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

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

No Hope for Finding Alien Life

People have been wondering for ages if there is intelligent life around other stars. One of the most common speculations is that since there are so many stars out yonder, there must be creatures living on them. The more scientists learn, the hope of finding alien life dwindles. 

The search for extraterrestrial life continues, but there is really no hope for finding it. There are three major tests.
Credit: RGBStock / Phil Edon
The main impetus for finding extraterrestrials is based on evolution. Secularists presume evolution must have happened, but they cannot explain the origin of life on Earth without the Creator.

First of all, the number of planets is a guess. A few thousand have been found, but things get complicated. They have to be in the habitable (or "Goldilicks") zone where everything is just right as far as size and distance from the stars. Several planets have been considered. However, the stars they orbit tend to be mighty ornery cusses and the planets are of the wrong composition. Gas giants are out of the question. Many factors come together that require exoplanets to be earthlike, and that's not happening. 

Some folks think that it's "lonely" to be the only planet that God created to be inhabited. How about getting acquainted with some of the billions of people right here? We're created in God's image, after all, so we should find something in common to talk about.
Nearly everyone has contemplated this question, including many serious scientists. But after spending billions of dollars and devoting whole careers to the search, scientists refuse to admit there is no evidence.
The problem isn’t a lack of data—we’re awash in it. And the problem is not that we don’t have any good tests. Several great scientific minds have already suggested some solid ways to test for the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Let’s examine the three most famous tests, and we’ll discover that something more than cold, hard science is preventing them from reaching the logical answer.
To finish reading or to download the audio version, click on "The Evidence Is In: We’re Alone in the Universe". You may also like these related posts: "A Fermi Commitment to Snipe Hunting" and "SETI Fans Cherish Failed Drake Equation".



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

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

The Samurai and the Evolutionist Storyteller

Julian Huxley was a propagandist for Darwinism, and he published something in 1952 that should have been immediately dismissed. Huxley, and later Carl Sagan, claimed that the "Samurai Crab" (heikegani) is an example of evolution in action, and people ate up this concept — but not the crabs.


The samurai crab was proclaimed as an example of evolution by natural selection in action. It is actually deceit by evolutionists.
Samurai statue image credit: Pixabay/Samuele SchirĂ²
In their efforts to dismiss our Creator, Huxley and Sagan claimed that natural selection was at work because superstitious Japanese fisherman threw the heikegani back into the water because they resembled samurai warriors. The samurai became the military ruling class and rose to prominence during medieval times. So, the crabs with the resemblance to samurai warriors were thrown back and kept reproducing.

People accepted this dishonest propaganda. I believe that is is partially based on authority because Huxley and Sagan were scientists. Being a scientists does not make someone right, pilgrim, but it impresses people who are unwilling to think critically. I gave a talk in a group at the liberal church I was attending on why we can trust the Bible. My liberal pastor father concluded the session with some remarks that destroyed all my work because he's the pastor. Authority is helpful when done properly, but can easily be an abuse of power.

We don't want to answer fools according to their folly so we are like them, but we do want to answer them so they are not wise in their own eyes (Prov. 26:4-5 ESV). I reckon that this resemblance to the samurai warrior in the crabs could be an instance of pareidolia. Also, this "example" of evolution is just desperation and wishful thinking. And which warrior group's armored face? From there, we can give the final stroke that eliminates the example altogether.
A number of iconic examples have been used over the years to convince people of evolution’s supposed validity.2 Despite them having been soundly rebutted (some by evolution-believing scientists as well), certain prize horses in the evolutionary ‘stable of ideas’ still persist in textbooks and other evolutionary presentations.
A lesser-known but quite sophisticated example has persisted in common evolutionary lore since 1952, when Julian Huxley (grandson of Charles Darwin’s ‘bulldog’, T.H. Huxley) published an article titled ‘Evolution’s copycats’.
His goal was to use an easily understood example of natural selection in action to explain its undoubted ability to cause creatures to adapt. Then he would extrapolate that idea to try and persuade his audience that all of life’s incredible design could be explained naturalistically.
To read the rest, click on "The Samurai Crab — Myth-information about natural selection."




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

Monday, March 18, 2019

Further Problems for the Junk DNA Concept

When scientists first sequenced the human genome, they were working from their evolutionary presuppositions and using inferior equipment. They also made mistakes, and there is a problem with inaccurate results from contamination. Their "junk DNA" assumptions have been debunked.


The evolutionary claim of "junk" DNA has been refuted many times. New research further shows that the Creator put things in place for a reason.
Credit: CSIRO/Garry Brown (CC by 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Since scientists could not find a use for some parts of the genome, they called it "junk", leftover from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said all along that the stuff is not junk, and eventually were proved right because many functions have been discovered. Sad for Darwinists, because they need the so-called junk to support their ideas. The usefulness of introns has also been doubted.

