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, 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 acquire 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?"

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".

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Stoning Creationists on the Age of Rocks

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As biblical creationists, the rocks thrown at us are doubled. Not only do we deal with angry atheopaths, but from professing Christians who are trying to do God a favor by ridiculing and "refuting" creationist views. Apparently, God does not mean what he says, even when God wrote in stone that everything was created in six days.

Religious compromisers who support atheistic evolutionism often try to pose questions we cannot answer. Michael Roberts asked, was answered by CMI, but is unrepentant.
Credit: US Geological Survey/Erin Todd
It is amazing how theistic evolutionists (TEs) and other old earth creationists (OECs) reject the Bible, preferring instead to use atheistic interpretations of evidence and phenomena against Bible-believing Christians, even making hybrid creation accounts so they can have both their naturalism and put forward a pretense at believing the Bible. I have written about theistic evolutionists who are adored by atheists (see "Rocky Reefs, Autumn Leaves Without Fruit"), since atheism and evolutionism ride for the same brand (see "Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism").

People like to throw challenges to each other in the form of things like, "Ten Questions for [Your Group]". Christians will offer these to atheists and those in other false religions in a distant hope to prompt them to think and to prick their consciences. Unfortunately, these are usually misguided and need to take a more presuppositional approach. TEs, OECs, and others take a naturalistic approach when they want to slap leather with biblical creationists, trying to dispel us of the notion that God's Word is true, and also trying to get us to saddle up and ride with the anti-creationist brand.

Michael Roberts is an OEC Anglican priest (read: not conservative) who has been riding the owlhoot trail shouting at biblical creationists from a distance for years. His publication of "10 questions to ask a young earth creationist" in late 2018 attracted the attention of Steve Risner. He was also noticed by Creation Ministries International, who effectively exsanguinated his weak objections — repetitions and all. The article was split into two parts. You can read them at "10 answers from biblical creationists—Part 1" and "10 answers from biblical creationists—Part 2".

Roberts played the victim card in his recent post that was spammed to me and several others. Naturally, tinhorns like Paul Braterman (who is a self-appointed censor, evolutionism evangelist, and bigot who uses bad logic like "Creationism and evolution – why do some people deny more than two centuries of science, and how do we reach out to them?", conflating science with evolution) and a criminal cyberstalker had to join in. They said CMI "attacked" Roberts, but instead, they gave logical answers to his "10 questions" article.

Those comments read like a support group. They are also full of bad logic and misrepresentation while they evosplain why we are "wrong" — no surprise there. Atheist Braterman took some biblical material, saying, "You do your best to sow wisdom, but some seed falls on very stony ground". Not hardly! Unbelievers are enemies of God (James 4:4, Phil. 3:18, 2 John 1:7) who need to repent. We do not need what passes for wisdom in the minds of God-rejecting secularists or compromisers (1 Cor. 3:19, Rom. 11:33, 1 Cor. 1:20).  Wisdom and knowledge are in Christ (Col. 2:3, Prov. 1:7), not the philosophies of those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-23).

It is because of professing Christians like Roberts and his ilk who attempt to undermine biblical truth and our faith that creation ministries are needed. You may want to read this article about the mental starting points of OECs. Yeah, we've seen the evolutionist "message of hope", and evolutionism is an abomination. We stand on the Rock of Ages.

Monday, February 25, 2019

Trait Selection and Engineered Adaptability

Charles Darwin hijacked the principle of natural selection, turned it into a false god with creative ability, and called it evolution. His followers have done the same, and added a wagon train-load of nonsense forces like "selection pressures" and the like that caused modifications externally.

Image courtesy of Why?Outreach from an idea I had
Using the reality- and science-based creation science engineered adaptability principle, we see that critters are equipped with genetic switches so they can accommodate themselves to their environment. They are even able to sense changes. The Master Engineer didn't want his entire creation to go extinct, so he equipped organisms. You savvy that? The harsh lightning of reality is frightening to secularists.

