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

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Fuzzy Pterosaur Flusters Evolutionists

Mayhaps it is just my imagination, but it seems that there has been a passel of news about dinosaur feathers in the news lately. Darwinists cannot give evidence for dinosaur-to-bird evolution, nor can they give a plausible hypothesis for the alleged evolution of the feather itself. Now there is a new problem with pterosaur fuzz.


If feathered pterosaurs were found, it would cause several problems for evolutionists.
Credit: Pixabay / Efraimstochter
Since the narrative drives the interpretation of the evidence, and Darwinoids see what they want to see, fuzzy areas in fossils are taken to be "feathers", but that claim is not supported. Naturally, the secular science industry press is all atwitter about these alleged feathers. Several problems arise, including how feathers on pterosaurs would mean that feathers were contemporaneous with dinosaurs and predated birds. What next, will they extrapolate to feathered crocodiles?



Of course, secularists cannot allow themselves to discard their self-refuting notions and cowboy up to the fact that the world is young, or that dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds, and everything else were produced by the Creator.
Fuzz has been found on a pterosaur. That’s not news. But split ends on some fibers are electrifying the evolutionary imagination.

The media are in a flap about “feathers” on a pterosaur. Here are some of the breathless headlines, built on the assumption “Whatever exists, it evolved.”
To read the rest, fly on over to "Darwinists Imagine Feathered Crocodiles".

QED


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

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Plankton Puzzles for Evolutionists

Plankton are tiny aquatic things that float along in the oceans, and are the chuck wagon for other creatures to chow down on. Sometimes the microscopic plants called phytoplankton pile up in one area, causing what is called a "bloom", which is a concern because they may take up too much oxygen that other creatures need. (Zooplankton are tiny animals.) There are some things about plankton that defy evolution and affirm creation.


Plankton are far more complex than previously realized, and they have some surprises that affirm creation and defy evolution.
NASA photo by Jesse Allen of bloom in Hood Canal, Washington
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There is no such thing as a "simple cell" anymore. The more cells are investigated, they are discovered to be amazingly complex. Plankton produce a sulfur compound that adds to the global sulfur cycle. Certain plankta do that complicated food thing called photosynthesis, which is remarkable in itself. Then there are sensors on the cell surfaces so they can move into areas with different salt levels. Here, I'll let you read about these things in this short article: "Not-So-Simple Plankton". The short video below has some interesting information, and they threw in the obligatory unscientific "millions of years" and evolutionary assertion, but that is minimal.


QED


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

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Spider Dummies and Evolutionary Storytelling

Spiders are actually more intelligent that many people believe, and studies are showing this. If you study on the notion, you can see from the complexities of webs that orb-weaver spiders make, plus the specified complexity of their design to make the webs quickly and accurately. How about spiders that build dummies or decoys?

Two species of spiders on opposite sides of the world build large dummies in their webs.
Credit: Freeimages / Odan Jaeger
Not only do studies of spiders' intelligence and the web-making activities point to the work of their Creator, but two in the genus Cyclosa (in the Araneidae family) on opposite parts of Earth make decoys out of things that happen to be conveniently laying around. ("New species", meaning, "we haven't seen them critters afore now".) Sometimes they make very large decoys, other times the spiders add stuff to the web so they can hide in them. Working web threads to shake the dummies to bother predators is also utilized, probably so trespassers will light a shuck out of there.

Evolutionists have no cogent explanations for decoy-building spiders, creationists have plausible speculations.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lee Saborio via Angela Saborio (FAL 1.3)
At the time I am writing this post, the pictures on the article linked below are not appearing, but you can see some at this link.

Proponents of scum-to-spider evolution cannot provide an adequate explanation for the intelligence of spiders, their design, and their activities. Two species building dummies? Probably the secular miracle of "convergent evolution", or the equally vacuous non-answer, "It evolved". Creationists have some puzzle pieces to assemble, but their speculations are much more reasonable.
Camouflage is a design feature used by many creatures to protect themselves in this sin-cursed world. Typically, camouflage is used to imitate an environment in order to blend in and hide.

A related form of ‘deception for safety’ is called mimicry, in which a creature impersonates another species. For instance, to lower its chance of being eaten, it might imitate (in appearance, behaviour or both) a very unpalatable or poisonous species that a predator knows to avoid. Some creatures even mimic specific predators that frighten other predators away.