How about going to something simpler for testing? Yeast is good for this. The genome only has 295 introns, after all, so yeast is easier to study. Research showed that introns are also valuable. Biblical creationists know what secular scientists deny: the Master Engineer put things in place for a reason.
The junk DNA paradigm has proven to be an ill-founded icon of evolution. We’ve witnessed its pet sub-theories systematically debunked as we learn more and more about how creatures’ DNA systems work. And now one of the pet darlings of junk DNA speculation, the alleged useless nature of introns (intervening noncoding pieces of genes), has also been tossed in the evolutionary trash heap. 
. . . Much to the amazement of researchers, it was discovered that eukaryotic genes in everything from single-celled yeast to plants and animals were in pieces. Some sections of the gene coded for proteins and were called exons while intervening segments, called introns, did not seem to code for anything and were spliced out from the RNA message that was copied from the gene.
To read the entire article, click on "Yeast Introns Not Junk After All". Whether it's paleosols, DNA, or something else, evolutionists would do well to learn some humility and restraint. They shouldn't get all high and mighty, making pronouncements about things they don't really understand.





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

Saturday, March 16, 2019

You Cannot Find It If You Do Not Look

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It has been said that an atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a police officer. In a similar way, atheists, evolutionists, and other believers in an old earth cannot see evidence for biblical creation and the young earth because they are unwilling to look for it.


People can search for the truth of creation and the existence of God, but they have to be willing to be honestly willing to look. It is not just about evidence.
Credit: Freeimages/Will Thomas
I know of some tinhorns who were ridiculing a biblical creation science conference that was going to be happening in their area. One said that he knows what they're going to say. In another instance, I was included in spam mailings and responses where an owlhoot was promoting his Bible-denying articles. Someone sent him a passel of links to which he responded, "I haven’’t [sic] got time to read your twaddle". (Ironically, the sender was another biblical creation science denier, and the recipient was too bigoted to find out for himself, hence the unthinking reaction.) One of the atheopath mantras conjured up by Clinton Richard Dawkins tells us that things only appear designed, but that is false. From these and other observations, I am persuaded that people simply do not want to examine evidence that is contrary to their presuppositions. After all to see the design and then deny it is quite foolish, old son.



In the article linked below, Duane Caldwell discusses how people do not want to even look for evidence of intelligent design or the existence of God. The above examples as well as his article support what I have stated for quite a spell now: it is not a matter of evidence, it is a spiritual problem. Materialists deny spiritual matters, and this includes the spiritual nature of man (even though scientists contradict their worldviews by trying to find intangible things like the soul and consciousness). The evidence clearly indicates that God created everything recently and there was a global Flood — which is described in Genesis.

Mr. Caldwell discusses Intelligent Design (the movement itself, not just design arguments that biblical creationists and ID advocates use). However, we both agree that ID does not go far enough. Antony Flew left atheism and became a Deist because of the evidence. Unfortunately, he was probably eternally lost because evidence alone does not provide salvation in Jesus Christ. I wonder if he bothered to look for the truth.
I recently read an article by Jonathan Witt –  science writer and co-author of Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design which describes bioengineer Matti Leisola’s (the other co-author) gradual rejection of Darwinism and embrace of intelligent design. In his article titled “A Father, an Atheist Son, and a Darwin Heretic” Witt describes the attempt of a father to get his son – a scientist and an atheist – to consider the claims of intelligent design by reading Witt’s and Leisola’s book Heretic.
The son rejects even reading the book with a number of excuses:
You can read the rest by clicking on "Can you find what you deny exists? Three Guarantees".




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

Friday, March 15, 2019

Paleosols and the Age of the Earth

A few days ago, I rode into town and saw that both Rusty Swingset (the ramrod at the Darwin Ranch) and my prospector friend Stormie Waters also happened to be there for supplies. We sat down in the saloon to talk about things, and we found ourselves discussing paleosols.


Paleosols are supposedly ancient soils that have been buried, and used to proclaim that the earth is ancient. However, things are not as they seem.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Malucelli (CC by-SA 2.5)
Well, even though Rusty and I are supposed to know about such things (he tried to evosplain them), Stormie was the one giving us the education. Paleosols are supposedly soils that had been formed a passel of Darwin years ago and then buried by volcanic activity, sediments, and the like. They supposedly give an indication of climate a long time ago. 

Paleosols were originally thought to be rare and took a long time to form, but both of those ideas are incorrect. While creation scientists need to investigate them further, there is some doubt that paleosols are buried soils in the first place. During the Genesis Flood, we see things like mudstone and other things that show weathering, and reactions with sediment could give the appearance of buried soil.

