Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Aliens and Evolutionary Indoctrination

We have seen many times on this site as well as others providing creation science material that secularists are mighty fond of space aliens. However, their invisible friends have never been seen, but folks still believe in them by faith. Aliens are also used for propaganda purposes in the drive of naturalists to support their presuppositions that the Creator does not exist. Interesting that they deny God because they claim there is no evidence (Rom. 1:18-23), yet insist on believing in aliens. Makes perfect sense in their paradigm.

Naturalists had success using dinosaurs for evolutionary propaganda against young people. They are also pushing space aliens to influence people.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
Darwin's followers have had a wonderful time making chin music and publishing research papers about dinosaur bones. Museums are chock full of incomplete skeletons with missing bones added as well as artists' (mis)conceptions. Dinosaurs did exist, and evolutionists get on the prod when the problems (for them) of soft tissues and proteins are raised. They also get cranky when biblical creationists upset the apple cart by using dinosaurs for creation purposes: "Those are our propaganda pieces, and you can't use them!"

Dinosaurs existed, but there is no evidence for extraterrestrial life. SETI enthusiasts are waiting for ETs to phone from home. Ain't happening, Zeke. I'm cognating that you don't see creationists using space aliens is that most of us reject their existence both scientifically and theologically. Atheists and evolutionists are consumed with hope for genuine evidence for extraterrestrial life. If that did happen. they could jump up and down, clapping with glee and sing, "There is no God!" Yeah, they are fond of using bad logic based on wishful thinking.

Any member of the Ministry of Truth (as well as Hitler, Lenin, and other dictators) can tell you that it is important to capture the minds of young people so belief in evolution can be secured. Evolution makes atheists and materialists out of people, after all. Dinosaurs were effective, and aliens are being pushed as propaganda resources.
Evolutionists are prepping children for a global deception.

With no data to go on, SETI advocates continue their hopeless search. Since they believe a single alien space signal will revolutionize human identity, they press on. In the meantime, they use the media to prepare impressionable young minds for what they hope is inevitable. After all, if life evolved here so easily (presumably), it must have evolved all over the universe. In theory, some of it is probably intelligent, probably much more advanced than we are. Right? Star Wars says so.
To read the rest, click on "Brainwashing Kids with Space Aliens".




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

Monday, December 30, 2019

Domestic Cats Mostly Unchanged for 2000 Years

It is interesting to note that those statues and paintings of cats in ancient Egypt depict animals that are essentially the same today. Actually, that may not be entirely accurate. For quite a spell, cats were sacred to ancient Egyptians (and modern cats seem to retain that knowledge), and the artwork varied.


The cat kind early in creation would have had a tremendous amount of genetic information. It may seem strange that domestic cats seem unchanged from ancient Egyptian times.
African Wildcat (Felis lybica) cropped from a picture by Bernard Dupont at Flickr (CC by-SA 2.0)
Egyptians wanted their diminutive deities to match up with some of the art for the Bast (also known as Bastet) goddess, so they commenced to domesticating and crossbreeding African Wildcats, Jungle cats, and eventually others depending of the prevailing mood. They were doing selective breeding before it was cool. And cats being cats, they did a bit of unsupervised hybridization their ownselves.

Biblical creationists believe that Noah did not need multiple cat kinds, probably very few pairs or even just one pair. They (and the other critters) were most likely preloaded with a great deal of genetic information which eventually gave us big cats, little cats, and everything in between.
God created an incredible amount of genetic variety in each of the kinds, including the cat kind. The original cat kind was likely a medium-sized feline. One particularly fascinating candidate is the Asian Golden cat . . . Although we cannot be certain what the original cat kind was if we were to theoretically “design” one, the Asian Golden cat would incorporate all the features we wanted . . . And coincidentally, the Asian Golden cat would probably be the closest midsize cat to the geographical area of where the cat kind would have left Noah’s Ark. A medium-sized created kind is vitally important to later species because we need to be able to have the genetic potential for large cats like tigers and lions, and yet still have reproductive compatibility to produce (for example) Sand cats and African Wildcats.
You can read the entire article (which has a passel of pictures) by clawing your way over to "Feedback: Have Domestic Cats Remained Virtually Unchanged for 2,000 Years?" Another article you may like (which has some personal information about our Basement Cat), "How We Get Our Fabulous Feline Friends".

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

Saturday, December 28, 2019

Population Genetics and the Genesis Flood

Scientists use the word bottleneck to describe a drastic reduction in a population, and is also used to describe a severe loss of genetic diversity. Those of the biblical creation persuasion want to know about the most severe population bottleneck of all: the Genesis Flood.


Here is some heavy material on population genetics and creation science research regarding the population bottleneck and the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs
Atheists, evolutionists, and religious compromisers reject the Genesis Flood out of hand, so it's very difficult for creationists to conduct research when they are not as well-heeled as their counterparts. Even so, creationist geologists conducted some significant stratigraphy research, and here, we have models and discussions on the genetic effects of the Flood, and subsequent diversity afterward.