Recently, two independent studies have revealed a creature that mimics itself! And one could say it does so in a ‘big’ way.
To read the rest and get the analysis of evolutionary guesswork, click on "These spiders aren’t dummies (or are they?)"


QED


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

Monday, January 14, 2019

Fossils and — Lip Reading?

The article that is featured below was written with an interesting analogy, that being if fossils could talk, scientists might try to read their lips. What happens is some amazingly bad science where fossils are made to "say" things that are nothing more than deep time and evolutionary assumptions, not science.


If paleontologists could do lip reading on fossils, they would have them "say" things that are the opposite of the truth.
Credit: Pixabay / oTschOo
Have you ever tried to read lips? It can be difficult to get right (such as when my wife tries to silently tell me something and I have to be told outright later). Sometimes even expert lip readers can get it wrong. Other times, people can "translate" with completely wrong information, such as what secular scientists do with fossil propaganda. The world's oldest flower exists, therefore, it evolved. Millipede trackways overturn evolutionary beliefs, but new words can be added to reduce the damage. Starfish ancestor is too far evolved, which should overturn evolution, but instead forces a "rethink". Amazing how far secularists will travel to advance their worldview and deny the Creator.

Read about these fossil lip stories and others by clicking on "Bad Lip Reading with Fossils".


QED


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

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Climate Change and Evolution: Similarities in Bad Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because the secular science industry is becoming increasingly involved in political and religious matters, Christians and biblical creationists need to address issues that affect all of us. Unfortunately, people involved in secular science are accelerating their opposition toward biblical truth, and are also showing a distinct political bias toward the left. Indeed, sometimes their commitment to their worldview seems downright nutty while they hijack science for their own agendas.


There are striking similarities between global warming hysteria and evolution. Both use fake science, appeals to ridicule, circular reasoning, and more

A spell back, someone shared a link with me that had Mark Levin interviewing Dr. Patrick Michaels, an expert on environmental science who works at the Green Hornet Institute —

"You mean the Director of the Center for Study of Science at the Cato Institute, Cowboy Bob!"

Right, that's the place. During the interview, I was surprised at the number of things that climate science has in common with evolutionary and deep time science speculations:
True believers on both evolution and climate change are often fanatical about their beliefs, rejecting contrary information that interferes with the narrative. For example, misrepresentation is a favorite tactic as well as personal attacks (such as calling me a "bigot" because I reject the biased hysteria from leftists).


Ignoring, twisting, and suppressing relevant scientific data but presenting their views anyway is not science, it is indoctrination, old son.

I'd be much obliged if you would watch the video or read the transcript and see the similarities in alarmist climate change and evolutionism for yourself. Note that the video is only the first part of the interview, and the rest discusses how secular science has become politicized, using global climate change as a fulcrum. To read and watch, click on "Dr. Patrick Michaels on the truth about global warming". Sorry, the video starts immediately.

QED


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

Friday, January 11, 2019

Still More Signs of Saturn's Youth

It is becoming increasingly difficult for secular astronomers and cosmologists to cling to their deep time belief systems. The more scientists search, the more they find that shows that the solar system is far younger than they want to believe, which indicates recent creation. For one thing, scientists are surprised at the existence of water in the inner solar system. Out yonder, things are also unpleasant for their views.

Saturn and other solar system objects persist in frustrating secular astronomers and cosmologists. They show signs of youth (recent creation), not deep time.
Four-moon transit of Saturn. Source: Hubblesite.org
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Not only is the orbit and tilt of Saturn important for Earth, the planet's rings and moons defy old age belief systems. Like biological evolution, cosmic things are "younger than expected". Those nice rings? They cannot be explained, and they cannot be so very old. The many geysers on the moon Enceladus do not fit the old-age paradigm. Then there are those strange stripes on the moon Dione. Space is fascinating, and wonderful for biblical creationists.
More discoveries of youthful phenomena contradict Gustav Holst’s musical tribute to “Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age.”

Recent analyses of Cassini data continue the theme of Saturn’s music, which is more like Peter Pan than Holst. As you interpret the following news stories, keep in mind that the moyboy ages are upper limits. They could be much lower. What surprises planetary scientists is that these phenomena exist at a time when humans can observe them. If they were billions of years old, how could that be?
To read the rest, click on "Saturn, the Bringer of Youth". For a related short article on those clean rings, see "Pristine Saturn problem".