Secularists, y'all need to cowboy up and stop making assertions about things you don't rightly understand. Oh, you can think about it. But don't do it.
Even if we accept that secular science can accurately measure time, paleosols are known to have formed much faster than commonly assumed. Many interbeds within the Columbia River Basalt (CRB) flows of the northwest USA are considered paleosols, especially if the sediment is red. The CRBs are one of the smallest of a large number of Large Igneous Provinces that outcrop on the continents and the ocean bottoms. They cover 210,000 km, if the Steens Mountain Basalts of southeast Oregon are included. According to the secular story, lava had covered the area within a million years. The CRBs are an average of 1 km deep with a maximum of about 4 km in central Washington, and consist of about 300 basalt flows, mostly from long N–S vents in south-east Washington and north-east Oregon.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "‘Paleosols’ can form faster than secular scientists think".

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

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Ice Sheets and the Age of the Earth

There are a few icons of old earth geology that proponents tout as conclusive evidence of great age, therefore the biblical timelines and records are wrong. One of these is counting the layers in ice cores, where each layer is assumed to be annual. Actually, the ice sheets are young and support biblical creation science Flood models.


Secular geologists and other old earth proponents think that ice layers show an ancient earth. Actually, the evidence supports creation science Flood models and a young earth.
Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentina image credit: Unsplash/Miriam Duran
The dating methods used on the ice cores are fundamentally flawed, and calibration is based on circular reasoning. "Annual" layers are not necessarily annual, as there are reasons for multiple layers in one year. Also, these layers are thinner at greater depths. There is evidence that correlates with the Genesis Flood models that includes layers and residue from volcanic eruptions.



Ever been to the Gamburtsev Mountains? Probably not, as they are buried under Antarctic ice sheets. That's a whole heap of weight, plus grinding and erosion. Uniformitarian geologists are amazed that those mountains still exist after alleged millions of Darwin years. This is further evidence refuting deep time.
Secular scientists have assigned vast ages—multiple hundreds of thousands of years—to the Dome Fuji, Vostok, and EPICA Dome C ice cores in Antarctica. They also claim to have counted more than 110,000 annual layers in Greenland’s deep GISP2 core.4 For this reason, some biblical skeptics think ice cores prove an old earth. However, the argument is not as strong as it appears, and there is positive evidence the ice sheets are young.
To read the rest of this really cool article, click on "Earth's Thick Ice Sheets Are Young". You may want to supplement your reading with "Are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets old?"

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

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Fast-Forming Mudstones and the Genesis Flood

Believers in old earth geology believe in uniformitarianism, where gradual processes in the present are the key to the past. As we have seen here numerous times, this belief system is far from being rock solid. Secularists can no longer use mudstones and mudrocks as evidence against creation science Flood models.

Secular geologists thought that mudstone could only form in quiet waters. It was discovered that it forms in rapid water. Newer research shows that it forms faster than they thought.
Mudstone boulder image credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
It has been known for several years now that the prevailing mudstone formation idea that they can only form in still waters. Instead, mudstones can form in rapidly moving water, and do it quickly. This fact supports Genesis Flood models. New research shows that these star rocks can form even more quickly than secular scientists had reckoned.
One of the most common sedimentary rocks can form a hundred times faster than previously thought.
In 2007, geologists learned that their theory for mudstones was incorrect. Mudstones—the most common sedimentary rocks—do not have to form in calm water, as tiny particles drift down the water column and collect on the bottom. Instead, particles can clump or flocculate in currents and settle out much more quickly. Now, another model, based on experimental evidence, speeds up the process even more. This was just published in the AGU journal Geophysical Research Letters. Trower et al say,
To finish reading, click on "Mudstones Form Rapidly". You may also want to refer to "The Hard Truth on Mudrock".



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

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Atheism and Fundamentalist Evolution

While you do not have to be an atheist to believe in fish-to-fool evolutionism, it helps. Some owlhoots think they can merge the Bible and evolution (giving evolution precedence), but this is folly. The religion of atheism requires biological, chemical, cosmic, and other evolution concepts for its mythology of origins. These, in turn, require deep time, which necessitates the defenestration of logic and science. In reality, evolutionism is intended to be a replacement for God.


Evolution is incompatible with Christianity by its nature. In fact, fundamentalist evolutionists require atheism.
Original image: Pixabay/Peter Fischer
Back in 2005 at the "Dover Trial", a judge ruled that evolution is "good science" and does not conflict with religion. This remark got evolutionists on the prod. It is interesting that atheopaths believe this ruling in a backwater borough by an incompetent, coached, biased judge somehow proves that the Intelligent Design movement is creation science in disguise. The ruling has no effect on anyone else. Meanwhile, when we point out that the US Supreme Court and others have ruled that atheism is a religion, well, those judges don't know what they're talking about. Don't you know who they are? They're atheists. Two standards, no waiting. But I digress.