On a side note, some tinhorns insist on redefining evolution. Some insist on "change over time" (not helpful), others say "changes in allele (or gene) frequencies", often appealing to that unbiased paragon of scientific virtue, Wikipedia. Darwin's disciples online do not understand evolution and creationists often have to correct them, but professional evolutionists do not really understand their mythology either. Mayhaps that's why they redefine evolution. The following articles refer to allele frequencies numerous times, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Scientists work from their presuppositions. Materialists have their naturalistic philosophies and struggle to find evidence for matter-to-microbiologist evolution and deep time, and biblical creationists find evidence for recent creation and the global Flood. Working from the biblical starting point, creationists conducted research using the science of genetics (begun by Gregor Mendel, peas be upon him) and the biblical timeline. Adam and Eve were unmarred by genetic degradation at the time of their creation. Marrying close kinfolk was not a problem for a long time, and God prohibited it to protect the human race from further genetic problems after the Exodus.

Here are two papers that are mostly beyond my ken. They are deep, and one is quite long. Even so, I was able to get something out of them. They are presented for people who want the heavier material that is written for people with backgrounds in science. In this case, biology and genetics would be mighty helpful, and maybe some mathematics.

First, "The genetic effects of the population bottleneck associated with the Genesis Flood". Next is the shorter one, "Effective population sizes and loss of diversity during the Flood bottleneck".

For people who are interested in more heavy science, here are two other articles of interest that I did not even attempt to read: "Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Pedigree-Based Mutation Rates Suggest a 4,500-Year History for Human Paternal Inheritance", and also "Testing the Predictions of the Young-Earth Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Population Growth Curves Confirm the Recent Origin of Human Y Chromosome Differences".




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

Friday, December 27, 2019

Questioning the Reports

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is going to be a different kind of article. Instead of refuting evolution and supporting creation, we will be using some of the thinking skills that have been discussed for the past few years. Hopefully, people are using healthy skepticism and asking questions of assertions and reports from scientists.

A simpler article about how we can use our reasoning skills and use healthy skepticism when scientists make bold proclamations.
Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart
After all, scientists are not the unbiased purveyors of truth that many people seem to think. They are full of avarice, pride, greed, altruism, nobility, and all the other characteristics that the rest of us possess. (For a recent article on this, see "Scientists Are Only Fallible Humans".) While many are corrupt and seeking the next big money, others want to do actual science stuff. As we have seen many times, however, the secular science industry has many instance of fake science news, even putting words in the mouths of the scientists.

There seems to be a report to support anything: atheists are smarter than Christians, a contrary report says atheists use less brain power than the rest of us, going outside in the cold weather after taking a shower makes you sick, vitamin C is a great cure, vitamin C benefits have limited scientific support... You've see those things.

We often see how decent scientific research is blemished by homage to Darwin, whether by the scientists or the news services. Also, researches tend to get excited about a bit of work and make bold pronouncements that are not supported by the evidence. Here are a couple of simple articles for your intellectual dancing and dining pleasure that are untainted by evolutionism.

First (you may be disappointed in me for this one), "‘Planet Nine’ may actually be a black hole". This one seemed to be rather interesting. No big proclamations or hitting the readers over the head with cosmic evolution. It is clear that there is speculation happening. I'll be curious to see if there are further developments.

We can ask how a survey or study was done. This includes who did the research, what questions were asked, who was being asked the questions, the procedure of the research, and so on. Do you like chili peppers? Maybe the cause your face to turn red and fire shoots out of your mouth like in the old cartoons. At any rate, there are reports that they are good for you. In a surprising article from CNN, "Eating chilies cuts risk of death from heart attack and stroke, study says", the author does some of the work for us by asking questions and pointing out that the report has serious limitations. More research is needed.

While we must have reasonable skepticism and ask questions, sometimes reports are straightforward and even show where some research is incomplete. Not so much when it comes to matters of fish-to-philosopher evolution, however. While science is necessarily developing and changing, we need to be aware that fallible humans are operating from their worldviews. So are biblical creationists, who are asking the hard questions and pointing out the flaws that secularist often overlook. It seems that they often do these things willingly.



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

Thursday, December 26, 2019

Carbon Dating and the Biblical Timeline

Mockers reject the biblical timeline for several reasons, most of them superficial. Some will say that there were civilizations in existence thousands of years before the Old Testament was written, but scoffers accept questionable sources while rejecting biblical material out of hand. Sumerian kings were listed as living thousands of years, and the Egyptian chronologies are in doubt. Add to questionable history the inaccurate results of carbon dating, and mockers have their biases confirmed.


People scoff at the biblical timeline, partly due to carbon dating. There are several details that need to be considered.
Triceratops image source: Good Free Photos
Elsewhere, we considered dealing with discrepancies between secular geology and the global Genesis Flood. This post brings up related material. Although most readers probably know this, carbon dating does not work for deep time or the age of the earth. It only works on things that are or were organic. That means dinosaur bones and pottery discovered in rock layers that are assumed to be millions of years old can be tested, but they yield far younger ages.