QED


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

Thursday, January 10, 2019

The Strange, Sociable Capybara

Down yonder in South America you can find a very large friendly rodent. Well, not like the Giant Rat of Sumatra or something, because rodent is a large category. The capybara is a rodent related to the guinea pig (which is not from Guinea and not a pig), and it has a bit of a resemblance to pigs.


Capybaras are big and friendly, and have several interesting traits. In addition, they do not show any evolutionary history.
Credit: Unsplash / Karen Lau
Some people use their hides for clothing and even eat them (others are none to fond of serving them up for chow, and I think they're too cute for that). Capybaras are sometimes kept as pets (where legal), but have distinct needs.They are excellent swimmers and are fast on land as well. In an interesting bit of symbiosis, birds ride on capybaras and, in a manner slightly similar to wrasse cleaning, get themselves cleaned by the birds and other critters. There is no evidence of capybara evolution, but are represented by the created kinds of Genesis.
It’s an animal to which many other creatures (and not just its predators) are attracted. Whether it’s in the water, or out of it eating grass—or even just lazing around—they want to be on its back, at its side, or close by it.

What is it? It’s the world’s biggest rodent, the capybara, which can weigh up to 66 kg (145 pounds).

Europeans first described it as a water hog — because it swam and looked like a pig — hence the scientific name Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris. The common name capybara derives from ka’api√Ľara (‘grass eater’) in the once widely spoken South American Tupi language.
You can read the rest of this short article at "Capybara".



QED


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

Wednesday, January 9, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Logic Systems

Darwinists assert that organisms evolve because of unseen, undefined external forces, but the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model demonstrates that the opposite is true. The Master Engineer provided the means to detect and adapt to changes in environments, and organisms have logic mechanisms all the way down to the cellular level, and beyond.

Engineered adaptability reveals that living things have internal logic networks so they can respond to their environments.
Credit: RGBStock / Guenter M. Kirchweger
We have seen that living things have built-in logic mechanisms. Like systems built by human engineers, there can be a series of switches. No, we're not saying that horses calculate which fence to jump for better pastures or anything like that. These logic networks can even work at changing the genome. Octopuses can have their RNA molecules edited before they make proteins so they can have short- and long-term adaptations. For that matter, corals edit their RNA, which is problematic for deep time beliefs. There are other examples of internal logic systems as well.
In this article, we’ll first consider new research that helps explain how logic-based modules are linked into extremely complicated biological regulatory networks. Next, we’ll survey examples of how those networks bring about remarkable self-adjustments that are precisely targeted to specific environmental challenges. Throughout, we’ll again see that biological systems incorporate the best engineering principles used in human-designed systems.
To read this very interesting article in its entirety, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Biological Networks Feature Finest Engineering Principles".
 
QED


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

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Our Magnetic Field is Fading

As discussed previously, one of the strongest evidences for a young earth is our magnetic field. Scientists know that we have a magnetic field, that it is a planet-sized deflector shield to protect life here, it is decaying at a known rate, and if you extrapolate backward past 20,000 years, life would not be possible because the magnetic field would have been too powerful; it was created recently. You savvy that? The opposite problem is happening, however. And it's worse than previously thought.

The earth's magnetic field protects not just satellites, but life itself. It is decaying. Not only does it indicate recent creation, but the Creator's plan at the end.
Image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
What you may not hear about is that our defensive shield is failing. Not just reversing itself as indicated in stalactites, but actually failing. As in, "I canna get the shields up, Cap'n. I need more powerrrrr!" Since we need the magnetic field, not just for the operational convenience of satellites and such, but for life itself, this qualifies as a problem if the research is correct. But then, since our genome is collapsing and humans are going extinct (another powerful evidence for recent creation), then who cares? 

Atheists shouldn't care because they believe everything is an accident anyway. Those of us who know that there is a Creator and he is in control have reasons for our faith and hope. There will be an end, but that is according to God's timetable and the final Judgement. (As DeGarmo and Key sang, "...remember that kid from the manger scene? When he comes back he's gonna reign as King!") Meanwhile, we can see the research reports and see how scientists speculate on how to get the magnetic field where they want it to be.
The biosphere depends on earth’s magnetic field, but it has been decaying rapidly for at least 1500 years.