Anyway, some atheist evolutionists were angry at remarks in the Dover ruling. In fact, advocates of evolution reject any kind of intelligent design or purpose (except when they invoke it their ownselves). Indeed, a retraction was issued for an evolutionary paper that dared to use the word creator. Oh, horror! Katie, bar the door! Just try to doubt Darwin and see how far you get before fundamentalist evolutionists slap you down. We can cheer on the rebels who doubt Darwin. Perhaps they will have fewer shackles on their minds when presented with the truth of Creation.
A common claim is that no conflict exists between modern neo-Darwinism and orthodox biblical Christianity. The conclusions of many of the most eminent biologists today and a major study of leading biologists were reviewed, finding that they strongly disagree with the non-conflict hypothesis.
To read the article (you can also download a PDF version), click on "Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism". 

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

Monday, March 11, 2019

Male Reproductive System Puzzles Evolutionists

This post contains some direct material, but it is biological, not salacious. We have seen how Darwinists make claims that something is "poorly designed", therefore, evolution. (This is self-defeating, because chance cannot produce something better that the subjects they question.) Their claims are refuted upon examination. We can add the male reproductive system to the list.


Evolutionists suggest that several things that they consider to be poorly designed. These claims are refuted. Another one to add is the design of the male reproductive system.
Credit: Freeimages/Erik Araujo
I could say that I have no complaints, and have children to prove that it works. People who know about logical fallacies should be able to see how that one is wrong, and the same bad reasoning has been used to support evolution.

One secularist complaint is that since testicles are outside the body and not on the inside (such as with reptiles), this is bad design. That is a very superficial "argument" based on opinion, not scientific facts. Naturalists have made bland assertions about things like "junk" DNA, vestigial organs/structures, and more because they argued from their presuppositions instead of bothering to do serious investigation.



Evolutionists are unable to present anything reasonable about the origin of sexual reproduction and the location of the organs, so they use the tried 'n' true scientific method of Making Things Up™. Upon examination, we can see that our Creator knew what he was doing, as always, and the design makes sense; everything is in place for a reason, and functions quite well.
One of the latest proofs of human evolution is the poor design claim, namely that an intelligent Creator would not design some human body part in a certain way. An example is the human male reproductive system, which Rowe listed as number four in his list of the top 10 design flaws in the human body. The human male reproductive system poor design claim focuses on the view that “if testicles were designed”, then why didn’t God “protect them better. Couldn’t the Designer have put them inside the body, or encased them in bone” like the brain which is surrounded by a hard skull?
To read the rest of the article, click on "Is the male reproductive system poorly designed?" Here is a related post and linked article for your consideration: "'Bad Design' Claim about the Vas Deferens Refuted"

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

Saturday, March 9, 2019

Gender Differences, Science, and the Bible

Years ago, I was involved in online groups that supposedly promoted manliness. Questions arose as to what made a man a man, and was based on our activities. Some men wanted to go back to the old days of shaving with the blades and styles that granddad happily rejected in favor of more modern razors. Others talks about sports, automobile engines, books and movies men should experience, and so on. By their criteria, I am not much of a man. Add to the confusion is that women joined the groups and enjoyed many of the things that men like.


It is not news that our Creator made us different, but the secular science establishment is both verifying those differences and supporting political movements.
Credit: RGBStock/Scott Snyder
Supposedly, science is about the search for knowledge. It is a tool for determining how our Creator designed things, how they work, to make predictions, and so forth. Unfortunately, the secular science industry is riding for the politically correct brand, which is clearly seen when used regarding gender confusion. These same people also demonstrate what we already know: there are differences between men and women. Those difference are important.

Are three articles for your edification. First, the public has a strange relationship with science, a mix of adoration and suspicion. The adoration is misplaced because scientists are human, subject to the same vices as the rest of us, and that affects their judgment. However, the adoration is also earned because scientists come up with some wonderful things. Suspicion is justified because scientists are agenda- and finance-driven, and they are also involved in politically correct movements. This is especially noteworthy with trends in gender choices and confusion. Here is the beginning of the first article:
Political correctness has invaded one of the most clear observational facts about humans: we come in male and female forms. One of the PC strategies has been to divorce sex and gender. Rather than helping the tiny fraction who have ambiguous genes, or counseling those with gender dysphoria to cope with their feelings, the PC police expect all of society to change. Everyone must now use gender-neutral terms, learn new invented phrases like “gender fluidity,” build gender-neutral bathrooms, avoid using ‘sexist’ terms like’ men and women’ or ‘boys and girls,’ and say they are in favor of sex reassignment surgery—even on young children. Failure to jump on this latest cultural bandwagon brands non-cooperators ‘haters’ who must be punished. Totalitarians that they are, PC police will not tolerate disagreement. Some who don’t go along have already lost their jobs, even when they attempted respectful forms of accommodation.
To read that one in its entirety, click on "Gender PC Tugs at Scientific Objectivity". Next, we see that the very real, scientifically verified differences are indeed important. In fact, the differences are hardwired between males and females, but not just humans.