Carbon dating requires several assumptions and scientists reject the influence of the Genesis Flood as well as changes in Earth's magnetic field. Indeed, living things have been dated at thousands of years old, and there have been discrepancies from samples of the same thing. When properly understood and pertinent data are included, carbon dating is not a threat to biblical chronology.
Many reporters and scientists treat carbon dates like facts. Of course, the more recent dates work well enough. But news reports, textbooks, and even movies present enormous ages like “47,000 BCE” all the time.

Yet, the Bible records only about 6,000 years from creation until today. Does the science of carbon dating disprove the Bible’s reckoning? To find out, we need to peek into the carbon dating process that specialists use to arrive at tens of thousands of years.
To read the rest, click on "Do Carbon Ages Refute a Biblical Timeline?" You may also be interested in "Dating of 'oldest pottery' from China is based on assumptions".


Each year, it’s fun to celebrate birthdays. If we’re not sure of someone’s age, we can always check their birth certificate. But can any reliable methods determine the age of an object without a historical record?


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

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

The Birth of Jesus and the Curse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

It may be a surprise to learn that that extremely famous Christmas hymn "Joy to the Word" was not written by Isaac Watts to be about Christmas. He wrote it about the return of Christ. Like many other hymn writers, it was based on Scripture. In this case, the 98th Psalm. So many things work together when singing this song at Christmas.


A popular Christmas hymn is not actually about Christmas, but about the return of Christ. It ties in with creation, the Resurrection, and Christmas.
Credit: Pixabay / Ria Sopala
Indeed, there is a great deal of strong theology in many hymns, especially those about Christmas. (I think that's one reason that cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses isolate their people; you won't have them coming along to your Christmas Eve service. After all, they may hear, "Hail the incarnate Deity!" and similar lyrics.) Dr. James R. White pointed out that "We Three Kings" is also deep, despite the erroneous traditions that we do not know how many "kings" there were, only that there were three gifts.

A line in the song "When He Comes Back" by DeGarmo and Key is, "Remember that kid from the manger scene? When he comes back, he's gonna reign as King!" Well, we celebrate his birth, which was necessary for his crucifixion for our sins and redemption. "Joy to the World" has,
No more let sins and sorrows grow
nor thorns infest the ground:
he comes to make his blessings flow
far as the curse is found.
This verse brings us back to the fall of man in Eden. Genesis 3:17-29 refers to thorns as part of the curse. Let me remind you that our Savior wore a crown of thorns. The Creator, God the Son (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16) humbled himself and died for us, but is glorified now and will return (Philippians 2:5-11). When we celebrate his birth, we can remember the fall of man, the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the fact that he has promised to come back for us.

What I'm going to do now is link to The Briefing by Dr. Mohler that inspired this article. (He's done that several times, hasn't he?) In the first part, he discusses the tragedy involving the aberrant teachings of Bethel Church. (For those who want to dig deeper on this, there are four audio sessions on the Cultish podcast, look for the discussions with Elijah Stevens. Dr. White also discusses this on The Dividing Line.) The next part from Dr. Mohler is what applies to our discussion here. I hope you'll check it out and get his insights. To listen, download, or read the transcript of the third segment, click on "Friday, December 20, 2019".

I want to wish you and yours a blessed Christmas!





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

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Stellar Dust and Cosmic Evolution

If I am cognating on this proper-like, there are potential planets under my bed. Them there dust bunnies need static electricity. There is quite a bit of static in this place, which can be quite shocking to my visitors. Static and dust can form planets. Sound ridiculous? It is as sensible as some research.

Strange research on cosmic dust and static electricity is used to rescue cosmic evolution. It fails on several levels.
Do NOT go to that link in the picture. The original lapsed and has been taken over by someone else.
Secularists presuppose naturalism, so when the evidence testifies of creation (Rom. 1:18), they try to find rescuing devices rather than admit the truth. Going back to the best of the failed planetary formation speculations, researchers insist that dust has to stick together instead of bouncing off other dust particles. Add static electricity, and in a controlled environment, balls of dust were produced. A passel of assumptions are included, and then other aspects are left floating around. The whole thing just won't slide down the chimney and give naturalistic presents to secularists.
In secular theory, going way back to Laplace’s nebular hypothesis and its offspring, planets came into being out of orbiting dust around stars. It sounds natural until you look at the details. Planetary scientists have long known about the “bouncing barrier” to planet growth. Previous experiments have shown that at about one millimeter size, dust grains stop accreting and bounce off each other – even at low collision speeds of a few millimeters per second. They’ll never get planets at that rate, until they overcome the bouncing barrier.
To read the entire article, take an electronic sleigh ride to "Energized Dust Bunnies Make Planets?"



