This entire arrangement testifies of the Master Engineer's work because all the parts have to be in place and functioning at the same time. Darwin was not consulted.
Cell biologists have long focused on the tiniest of interactions: those between molecules. Recently, some researchers have zoomed out just a little to take a fresh look using new technologies at those cellular compartments, called organelles. Their discoveries give new insight into diseases, prompt a desire to redraw all the standard textbook cell pictures, and challenge anyone who still thinks of cells as simple blobs of protoplasm.

The journal Nature ran a feature article on these emerging research finds.The main new lesson? Organelles interconnect in elaborate ways. They don’t work as isolated compartments, but wrap around and pin against one another. And their closeness is no accident.
To read the rest, click on "Dances with Cells".

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

Friday, May 3, 2019

The Lunar Impact Hypothesis: A Lesson in Bad Science

Once upon a time, a celestial body was carelessly wandering through our solar system. It smacked into the earth, and eventually the moon was formed. This is what passes for science in some areas, but the lunar impact hypothesis is not striking at all. Neither is the new version.

The lunar impact hypothesis was never good but was kept anyway. A revised version is "a lesson in how science works". Actually, a lesson in how not to do science.

There are no good working models as to how the moon formed, so secularists did that secularist thing they do so often and chose the best of the worst concept. The winner was the big ol' smack hypothesis even though it was refuted long ago.

The logical conclusion from astronomical evidence (and a prairie schooner-full of evidence in our own solar system) is that the earth, moon, solar system, stars, the universe and everything was created recently. But no, someone wants to revisit the lunar impact business and say it's a "lesson in how science works". No, kitten, it's a lesson in materialistic desperation and how not to do science.
A new model for the Moon’s formation is claimed to advance our understanding of the past, and to be “a lesson in how science works.” But the actual lesson being taught is quite different.

First, some background. Among secular astronomers, the most widely-accepted model for the Moon’s origin is known as the giant impact hypothesis. Supposedly, about four billion years ago, a Mars-sized object crashed into the newly-formed Earth. The collision created a debris cloud around our planet; some of the debris fell back down, while the rest coalesced together in space and eventually formed into our Moon.

Despite its popularity, this has never been a good model. It requires a credibility-straining series of conditions that are just right. Also, it has always had problems fully explaining the Moon’s composition. There are other issues too.
To hit on the rest of the article, click on "'A lesson in how science works'?" For your additional education, click on "(Yet More) Evidence Against the Lunar Impact Theory".

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

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Evolutionary Circular Reasoning on Carnivorous Plants

One reason that Darwinian thinking has so many people hogtied is because the non-explanation of "it evolved" is used so freely. Add to this the phrase "scientists say", and too many people will accept such a remark without question.

Good science presentations are often spoiled by homage to Darwin. Here are two carnivorous plants that should be studied for what they are.
Venus flytrap image credit: CSIRO / Malcolm Paterson
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
For me, good documentaries on living things are spoiled with assertions of "it evolved", as if homage to the Bearded Buddha somehow provides scientific validation. I'm sure some of you have felt the same way. Why not simply describe what is observed without delving into what is assumed about the subject's history?

We have two examples in the article linked below. Folks riding for the Darwin brand commit circular reasoning and other bad logic by assuming evolution to prove evolution. In fact, two carnivorous plants defy evolution. Instead, they show specified complexity that could not have arisen by evolutionary processes, and display the Creator's handiwork!
Two plants that baffled Darwin are best admired for their design than for their evolution.

Most people have seen the hinged snap-shut cages of the Venus flytrap. Some know that the insides of the leaves have three trigger hairs each, which must be touched twice in succession at a minimum interval of time for the trap to work. There’s another carnivorous plant called the waterwheel plant that also fascinated Darwin. He asked how they could have evolved, but isn’t it more scientific to just observe and describe these wonders of nature, and understand the requirements for their success?
To finish reading, click on "Carnivorous Plants Show Attention to Detail". You may also find "Venus Flytrap — Still Baffling After All These Years" and "Waterwheel Plant Traps Evolutionists" to be of interest.

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

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Fake Facts of Evolution

People who promote goo-to-goat herder evolution are intent on converting Darwin skeptics by insisting that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, which is false. The typical proselytizer uses outdated and even deceptive "facts", and even spreads fraudulent claims.

A reasonably well-informed biblical creationist can ask pertinent questions when evolutionists make their standard assertions. This can also plant seeds and prompt them to think.
Apes in the Orange Grove by Henri Rousseau, 1910
Some people have disingenuously taken the name of The Question Evolution Project to mean, "We have questions about evolution. Kindly straighten us out so we can mindlessly follow Darwin". Actually, we want to spark people to think for themselves and question evolution.

You do not need a doctorate in science to keep up with the global changes in the origins climate. A basic knowledge of science, obtaining information from biblical creation science sites, and a basic knowledge of logical fallacies can give you an advantage in spotting false claims. In addition, we can (and should) ask pertinent questions and also plant some seeds and prompt thinking in the minds of creation deniers.
ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris wrote in 2003, “Practically all the media strongly promote evolution and...the general public has been taught only evolution in public schools and secular colleges all their lives.” Yet, according to yearly polls, about half of Americans still distrust at least some evolutionary ideas. Dr. Morris suggested these people may recognize the evidence that counters big-picture evolution. I’ve found that by asking thought-provoking questions about evolutionary arguments, I can help friends recognize enough weaknesses for them to think more about creation options.

This article will review 10 false statements used to promote the belief that purely natural processes could accomplish what only a supernatural Creator can. Some suggested questions follow each section to help tactfully guide conversations about these origins issues.
To read the rest, click on "Toppling Ten Fake Facts That Prop Evolution".

For additional reading:

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