People who are striving for "equality" are missing the point. Not only are we created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), we are different. That does not mean one sex is superior to the other. Yes, women have been in oppressive cultures, but many people don't realize that many cultures — including in the western world — have given women preferential status in many ways. You don't hear much about that because of political and cultural correctness, but it does exist. One sex is not "better" than the other, you savvy that?

Secularists tend to have their views tainted by evolutionary thinking and thereby rejecting the Creator. If they humbled themselves and read the Book he gave us, they would see that God treats women higher than they are treated in cultures, ancient and modern. Let's begin the second article:
Efforts to enforce “equality” between the sexes can go awry with fake science, and consequences can be severe.
Clueless politicians, devoid of common sense and drunk on political correctness, try to pretend that genders are socially constructed. Some scientists go along with the fad . . . but others use their eyes to observe the obvious.
To finish reading and learning, click on "Male-Female Differences Matter".

The final article tells us more about the differences between sexes that are built in and necessary for our development. This is not only in our development during our time living within our mothers, but in our growth afterward.

Male-female differences are a matter of science fact, not political ideology.
Perhaps no political movement has become more anti-science (other than the neo-flat-earth) than the idea of “gender fluidity,” the notion that people can choose whether to act male or female. Their bodies, genes and brains say otherwise.
To read the rest, click on "More Science Behind Gender Differences". As for the remarks I made at the beginning of the post, there are no real established standards for "manliness". The posts and comments were subjective and based on personal preferences. Despite current trends of confusion and making up "reality" that is anti-science and in opposition to our Creator's design, there is a spectrum of behaviors for both men and women. When I was reading the manliness material, I was never confused that I was a man trapped in a woman's body; that was true for nine months, then I was born. (That observation is not original with me.) We are fulfilled when we learn and follow God's plan and are not rebelling against it.

EDIT: You may also like this sermon by Adrian Rogers, "Celebrate the Difference". Since Pastor Rogers died in 2005, some of the science facts may be doubtful, but the overall focus of the message is still on-target. The video is here, and you can download the MP3 or listen online here.

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

Friday, March 8, 2019

Algae Makes Evolutionists See Red

If someone keeps records, then those records should be orderly and reliable for reference. Believers in universal common ancestor evolution rely on the fossil record because they believe it shows an orderly progression from simple to complex life forms. This is not the case, and red algae is yet another frustration.


Red algae has created a big problem for evolutionists. It is not only a living fossil, but has been found in inconvenient places in the strata.
Limespot butterflyfish, with  soft coral and coralline red algae image credit: Derek Keats (CC by 2.0)
This stuff is important for coral reefs, and was given an age by evolutionists. Coralline red algae fossils were alleged to be over 400 million Darwin years old — much older than previously thought. Also, the fossils are just like the algae that live today. When something disappears, then reappears, they hijack a biblical reference and call it the Lazarus Effect. (This may be another name for ghost lineages.) Evolutionists have no explanation, but the Genesis Flood is the real explanation for (out-of-place)  and living fossils.
Red algae form one of the main components of coral reefs and were originally thought to have appeared on Earth during the middle of the Cretaceous system about 100 million years ago. At least that’s what the standard evolutionary story claimed until the same type of fossils were just discovered in Silurian system rocks they dated at about 430 million years. This is a whopping readjustment of the ever-flexible evolutionary story by over 300 million years. For a secular paleontologist, this would be roughly equivalent to finding a Jurassic dinosaur fossil in the Cambrian. 
The Great Barrier Reef off the east coast of Australia, and nearly every other large reef across the world, owe their massive bulk of biomass in large part to a type of red algae that grows on and strengthens the corals. The algae stimulate and enhance reef growth by attracting coral larvae to the growing reef—serving as a source of food for these and other reef animals. 
To read the entire article, click on "Red Algae Lazarus Effect Can't Resurrect Evolution". Also, you may be interested to see that green algae has created problems for evolutionists at "Ancient Algae Amazes Evolutionists".