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

Monday, December 23, 2019

Darwinists Lay Egg with Bird Fossil

Those desperate evolutionists and their wacky ideas. You rub them out, scrub them out, logic them out, science them out — and their bad ideas still leave unsightly stains on science. They tried and failed with Archaeopteryx, now a new bird fossil that looks a great deal like Archie has joined the fun.

Despite their efforts, Archaeopteryx was not successful for evolutionists. A more recent fossil bird, F. prima, is damaging to evolutionary mythology.

Rather than deciding to cowboy up and admit that evidence supports recent creation and the Genesis Flood, evolutionists keep trying to prop up poor science. In this case, these jaspers want to find evidence of bird evolution, so they took a gander at Funky Prima Donna. Oh, wait. That's Fukuipteryx prima, found in 2013 and the paper was published in November 2019. F. prima is damaging to evolutionary concepts. It is in the "wrong" place in the strata, and more.
The scientists found that the new bird species was quite similar to the so-called “first bird,” the Archaeopteryx, found in Upper Jurassic rocks in southern Germany. It had a similarly large wishbone, an unfused pelvis and claws on its wings like Archaeopteryx. But unexpectedly, the new Japanese specimen had a well-developed pygostyle instead of a long bony tail. A pygostyle is a fused bony plate at the end of the backbone that supports tail feathers in living birds.

This combination of so-called “primitive” bird features found on both Fukuipteryx and Archaeopteryx (e.g., claws on the wings) along with the more “modern” pygostyle on F. prima has ruffled the feathers of evolutionary scientists. It’s simply out of place for their model. But that’s not the worst of it.
To read the entire article, click on "New Bird Fossil Doesn't Fit Evolutionary Story".

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

Saturday, December 21, 2019

Parasites in the Plant Kingdom

When people mention parasites, various things can come to mind. Pet owners may think of white spot disease in tropical fish or fleas and ticks in furry friends, humans can get lice and internal parasites, and so on. Something that surprised this child is the fact that there are many kinds of plant parasites.


There are plants that can be parasites to other plants. Evolutionists have no adequate explanations, and creationists have some ideas as to how this came about.
Mistletoe image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Pauline Eccles (CC by-SA 2.0)
You don't need to worry about a plant attaching itself to you like a leech, however. Plant parasites parasite plants. That is, it is an "in house" thing in the plant world. They are found in many places and there are numerous species. You can ask a Darwinist how parasitic plants came to be, and they will evosplain with convergent evolution and fact-free speculations. Interestingly, parasitic plants are not a problem for creationists who discuss God's very good creation.
Parasitism is a subject that not many people think about and even fewer address from a biblical perspective. Parasitic plants are even less frequently addressed. Most of us think of plants as stationary and inactive rather than actively seeking nutrients. Yet parasitic plants do exist, comprising about 1% of flowering plants. They are notorious crop pests, particularly in developing countries. Witchweed alone does an estimated three billion dollars of crop damage per year. In light of a perfect pre-fall creation, parasitic plants may appear to be a thorny issue for a biblical worldview. However, digging a little deeper reveals a different, more biblical understanding.
 To continue reading, click on "Parasitic Plants".




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

Friday, December 20, 2019

Flighty Evolutionists Invoke Adaptation as Evolution

Knowledgeable creationists tend to understand Darwinism more than typical village atheists and evolutionists. However, sometimes unskilled anti-creationists are more consistent with evolutionary ideas than the professionals in the secular science industries. Your typical internet troll is committed to naturalism and rejects teleology while Darwin's handmaidens are making fabricating goal-oriented entities.

Evolutionists mix up natural selection, adaptation, and evolution. Some of it is confusion, some is deception. Several examples about birds illustrate the problems.
Credit: PIXNIO
There is a great deal of confusion among evolutionists about the workings of natural selection and adaptation. While writing their evoporn, secularists will often refer to natural selection, adaptation, and evolution interchangeably. They will even make one or all of them into deities, which is contrary to the nature of evolution (along with teleology).

Part of this definition confusion is the result of not understanding the concepts they are proclaiming, secularists are also committed to dealing from the bottom of the deck to trick people into believing in evolution and doubting the Creator. Yes, we do see natural selection and adaptation. Those are concepts that biblical creationists promote because they are part of the Master Engineer's plan for organisms. Let's whittle this down a mite and look at how evolutionists are discussing birds, although the activities there are also used in other areas.
Darwinians use adaptation and evolution almost interchangeably. Is that justified?

Adaptation, strictly defined, refers to the matching of an organism to its environment. Think of a woodpecker. Its claws enable it to cling to tree trunks, and its tongue can reach into deep holes in the wood. The tongue, moreover, has a sticky tip able to glue onto bugs inside the hole. Its head is protected from the hammer-like blows of its beak, which is pointed for penetrating wood. The woodpecker, all would acknowledge, is well adapted to its lifestyle. A hummingbird, by contrast, has specific adaptations for hovering in the air while sipping nectar in flowers, including its nectar-trapping tongue.