In Spacecraft Earth: A Guide for Passengers, Dr Henry Richter describes how the story of the decay of the earth’s magnetic field caught his attention. He had read the monograph by Dr Thomas Barnes in the 1970s, and realized the implications: if the decay is true, the earth could not be billions of years old. He considered the various proposals for maintaining the field, but none of them work, he concluded. If this is a well-known fact, what do secular geophysicists have to say about it?
To read the rest, click on "Earth’s Magnetic Field Decaying at an Alarming Rate".


QED


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

Monday, January 7, 2019

An Assault on Saltatory Evolution

Way back in olden times, evolutionism was a religion that believed bigger things came from smaller things. Apparently, most evolution proponents did not believe in the slow and gradual processes that Darwin proposed, but instead believed in saltation of one sort or another. The word saltation used to mean a dancing or hopping move, but that has been left behind. Evolutionists and geologists use it now.

In an effort to support the idea of evolutionary leaps, researchers actually worked against their own proposal.

Saltatory evolution is the idea that instead of gradual progression, evolution happened in quick bursts. Gould and Eldridge suggested a form of this and called it punctuated equilibria. They brought this up because there was no evidence for gradual evolution, so they wanted to substitute something else with no evidence. Makes perfect sense.

In an effort to support satatory evolution, researchers were speculating that "disordered" proteins could be a place where it happens. Their assumptions actually worked against their proposition.


Instead of supporting evolution, they provided no evidence. Worse, they assaulted their own system by providing no evidence whatsoever. There is no disorder, but only functions in proteins put in place by the Master Engineer that scientists do not as yet understand.
Researchers from the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) in Australia, have identified what they have termed “Structural Capacitance Elements” in mutated proteins that are associated with many different types of human diseases. They wanted to determine whether point mutations in disordered regions would generate localized regions of microstructure. In other words, they wanted to see if the mutations would impose a region of order to the disordered regions of certain proteins. These new structures may be able to more readily fold and may induce other proteins to bind together with them at the SCE microstructural region. The authors’ contention is that these SCEs could be a mechanism for saltatory evolution rather than slow and gradual neo-Darwinian evolution. Their claim is that in proteins with long disordered regions (LDRs), point mutations could form their newly named “structural capacitance elements,” which could supposedly increase order and make microstructures. However, this was not borne out in the study. The results were without exception neutral or negative. Looking at the evidence presented in this paper leads to the inescapable conclusion that there actually is no evidence for evolution. The researchers seriously misinterpret the IDPs, postulating disorder when there is none. They then extrapolate from that proposed disorder to find a mechanism that could create order out of disorder. Unfortunately for them, their chosen mechanism, saltatory mutations, have been proven to only create disorder, not order.
To read the rest of this admittedly technical article, click on "Creating Order from Disorder?"
QED


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

Saturday, January 5, 2019

Lizard Tracks and the Genesis Flood

Both secular geologists and their creationist counterparts agree that most of the layers of the Grand Canyon originated because of water — with the exception of Coconino sandstone. Uniformitarian geologists want to believe that this layer was put in place by wind-blown sand, despite the evidence. Tracks make an impression.

Tracks in the sandstone support the watery-origin evidence and the Genesis Flood.
Image credit: National Park Service / Sally King (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Think for a moment about tracks in sand. Someone is taking a horse for a run along the beach, passing the loving couple holding hands. The tracks from the couple are mostly shapeless because they're on the dry sand, and the horse tracks are distinct because they are made in wet sand. Either way, they'll all be gone soon. Drop a golf ball in dry sand, or maybe a baseball, and there's one of many vague impressions. Do it in soggy sand and the print is clear for a while; you can tell what kind of ball was dropped there.

Additional evidence for the wet origin of the Coconino layer was provided by a critter. Something, maybe an amphibian like a salamander or a lizard of some sort, left tracks. But they didn't go away because something special had to happen. This is another example of the forces of the Genesis Flood.
Salamander-like footprints preserved in sandstone have long fascinated Grand Canyon hikers and rafters. Insights from a new study of the track patterns intensify an old trackway mystery. But Noah’s Flood can help solve this mystery.