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

Thursday, March 7, 2019

The Origin of the Universe and Laws of Physics

The simplest form of the first law of thermodynamics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law is that everything goes from order to disorder and energy becomes less useful (also called entropy). Materialistic speculations of the origin of the universe and cosmic evolution fly in the face of these established laws.

Despite the claims of secularists, the origin of the universe defies the basic laws of physics. They end up working outside of science and into metaphysics.
Flame Nebula image credit: NASA/DSS
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular owlhoots invariably tell biblical creationists that we do not understand those laws and try to evosplain why we are wrong with atheistic talking points. However, village secularists end up demonstrating that they are the ones who do not understand these laws.


I'll allow that some well-meaning creationists have misused the laws of thermodynamics, so caution is advised. Fortunately, the article linked below was written by someone who knows his way around physics and astronomy.

The Big Bang has been Frankensteined repeatedly over the decades. It would be comical except that materialists are so locked in to their Creator-denying schemes. Get up on the hill for a broader picture, and you can see all the rescuing devices. One of these is that the laws of physics did not apply at the moment of cosmic inflation. Not only is that unscientific, it is blind faith and metaphysics, old son.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well-established, and they appear universally to apply. Of course, there is no problem with the two operating simultaneously today, but a startling conclusion results if we extrapolate them into the past. If the first law of thermodynamics has always been true, then the universe must have always existed. Otherwise, sometime in the past energy must have spontaneously appeared when none had previously existed. But this would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Hence, the first law of thermodynamics requires that the universe be eternal. But what if we extrapolate the second law of thermodynamics into the past? If the universe was eternal, there would have been more than ample time for the universe to have already reached its maximum state of entropy, with no useful energy remaining. The fact that today we can use heat engines and that biological systems operate today reveals that the universe is far from the maximum entropic state. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, and hence the universe must have had a beginning in the finite past.
To read the entire article (you're bright folks, you can follow this), click on "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Origin of the Universe". You may also like "Creation, Evolution, and Entropy", which has a few worthwhile links.

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

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Rescuing Deep Time for Landforms

Secular geologists riding for the old earth brand are puzzled by landforms that do not respect uniformitarian dogma. They have trouble with features such as planation surfaces (where the tops of mountains are a bit on the flat side) and others. Some continue to publish speculations even though they have nothing new to offer.


Despite evidence to the contrary, some geologists insist that landforms are very old, and try to rescue their beliefs.
Planation at Bayanul, Kazakhstan credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ekamaloff
Using uniformitarian assumptions (present processes are essentially the same over millions of years), some landforms should be worn down far more than they are now; erosion rates today are too high. Part of the insistence on calling them old is because minerals-to-minerologist evolution requires them, and because of their reliance on fundamentally flawed radiometric dating. Also, the truth is too difficult for secular owlhoots to tolerate: creation science models of the Genesis Flood are the best explanations for what is observed.
According to the uniformitarian principle, present day rates of erosion are several orders of magnitude too rapid for the landforms to have survived to the present day. Erosion rates are based mainly on climate and relief and vary significantly, with the highest rates of erosion being in high mountains with high rainfall. . . . At the present rate of erosion, all of the continents would be reduced to sea level in 10 Ma [mega-annum, million years] based on river output to the oceans. However, there are other processes that would slow erosion. Several secular geologists have estimated that this reduced rate would flatten all of the continents in less than 50 Ma.
To read the complete article, click on "Revisiting the problem of very old landforms". The video below of Kangaroo Island in South Australia shows some planation, which is mentioned in the linked article.




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

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Those Sophisticated Neanderthals

New material added to the end of this post.

There was a time when Neanderthals were considered partly-evolved cavemen, a link to our simian ancestry. Scientists caught up to what biblical creationists have said for decades: Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Evidence continued to mount that showed how they were not only human, but intelligent. Now we learn that they were rather sophisticated!


Though some people still think that Neanderthals were stupid brutes in our path to evolution. Instead, they were intelligent humans who lived far more recently than evolutionists  want to admit.
Modified from an image at Openclipart
Neanderthals were creative and intelligent, though some tinhorns still reject the science indicating they were fully human. Some scientists were skeptical that there was evidence proving they were the ones who did those high-quality cave wall paintings. While it seems obvious, study on it a spell. Nobody saw them doing the painting, and they could have taken over furnished caves or shared them with Denisovans and modern humans. Nope. Now it is believed the Neanderthals did the painting. This may have been put aside for a spell since they apparently had a proclivity toward sexual promiscuity — like modern humans.



They also had culinary skills (the smells were still in the caves, unlikely after all those Darwin years, huh?) and seemed to be a bit on the intellectual side. I can imagine them having discussions after dinner. Maybe they were discussing how people could get the notion that life came from non-life and evolved upward, and how people could reject the Creator. Then they'd laugh and see if there was any leftover mammoth steak. 