Such amazing matches of organisms to their environment have been observed for thousands of years. Only since Darwin, however, has the word included linkages to evolution by natural selection. At Dictionary.com, two of the biological definitions embed natural selection in the definition of adaptation:
I've given you enough of a preview already. To finish reading this enlightening article, click on "Evolution for the Birds: Must Adaptation Be Evolutionary?" The music "video" below is a parody by ApologetiX of the song "Cumbersome". The new lyrics are based on the personification of Wisdom crying out to people to learn. The lyrics are here.




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

Thursday, December 19, 2019

Further Confirmation that Dinosaurs were Reptiles

While scientists can learn a great deal from fossils, they do not give many of the finer details. With improving technology plus dinosaur bones being discovered and analyzed, more can be learned. Back in 1842, Richard Owen formed the word dinosauria from Greek words for "fearful" and "lizard". He could tell that they were reptiles.

Evolutionists try to change the obvious fact that dinosaurs were reptiles. Recent research supports what was already known.
Credit: RGBStock / Adrian van Leen
Evolutionists get on the prod when recent creation is discussed, especially when dinosaur soft tissues support recent creation. They keep on trying to find ways to make them seem millions of years old despite the evidence (because the Bearded Buddha required deep time to work his magic). Researchers managed to confirm what we already know: dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles.

Years ago, I was working a desk job and the manager put a big lizard nearby. It kept watching my every move. I asked why this was happening, and I was told that it was a monitor lizard.

"That's dreadful, Cowboy Bob!"

Well, I wasn't too keen on being monitored, either.

The Komodo dragon is a kind of monitor lizard (which supposedly got its name by monitoring its surroundings for predators). This bad boy is big, mean, fast, has poison, and relentless. It has no problem taking down a water buffalo for lunch. Studies of the metabolisms of Komodo dragons and alligators support what has already been believed about the reptilian nature of dinosaurs.
Based on these findings, researchers have proposed that many dinosaurs had low metabolic levels during resting or low-activity periods but could rapidly expand their lung ventilation levels for bursts of activity associated with running, attacking, and defensive maneuvers. This type of adaptation would also have allowed large dinosaurs to sustain life within a reasonable level of caloric intake. Indeed, research showed that if large dinosaurs were warm-blooded, they wouldn’t have been able to ingest enough food to maintain their metabolism.
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Dinosaurs Had Reptilian Metabolic Adaptation".



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

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Tenrics and Spines

If you ever find yourself down Madagascar way, you will encounter a passel of fascinating and unique critters. Just keep a safe distance from Komodo dragons, more about them tomorrow. You may be able to get close to the lowland streaked tenrec, but avoid those pointed spines.


The lowland streaked tenrec is unique, and the Creator has given it some abilities that no other animal has.
Credit: Flickr / Frank Vassen (CC by 2.0)
Some folks make pets out of these beasties, but they only live about three years at the most. Although they look a bit like porcupines, they are not in the same classification. (There's a bit of a resemblance to the hedgehog as well.) Biologists are unsure how to classify tenrecs, and creationists think that perhaps they belong to their own created kind. What is probably the most interesting feature of tenrecs is the way they use their spines. Not just for defensive purposes, but the Creator built in a unique method of communication that no other mammal is known to have.
Lowland streaked tenrecs are found in and around the rainforests of eastern Madagascar. They’d fit in your hand, measuring around 7 inches (16–19 cm) long and weighing about 5 ounces (125–280 g). Every few hours (day or night doesn’t matter), they come scurrying out of their burrows to nose around for earthworms. If you find one hungry hunter, others probably aren’t far away, since they burrow and forage together as families.

They’re also super cute. But don’t get on their bad side—those outrageous hairdos aren’t merely a fashion statement.
To read the article in its entirety or download the audio version, click on "Practical Prickles: Lowland Streaked Tenrec".



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

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Dictionaries for Darwinese

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are some words that have a great deal of similarity and some people use them interchangeably. I have made mistakes with them a few times myself. One problem is that they can overlap. Atheists and other anti-creationists use ridicule and mockery quite freely when attacking creationists, and these serve no constructive purpose. Let's focus on the others.

Credit: Unsplash / Romain Vignes

Briefly, we'll look at sarcasm and satire, and leave parody out of this except to say sometimes parody is used just for fun as well as being satirical.

"Did someone explain those to you with small words so you could understand them, Cowboy Bob?"

Well, yes — hey! The sarcastic question there is tinged with ridicule. Sarcasm can use a form of irony, such as when an angry child says, "Oh, that's so mature of you!" Some folks advocate avoiding sarcasm altogether because it can easily become hurtful. However, the Bible has many instances (such as 1 Kings 18:27 and I'll let you look up Jesus and Paul your ownselves).

Satire is related to the others, but usually used in a more lighthearted way to illustrate problems and folly with politicians, false religious teachers, expose evil, and a host of other things. This, too, utilizes irony. The Bible has satire as well, such as when Isaiah describes idolators in Isaiah 44:17-14 or Jesus in Matthew 7:5. A famous Christian site called the Babylon Bee is dedicated to satire on political, Christian, global warming extremists, and daily life. Regular readers of this site have undoubtedly noticed the satire and sarcasm here, and sometimes it is very blunt.