It boils down to this: How could a four-footed track maker leave so many details of its foot if it was walking on windblown sand dunes? Footprints in dry sand leave shapeless divots that might not last a single day, let alone long enough to turn to stone. Wet sand grains, however, can hold together well enough to record details like toes.
To finish reading, click on "Reptile Footprints Advance Flood Explanation".


QED


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

Friday, January 4, 2019

Methane and Faulty Climate Change Science

There are some notable similarities in proponents of molecules-to-merchandiser evolution and anthropogenic climate change, so that is the main reason an article on climate change appears here. One of these connections is the way adherents of each take a cultlike approach to promoting their views through emotional appeal and by denouncing those who offer cogent rebuttals and contrary scientific evidence. 

Another similarity is that both evolution and global climate change claim "consensus" as if bandwagon support was actual science. Third, both areas underplay or even ignore important details that should be considered. Global climate change advocates overlook the existence of natural sources of methane — which is "worse" than carbon dioxide.

Climate change alarmists overlook many natural sources of methane, which is "worse" than carbon dioxide.
Credit: Freeimages / Michael Ring
Many of us have heard about government funding to study bovine burps and flatulence because of methane emissions. Some folks even want to vaccinate livestock against the organisms that emit methane, but I can't help but wonder if that would be harmful to the animals by playing God with their internal systems.

There are many natural sources of methane, and quite a few have been overlooked by the climate change alarmists when presenting their doomsday scenarios. They have been around for a mighty long time, too. Termites also emit methane, and there's a heap of them. Well, mounds of them. Some mounds are so large, they can be seen from space! Volcanoes also emit methane. Surprisingly, a glacier in Iceland emits an enormous amount of methane.

Then there's the damage-control article that claims that you can trust consensus science, even when they publish material that is wrong.

Notice that this alarmist stuff is assuming naturalism and assuming that there is no God who created the world, or that he is not in control.
Methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Look where it comes from.

The media are all reacting to the latest report from a federal commission on climate change, which says that global warming is a bigger threat than thought. Leftists are demanding prompt action (Science Daily) to avoid catastrophe (Nature). . . . CEH is not taking a position on this, but we do like to point out when peer-reviewed journal papers and consensus-believing secular science media cast doubt on whether global warming is humanity’s fault, if for no other reason than to show that a consensus can preach dogmatically from shaky ground – just like they do with Darwinism. Consider:
To consider the material and the comments afterward, click on "Natural Sources of Methane Surprise Climate Scientists".

QED


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

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Landforms Indicate Thin Ice Sheets

Secular geologists not only believe that the earth is billions of years old, but that it had dozens of ice ages. Those are easy to invoke since a later ice age effectively obliterates whatever happened previously. Biblical creationists postulate only one Ice Age which was caused by the global Genesis Flood. Landforms in Scandinavia and Britain indicate thin ice sheets, contrary to secular views.


Thin ice sheet studies in Scandinavia and Britain do not support secular geology views, but do support the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Pixabay / Enrique Lopez
I wanted to check out the landforms in Norway but needed to rent a car. My preference was a Fjord Mustang —

"That's dreadful, Cowboy Bob!"

Oh, I thought you'd take a viking to that one. Moving on...

Geologists have ideas about ice sheets in Scandinavia and Britain, but their views and numerous assumptions are not supported by observed evidence. In addition, they rely on the Milankovitch (or astronomical) theory of ice ages and for scare tactics of climate change proponents. They still saddle up those faulty ideas because their impetus is the narrative, not the facts; the Milankovitch idea has been fundamentally flawed for decades, and its supporting Pacemaker idea has been refuted. Creation science views potentially explain much of what has been found, including why fjords are deeper closer to the mountains than they are toward the sea.
Just like the Laurentide Ice Sheet, the Scandinavian and British-Irish Ice Sheets were much thinner than the Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is used as an analogue for ice sheet thickness by uniformitarian scientists. This supports a higher sea level minimum in the creation science Ice Age model. The evidence for much thinner ice sheets in Europe includes tors, relatively thick soils, saprolite, blockfields, and slightly modified drainage features within the area covered by the ice sheets. These non-glacial landforms are even found at the proposed centre of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet over north-east Sweden that extends into northern Finland. To preserve such landforms, the ice sheet in these areas must have eroded the substrate very little over a few million years. Secular scientists are convinced the Scandinavian Ice Sheet was up to 3–4 km thick, and are forced to conclude these areas had been covered by cold-based ice, which causes little erosion. Nunataks are supposed to have protruded above the ice sheets, but uniformitarian scientists are forced to claim that the trimlines on nunataks are the boundary between warm ice below and cold ice above, instead of the boundary between ice below and no ice above. Some of the delicate pre-glacial features can potentially be explained by late Flood events and the unique post-Flood Ice Age.
To read the rest, click on "Non-glacial landforms indicate thin Scandinavian and British-Irish Ice Sheets".