These people were fully human, and do not support Darwin's ideas. Instead, their ancient presence supports recent special creation. They were sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, just like us.
Actually they are not evolving, but our picture of them is. Drastically. Science has moved the picture of Neanderthals from our primitive brutish less evolved evolutionary ancestors to the typical family next door. The latest study concluded they were “people who liked nothing better than spending time indoors around the fire . . .  and having friends over for dinner.” A report in Science wrote “Once seen as brute cavemen, Neandertals have gained stature as examples of sophisticated technology and behavior have turned up in their former territory across Europe.”
A home is important because, as Matt Pope, an archaeologist at University College London, argues, home  “marked a critical threshold in the long march towards civilization. . . . a conceptual leap that shaped the way our ancestors thought and interacted.” For most of prehistory, the assumed time before we have written records, no evidence exists of human presence in caves or even rock shelters.
To finish reading, click on "Neanderthals are Evolving". Also see "The Evolution of Neanderthal Man From Evolution Ancestor to Modern Man". Also, you may be interested in:


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

Monday, March 4, 2019

Sneaky Evolutionary Debate Tactics

One trick that atheists and other anti-creationists use in discussions is to distract us. They use misleading hypothetical situations as well as emotion-based attacks.We have seen many examples of the methods used to promote universal common ancestor evolution, and quite a few are disingenuous. Some are downright sneaky. Creationists frequently deal with straw man arguments, blatant misrepresentation, personal attacks, and so on. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ often use distractions when the harsh light of truth gets them on the prod.

I have seen atheists and evolutionists who demand evidence for what biblical creationists believe. When it is provided, they bounce around to different subjects (which happens in all sorts of discussions, even informal ones). Anti-creationists and atheists try to put us on the defensive. Sometimes they claim to be asking "honest questions", and invariably trying to slap leather with the creationists with emotion-based distractions and attacks. I'll allow that it is easy to let ourselves follow their lead, but it they get mighty irritated when we keep them on topic.

Some of the distractions are along the lines of, "What if...?" That is, they are hypothetical situations. Scientists and other people have used hypothetical thought experiments for ages, but we have to be careful that the situation is not ridiculous and a set-up for a game of "Gotcha!" It's far better to keep the hoss in the coral; dealing with speculations instead of evidence and the truth of God's Word can easily become foolishness. Anti-creationists take great pleasure in wasting our time. Many times, we have to avoid the trickery and loaded questions. If the subject seems useful, you may want to consider rewording it and presenting it back to the questioner — or refusing altogether.
At a recent ICR event in Massachusetts, an attendee asked a trap-loaded question: “Some say that minor errors in the Bible are okay because they don’t hurt the Bible’s main message—but how do you deal with the Bible’s errors?” The scoffer added, “How do you fix your theology when new scientific discoveries prove that your literal belief in the Bible doesn’t work?”
Notice how the critic’s leading questions included built-in assumptions: “The Bible contains errors. Your theology is broken. Science disproves the Bible. A literal belief in the Bible is unreasonable.” They are similar to this unfair question: “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”
To read the rest, click on "Beware the Bait of False Hypotheticals". Also, I recommend a related subject at "Countering emotional attacks on creation".




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

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Further Foolishness in Origin of Life Speculations

Many believers in scum-to-sculptor evolution have realized that life could not have arisen on Earth according to their paradigm, so they push the problem out in space and give it to the aliens. Other materialist owlhoots still try to make origin of life speculations seem plausible. How about order from disorder? 

Some evolutionists still attempt to speculate on the origin of life. This latest attempt is an irrational idea that life came from proto-biological clutter.
Credit: Freeimages/Loretta Humble
Keith Cooper headed down to the Darwin ranch and ran an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. Not much reason to, since it is loaded with assumptions (even though evolutionists are not skittish about them) and multiple variables. Just take some biological stuff lying around and hope it evolves into something useful, and then upward into humans and things. Not hardly! Aside from OoL refutations, there is not model or mechanism, and the author admits that his idea has problems. The idea is irrational. His biggest problem, however, is that he refuses to humble himself and admit that life was created by God.
OOL without designing intelligence is a fOOL’s errand. Watch smart chemists act like intellectually-fOOLfilled atheists.
Scientific materialism has one ironclad rule: No mind. No God. No supernatural intervention. Stuff happens all by itself. Thus restricted, materialists who may know a lot about chemistry may exhibit utter lack of logic. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fOOLs.
Take Keith Cooper’s headline from Astrobiology Magazine: “Cleaning up the clutter: how proto-biology arose from the prebiotic clutter.” First, the protagonist in the story has to dispense with designing intelligence.
To finish reading, click on "Clutter Created You".