Sarcasm and satire are often useful to be provocative and getting someone's attention. Some people cannot take a joke that is used to point out their double standards and dreadful reasoning, so when they become as cuddly as a burlap bag full of rattlesnakes, you know there's no reasoning with them. Other people, however, may learn from the situation.

  I've had religious people say in effect, "You used sarcasm (or satire) with that angry atheist. Now he'll reject Christ forever and go to Hell, and it's all your fault!" Last I knew, people went to Hell because they were sinners, and we're all responsible for our own choices. That said, it is still important to be careful so we do not construct stumbling blocks while at the same time not allowing bullies and trolls to dictate our actions.

Satire is often used in with humor and is not intended to be caustic. It can still be used to get someone's attention, and hopefully to prompt them to think. The post "Learning to Understand Darwinese" had both sarcasm and satire, as did the articles linked therein. As a kind of follow-up, I have two more items for you.

First, Creation Ministries International has "The Darwin Dictionary — Your Guide to Your guide to things evolutionists say" to illustrate the difference between what evolutionists say and reality. Second, you may want to brows the Darwin Dictionary by David Coppedge at Creation-Evolution Headlines. He has coined some words and phrases that he uses for sarcasm and parody in his own articles. Of course, I had to add a video featuring ApologetiX, the foremost Christian parody band:




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

Monday, December 16, 2019

Convergent Evolution and Other Explanations

Although believers in universal common ancestor evolution claim to be driven by facts, logic, the scientific method, and so forth, their pseudoscience is infested with miracles. One fact-free tenet of their faith is convergent evolution. There are other options available for explanations rather than just-so stories like that one.


Evolutionists use the non-explanation of convergent evolution when they cannot explain similar traits in living things. There are better explanations.
Wolf image credit: US National Park Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Thylacine (Tasmanian wolf/tiger) art by John Gould, 1863
To be blunt, I can't cognate on why people don't hear the "explanation" of convergent evolution and say, "Yeah, right!" Critters from disparate lineages and in diverse parts of the world can have many traits in common, so Darwinists insult our intelligence. They need to cowboy up and admit that they have no idea how some living things have similar traits, such as the Tasmanian wolf/tiger/thylacine/whatever you want to call it compared to wolves in North America. Maybe it was caused by global warming.

Indeed, if secularists were not so locked into their evolutionary paradigms and had not allowed non-explanations to gain footholds, natural science could be a mite more respectable. There are other explanations that should be explored, including some proposed by creationists.
An international team of scientists working with a certain kind of butterfly in Panama was faced with a question: How could “pairs of clearly unrelated butterflies from Peru to Costa Rica evolve nearly the same wing-color patterns over and over again?” Typically, evolutionists explain this phenomenon away with an empty phrase: “butterflies can evolve along separate and different paths to arrive at the same color pattern, a process called convergent evolution.” This answer requires a suspension of disbelief. How can different species take two very different genetic paths – which would require many major genetic differences – and yet arrive at the same end result?

The “convergent evolution” solution fell apart in a study on Heliconius butterflies published in Current Biology. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute remarked that the discovery “forever changes the way evolution is understood.”The finding that motivated this remark is as follows:
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "Convergent Evolution: A Better Explanation".



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

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Evolutionary Escapades in Luzon

As we discussed before, Darwinists are unsuccessful with their claims when they find a few bone and tool fragments. This has lead to evolutionary dead ends. The seven-chambered Callao Cave in the Philippines (locals made a chapel in the main part) is in the  Peñablanca Protected Landscape and Seascape area. Some bones and tools were discovered there.


A few bones found in a cave were dubbed H. luzonensis, but there are disappointing to evolutionists. Creationists are not surprised by the findings.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / © Ervin Malicdem, 2013 (CC by-SA 4.0)
While the secular media were excited about the discoveries, there are also several problems with their status as evolutionary links. Let's assume that the bones belonged to people who actually lived there. Evidence of intelligent tool use was found, and other problems with the evolutionary timeline come into play. Also, they indicate a relationship to other humans. (No surprise to creationists, since humans were created recently.) The original possessors of the bones could have had pathological deformities. It's mighty hard to tell with so little evidence.
From time to time the media is abuzz with news of yet another human fossil discovery. Each time researchers hope for more clues with which to try to piece together the alleged evolutionary picture of our origins. This time, the fossils come from a part of the world far removed from the usual sites of human fossil research in eastern and southern Africa.

Researchers have found 13 bones, recovered between 2007 and 2015, which are claimed to belong to a new species of hominin, called Homo luzonensis. The species was named after the island of Luzon in the Philippines where it was discovered.
To learn more, click on "What is Homo luzonensis?"