QED


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

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

The "Noah's Ark" of Microbes?

Most of us are familiar with Noah's Ark, where God sent all kinds of critters for Noah to keep safe with his family when the world underwent judgment by water. Loosely borrowing from the Bible, scientists are considering a kind of Noah's Ark on a much, much smaller scale: microbes.


A new project for a Noah's Ark for microbes is very interesting, but also raises some procedural questions.
Anaerobic bacteria image credit: Argonne National Laboratory  (CC by-NC-SA 2.0)
(usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Sounds interesting. Not only are microbes important for research, but many are beneficial for the health of various organisms. Let's hope they put safeguards in place so nobody kicks out a power cord or something. (I'm not thinking of an apocalypse, we just don't want them dying and all that effort going to waste.) Interestingly, the scientists are making evolutionary assumptions that "primitive" people in the bush have better, more natural eating habits. However, transplanting their microbes to people in urban areas, for example, could actually be harmful.

Microbiomes change over time (Noah's microbiome would have been different compared to ours). The selection process seems very limited because not only do microbes change over time, they are different in various places as mentioned above. It is interesting that the tiny things of God's creation are fascinating and can be beneficial.
Instead of building a large structure to house animals, this ark would be constructed to house microbes. It is not commonly thought of, but researchers often collect strains of bacteria and store them in their research labs. But the worrisome thing about storing all the bacteria in a research lab is the scenario where a long-term freezer breaks or goes down because of a lack of electricity. All the strains stored in that freezer will go bad and the scientist will lose many precious samples. Not only is this true for scientists but also for medical doctors.
. . .

Creating what some recent scientists are referring to as an “ark of microbes”3 (a collaborative global safe-house repository of primarily beneficial microbes to be kept from mishaps that could eradicate a desirable strain; as such, this “ark” would allow for microbial repopulation, reminiscent of recovery after the Noachian flood) has two important considerations. First, scientists would no longer have to worry about losing precious samples that they’ve spent years collecting. Second, medical doctors would be able to archive the healthy samples for use in sick patients. The process of selecting samples for archiving can take years of attention that all could be lost easily with one bad turn of events.
To read the entire article, click on "Noah’s Ark on a Microscopic Scale".
QED


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

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

No Dinosaur Feather Evolution

Got my unregistered assault keyboard ready for action. You with me to continue the adventures?

We know that everyone has a worldview that contains assumptions and presuppositions. Scientists, along with us reg'lar folk, interpret what we observe through our worldviews, you savvy? Good. Even though there is no actual evidence that dinosaurs evolved in the first place, many of Darwin's disciples believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. There is no evidence for such that flighty idea, either. What about feathers themselves?

Some evolutionists insist that dinosaurs had feathers. None of the few fossils that suggest this are disputed.
Credit: Unsplash / Alvaro Reyes
There are a few dinosaur fossils that are said to have "protofeathers", but those are disputed. In addition, advocates of these claims must ignore other possible explanations for those impressions in the fossils. Even if a dinosaur did indeed have feathers, so what? It is not evidence that they evolved into birds. The feather itself is a complicated structure that the Master Engineer designed for several purposes, and not to adorn extinct reptiles and such.
Many secular scientists consider so-called “feathered dinosaurs” to be evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds. Clearly defined anatomy-based categories exist for both “bird” and “dinosaur,” but evolution requires a bird-to-dinosaur transition. In living creatures, only birds—not mammals or reptiles—have feathers. Furthermore, with a few controversial exceptions, all extinct feathered animals are acknowledged as birds. Even bird-feather proteins called keratins are unique.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Did Dinosaurs Come with or without Feathers?" I'm also showing off a Christmas present just below the short video.



QED


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

Labels