But what about creatures that have variations? Blind cave fish have lost their eyes, therefore, evolution. (Yes, Darwinoids really think that.) In reality, these little tetras testify of creation. Other creatures have various traits showing that they were designed to adapt.
. . . researchers could have very different interpretations for a common observation in adaptation-related mysteries. When a population of organisms is exposed to changing conditions, quite often we find that over time some adapt to live in a new environment. What seems to have happened is a non-random—indeed, preferential—sorting of some of the original members (and their offspring) whose traits are highly suited to the new environment. Researchers face two equally important questions: “What mechanisms enabled the original population to diversify,” and “How do we explain the preferential sorting of organisms?”
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Trait Selection Is Internal, Not External".

Christian Textbooks — Not Entirely

This post is courtesy of the "Through the Side Door" department. That is, I wanted to post this on Fazebook (which is linked to Twitter) "as is", but they were unable to validate the link. I already did that. No, I am not going to claim censorship or anything because that is not warranted.

Whether homeschooling or at Christian schools, parents and administrators who believe in biblical creation need to be careful of textbooks. Just because it has the name "Christian" is no guarantee of actual Christian content.
School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668
Many Christian parents do not want their children attending the state-run indoctrination centers (often called "schools"), so they opt for alternatives. Those of us who reject evolution and millions of years because of both theology and science do not want to deprogram children and teach them the truth. After all, the government has control of them for several hours a day most of the year. Anti-creationists get furious when we undermine their indoctrination that is, in many cases, falsely called education.

Christian schools? Possibly, if they are affordable. Unfortunately, having Christian in the name does not guarantee Bible-believing content.

How about homeschooling? That is actually a very old method of instruction, but secularists keep a close watch on attendance and educational materials. Ironically, people who criticize homeschooling parents as "fundamentalists" (using it as an emotive epithet) often do not know what a fundamentalist really is. Also, homeschooling was popular with leftists before Christians began partaking; they wanted to fight The Establishment, man! Now those people are the establishment. (To borrow a line from Blue Öyster Cult, "I am the one you warned me of". Well, they are!) Also, fundamentalism has not been especially friendly to biblical creation!

So anyway. Christians must be careful about the textbooks they select. Sure, we can use secular books and then provide better information when the textbooks get highfalutin about origins and leftist ideas, but wouldn't it be better to simply use Christian textbooks? Not necessarily.  

Again, just because something has the word "Christian" on it is no guarantee that is good to use. Many publishers, music distributors, and so on are owned by secular companies. Not only do they want to make a few grotzits, but many support leftist and other anti-Christian causes. This is why you find formerly reliable Christian publishers releasing drek that needs to be analyzed and refuted by people who actually believe the Bible.
It is no secret that evolutionary teaching and the religion of naturalism run rampant in public education. The idea that life has been evolving on earth for millions of years is taught as fact from the earliest ages. Kindergarteners are taught that dinosaurs never lived with man, and high school biology courses teach that we evolved from single-celled organisms. What is the solution for parents who strongly disagree?

For many, the plan is to homeschool their kids from kindergarten through senior high and then send them to a Christian college.

Easy enough, right?

Not quite.

Christian parents have good intentions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Christian curricula and colleges that teach a literal 6-day creation around 6,000 years ago are the exception, not the norm.
To finish reading or to download the audio version, click on "Hidden Dangers of Christian Textbooks".

Saturday, February 23, 2019

The Genesis Flood and Expanding Fossil Ranges

Fanciers of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution often erroneously claim that the fossils prove evolution. Quite often, those owlhoots are unaware that the sanitized version of evolution that they are peddling is erroneous, and they end up being schooled by knowledgeable creationists. Fossil ranges are expanding, which causes considerable consternation up at the Darwin Ranch.

More fossils are out of place, prompting secular geologists to expand fossil ranges and make excuses of "stasis" of living fossils. What is found fits with creation science expectations.
Bandicoot image credit: Pixabay/Siggy Nowak
Darwinoids ineffectively evosplain how fossils are out of order. In addition, they have to cowboy up to the embarrassment of living fossils (something was thought to have been extinct for a few million Darwin years but is found alive, well, and mostly unchanged). They use the transparent excuse of "stasis", which flies in the face of evolutionary dogma.