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

Friday, December 13, 2019

Creation Science Stratigraphy Supports the Genesis Flood

Since secularists presuppose there is no evidence for the Genesis Flood, creation scientists have to do it themselves. They keep finding the evidence. Small Fact Frog is right.Over at the Darwin Ranch, that bunch is a superstitious lot. It is considered bad luck to honestly search for and report on evidence that supports creation science, as it is bad for old earth beliefs and evolution — and their grant money. Especially regarding things related to geology.

You know the cliché: "We have the fossils, we win", then folks link to atheistic and evolutionary sources to confirm their biases. Add to this the common lie that creationist scientists are not really scientists, and the Big Lie propaganda tactic is in full gear.

Then the disciples of evolution light their prayer candles and chant to their pagan pseudoscience gods that people forget how to think and use search engines. When people do look up the credentials of creationists and the facts on the Flood, then every day is Friday the 13th at the Darwin Ranch. Meanwhile, secular scientists who want to simply go on about their jobs look at the antics of the Darwin death cult and go on with their activities.

"What are you on the prod about, Cowboy Bob?"

Well, yeah, I was a bit off the trail there. So anyway. Secularists, whether the fanatics or run-of-the-mill evolutionary scientists, have decided that creation science is nonexistent and are locked into their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions. Creationist have to saddle up, stash their accreditation in their possibles bags, and do their own research. Unfortunately, they are not well-heeled like their secular counterparts, but creationists still manage to cause problems for naturalistic beliefs.

Despite the myth of the unbiased, dispassionate seeker of knowledge, scientists have their biases, assumptions, and presuppositions. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research used the premise that if there was a Global Flood, there would be observable evidence for it. Since secularists rejected this idea out of hand, they had to do it their ownselves. ICR scientists collected a huge amount of data from several parts of the world and plugged them into biblical creation presuppositions. We have seen how fossils do not support deep time or evolution, but how about geology itself supporting the Flood and recent creation?
CR’s Column Project team recently finished work on the European continent, including Turkey and the area surrounding the Caspian Sea. We have now compiled stratigraphic data across four entire continents: North and South America, Africa—including the Middle East—and Europe.
. . .
The stratigraphic patterns across the first three continents were also found across Europe with slight differences. The Flood across Europe began in a limited extent in the Sauk, peaked in the Absaroka, and finally receded in the Tejas, the final megasequence. This is strong evidence for a global flood. All four continents we have studied share the same general pattern and timing of limited early flooding, followed by peak flooding, and then receding.
To read the full article, click on "European Stratigraphy Supports a Global Flood".



The book of Genesis describes a catastrophic worldwide Flood.
Is there any evidence that floodwaters covered the entire Earth?


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

Thursday, December 12, 2019

So Many Large Galaxies, So Little Evolutionary Time

Secular astronomers and cosmologists are finding more problems with their deep time paradigm, so once again they have to trot out rescuing devices. Their own assumptions are working against them. According to expectations from the current Big Bang model, huge galaxies should not exist. But there they are.


Evolutionists rely on luck, but it has not worked for them. Massive galaxies should not exist, and secular rescuing devices refute themselves.
Derivative from The Passion of Creation by Leonid Pasternak, 1880s
Once again, the secular version of the history of the universe has to be rewritten. Sure, the rescuing devices look like they may work, but circular reasoning is involved; these "explanations" refute themselves. Muy grande galaxies exist before stars had time to form, explode, and seed the universe with stuff to make the universe (and ultimately, you and me) exist. All varieties of evolutionists, whether cosmic, biological, or geological, essentially believe in luck in the cosmic throws of the dice. When science is misused used to defy recent creation, the problems keep on piling up. This is God's creation, not Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, Atlantic City, or somesuch.
Nearly a century ago, Edwin Hubble found that there is a linear relationship between redshifts and distances of galaxies. We now call this the Hubble relation, or the Hubble law. The most straightforward interpretation is that the universe is expanding, but keep in mind that this is an interpretation of the Hubble law. The dominant cosmological model today, the big bang, is based upon an expanding universe. Within the big bang model, it is believed that most galaxies formed approximately the same time early in the universe, about 13 billion years ago. If the speed of light is finite, then there is a look-back time with increasing distance. That is, we will see the most distant galaxies (the ones with the greatest redshift) as they appeared in their youth. However, we will see nearby galaxies (the ones with the lowest redshift) much closer to their current age. Hence, the study of very distant, high redshift galaxies will lead to a greater understanding of how galaxies and stars formed. This is very important in modern cosmology because astronomers have developed elaborate theories of how the first stars and galaxies must have formed within the big bang model. A key part of this is the belief that in the early universe there must have been intense star formation, with stars forming at a much higher rate than they form today.
To read the entire article, click on over to "Massive Galaxies in the Early Universe — Lighting the Way to Dusty Death for Evolutionary Theories?