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

Friday, March 1, 2019

The Lion Kind and Other Breeds

If you ever watch some of those documentaries on cats, you can see that the furry critters that own us as pets can be found in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors (the Maine Coon is a whopper.) Go to the zoo or watch a different documentary and you see the big ones such as lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, bobcats, and a passel of others. Where did they originate?


Lions are described in the Bible and other ancient historical records. The created kind probably looked much the same then as it does now.
Liger (lion-tiger hybrid) image credit: Ali West (CC by 2.0)
Darwinists are content with "it evolved" and spin some yarns, but it is obvious from their amazing abilities such as vision, smell, hearing, and others that the Master Engineer designed them. Biblical creationists believe in the created kinds of Genesis, and the study of the kinds is called baraminology. They're all cats, and can interbreed. Lions and tigers can breed. The largest domestic cat (although domestic is disputed) is the Savannah cat, a cross between a domestic and an African serval.

Lions are discussed in the Bible and in other ancient historical records. I'll allow that it's a natural question to wonder if they were the same back then as they are now, and if diversification from the kinds that disembarked Noah's Ark would allow enough time.
During the creation week, God created each animal to reproduce “according to its kind.” Much later, Noah’s family brought two of every kind onto the Ark. Are lions their own kind, or are they part of a larger reproducing group?
. . .
Many different cats can interbreed. When added together, they form a string of breeding varieties that includes all cats. This means that today’s lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, and even house cats descended from just a few generic-looking cats.
You can read the entire mane attraction by clicking on "Have Lions Always Been Lions?" If you're interested, a much longer and more technical article is linked at "The Origin of the Cat Family".




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

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Another Plant Evolution Concept

This is one of those times when a very technical article needs to be presented for people who want more in-depth hard science. It helps to have a background in botany, but if you have some knowledge of science, you can still get something out of it. It involves an area that frustrates particles-to-plant evolutionists, and has some support for biblical creation science models.


This technical article discusses how a plant evolution model fails, but also may give support to creation science models.
Credit: Unsplash/Henry & Co.
Usually as a reproduction error, polyploidy is a condition where —

"You mean like David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett and those guys, Cowboy Bob?"

That would be poly Pink Floydy. Let's hope your lapse of reason is momentary.

Moving on.

Polyploidy is where organisms or cells additional sets of paired chromosomes. Sometimes organisms are deemed "fit", but controversy ensues. It has been suggested that polyploidy is a means of evolution, but that would mean it happens too rapidly, so the fact-free concept of punctuated equilibrium has been invoked. However, rapid speciation fits with creation science models, including engineered adaptability.

Was this condition present at the beginning of creation? The study of created kinds in Genesis is called baraminology, and creationists are considering how polyploidy may fit. We'll see what develops.
Polyploidy is important to scientists because it produces reproductive isolation, almost by default. Reproductive isolation is a key part of the definition of the biological species concept. Since an increase of information is needed for molecules-to-man evolution, evolutionists postulate polyploidy as a means for this. This and the next paper from this author will discuss whether polyploidy is deleterious, give examples of polyploid organisms, and attempt to explain polyploidy in a biblical creation paradigm, while assessing whether it is a viable mechanism for evolution. Since polyploidy has been known to be common and is purportedly beneficial in at least some plant species, this first paper will focus on plants.
Those of you who want to continue can click on "Is Plant Polyploidy a Viable Mechanism for Evolution?"




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

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Snakes, Venom, and Evolution

Although he has long since gone to his eternal reward, the ideas of Papa Darwin have been having some bad times lately. They have been slimed by the hagfish, natural selection has been shown to be useless in science, and now we see that they have been snakebit. Serves the sidewinders right.

Evolutionists are unable to explain the origin of snakes, and of venom. Instead, they exhibit the design work of the Creator.
Western pygmy rattlesnake image credit: Wikimedia Commons/Peter Paplanus (CC by 2.0)
 Evolutionists have been unable to come up with a cogent model for the origin of snakes and lizards. They lost their legs? How? Ideas raise more questions than provide answers. They also have problems with the varieties of venom and where it came from. Yes, creationists also have speculations about venom as well. We do know that snakes show remarkable design, and did not evolve.
The origin of snakes and snake venom has become more puzzling to believers in Darwinian evolution.

(Note: For explanation of our usage of Darwin, Darwinism and Darwinian, see footnote.) [This fits the way I use those terms as well. -Cowboy Bob]

If snakes evolved from lizards, there should be fossils showing the transition. There should also be genetic changes evident between lizards and snakes. Often in biology, things turn out too complicated for simple stories.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Snake Bites Darwin".

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

Labels