They're singing this song at the Darwin Ranch at times like these:



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

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

More Human Evolution Dead Ends

Out yonder past Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are frantically attempting to find evidence for evolution. One owlhoot named Lee Berger has had several discoveries that have been interesting in and of themselves. Unfortunately for evolutionists, he keeps giving them dead-end candidates.


Candidates for evolutionary ancestors are often failures. Many factors are neglected in favor of confirming evolutionary bias.
Image before text: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler
Naturally, the media for the secular science industry got the bit in their teeth and ran with the latest story that human evolution's tree would be "shaken up". We've heard that song and dance before. While I detest the genetic fallacy (where something is rejected simply because of the source), there are times when someone's track record can give someone reasons to hesitate in accepting information. Berger (as is common with evolutionists) seems to neglect that some of the variations bones and fossils can be the results of fragment mixing, diseases or conditions, devolution, and other factors that can falsely confirm a biased view. Even other evolutionists are skeptical of Berger's pronouncements. This keeps happening because naturalists suppress the truth about the Creator.

Evolutionists and creationists know that the human genome is deteriorating. Using their own methods, creationists show that humans should have already gone extinct. This genetic deterioration shows up in the fossils that are discovered. It also reveals the truth of what God said back in Genesis 3.
Based on past trends, more discoveries have generally not added to anthropologists’ conceptions of human evolution. Instead, they have have muddied the waters and created new challenges to the original human evolution narrative. This has been true from the time when Darwin proposed details of his own theory of human evolution, twelve years after his 1859 book On the Origin of Species was published. He proposed his theory in his 1871 treatise titled The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. The word “descent” turned out to be accurate, but was not what Darwin intended to say.
 To read the entire article, ride on over to "Lee Berger’s New Hominid Is a Non-Starter".




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

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Languages and the Dispersion at Babel

Plants can communicate after a fashion as well as animals. However, only humans have sophisticated systems of language to express ourselves in various ways; the existence of language testifies of the Creator. Darwinian dogma insists that language evolved from grunts to complex forms. There is no evidence of this, as some evolutionists admit.

The development of languages work in the opposite direction than evolutionist expect. Instead, they fit the biblical timeline back to Babel.
Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1594
If you study on it a mite, languages are degenerating, possibly within your own lifetime. Read a novel or short stories from one or two hundred years ago and you can see that writing had a depth and richness that are often lacking today. Historians and archaeologists can show you intricate languages from long ago that are only partially decipherable — if at all.

Languages and their groupings can be traced back to a certain point where they suddenly diversified. What is seen is in keeping with the biblical timeline all the way back to the confusion of languages and dispersion at Babel.
The origin of languages poses a major problem for evolutionists—how did man come to be a verbalizing creature who can communicate meaningful information through language? Following the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, speculation on the subject became rife. . . .

Modern evolutionists seek answers in primitive ‘symbols’ whereby human language began in ape-like creatures with simple grunts and noises in response to various stimuli, e.g. threatening predators. From these came a sequence of symbols, in turn moving on to simple sentences, to ever higher and more complex arrangements of words, and ultimately to abstract concepts.
. . .
One prediction of the theory is that the further back one goes in the history of language in general, and of any language in particular, the simpler it should appear. On the contrary, it becomes more complex, with all manner of grammatical and semantic subtleties that are progressively lost in later language, quite opposite to evolutionary predictions.
To read this extremely interesting article in its entirety, click on "The languages of babel".

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

Monday, December 9, 2019

Rescuing Dinosaur Protein Preservation

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are trying to cook up another rescuing device to avoid the young earth implications of dinosaur soft tissues and proteins. Soft tissues in dinosaur bones have been a cause of consternation among believers in deep time. The toast idea was crummy from the get-go, but that does not stop determined evolutionists from tweaking it for dinosaur proteins, no siree!

Evolutionists failed to use Maillard reactions as an explanation for the preservation of dinosaur soft tissues. They also fail as an explanation for dinosaur proteins.
Made at PhotoFunia with an image on Pixabay by Ralph
While Maillard reactions are just ducky when they put a crust on toast and do tasty things with food, the very nature of the effect requires somewhat high temperatures. (By the way, the L in Maillard is not pronounced.) Desperate evolutionists try to explain the preservation of proteins through this process, but thinking people are able to easily determine four reasons that this preservation explanation can be relegated to the fake news trash can. If secular scientists started from the fact that the world was created recently, they would be more likely to come up with believable science.
How could dinosaur proteins persist over 70 million years inside dinosaur bones? That’s one of the biggest questions that secular paleontologists have faced in the last two decades. Many of them reason that some unique but undiscovered set of conditions grant proteins power to defy all odds and somehow survive unimaginable time scales. They think someone, someday, will discover the protein’s secret to survival. A new model suggests those long-sought conditions have come forth. And the once-secret rescuing device has a name: Maillard reactions. Does this common chemistry really explain the issue like its champions suggest, or does it leave ancient organics just as frail as ever?
To crunch on the rest of the article, click on "Do Maillard Reactions Explain Dinosaur Proteins?"



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

Labels