As biblical creationists will tell you, there is some semblance of order in the geological column. but it does not support evolutionary concepts or an old earth. Indeed, we are not surprised by fossils that are recalcitrant to the order required by evolutionists, nor are we bothered by living fossils. Evolutionists have to rewrite their dogma when the fossil ranges expand, but it's their misfortune and none of our own. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
For the last few decades, several creationists have been reporting on the vertical expansion of fossil ranges, interpreted as either ‘older’ or ‘younger’ in the geological column timescale. These finds are probably the tip of the iceberg, since we cannot go through all the relevant journals that would report range expansions. In fact, many of these issues likely go unreported because many ‘anomalous’ or ‘uninteresting’ fossils end up in the back shelves of museum collections, as Dr Carl Werner has discovered. As such, it is hard to know just how large the scale of this phenomenon is, though it is almost certainly more severe than reported in any literature, secular or creationist.
To read more of the hard truth and read about some examples, click on "Fossil time ranges continue to expand up and down". You may also like a previous post, "Increasing Disarray in Evolutionary Timelines".

Friday, February 22, 2019

Saturn Continues to Mystify Astronomers

There are many indications that our solar system is far younger than those who believe in cosmic evolution are willing to admit. Saturn has received a great deal of scrutiny with the planet itself, its rings, and moons that testify of recent creation and baffling proponents of deep time. Other mysteries have arisen, including Saturn's rotation rate.

Saturn has received extensive scrutiny and has confounded believers in deep time. Other mysteries have been discovered, including its rotation rate.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The outer planets are gas giants, so determining their rotation rates is rather difficult. Spots and things can move at their own accord and different speeds based on latitude, so those don't help that much. Different methods have been used including examination of its magnetic field, but that has actually changed. The different rotation rates may be another indication that Saturn's age is far less than the expected millions of years.
A recent news story reported on the latest measurement of Saturn’s rotation rate–10h 33m 38s, plus or minus a minute or two. This is significantly shorter than what is found in most astronomy textbooks. You may think: How could it be difficult to measure a planet’s rotation rate? All you have to do is look for features on a planet’s surface and time how long it takes for them to go around. That is the sort of technique used to measure the rotation rate of a planet with a visible solid surface, such as Mars. But many of the planets don’t have a visible solid surface. For instance, Venus is perpetually surrounded by thick clouds that block our view of its surface. However, radar can easily penetrate those clouds to bounce off Venus’s solid surface, so we’ve known the rotation rate of Venus for a half century.
To finish reading, spin on over to "Saturn’s Mysterious Rotation Rate". You may also like to read some other new material, "Saturn’s Rings Not Just Young, but 'Very Young'" and "Saturn's Ring Rain Rates Run Fast".

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Hagfish Hassles Evolutionary Ideas

No need to be afraid unless you are a Darwinist. There is an ugly creature known as the hagfish that exists in many species around the world, looks a bit like a snake, has no jaw, and lives up to its nickname of slime eel. Yes, when provoked, it can secrete huge amounts of slime for defense.

The strange hagfish baffles evolutionists in many ways. It also shows the design of the Creator.
Credit: NOAA/CBNMS/Linda Snook
That slime thing is related to motion, and actually can clog the gills of predators. The hagfish can produce quite a bit of it in a short time. Its slime is like a multitude of tiny threads. In a biomimetics move, the US Navy is interested in studying it. I don't think they're interested in the part where the hagfish can tie itself into a knot, though.

Evolutionists squabble about how to classify the hagfish because it does not fit nicely into any category. Naturally, Darwin's disciples would have you believe that it has been around for millions of years, but they have no fossil evidence for where it came from, and what little they have shows that they have not changed. The cop-out rescuing device of "stasis", a non-answer, is utilized. 

What we really have here is a creature that the Master Engineer assembled in its specified complexity and has no sign of evolution. Here is the first of two articles on the subject (there is some overlap, but they emphasize different areas of interest).
A zombie hagfish rises from the dead, and scares Darwin from two directions.

Hagfish are eel-like fish that look like creatures from a horror movie. Their tapir-like snouts are scary enough, but when threatened, they have a unique weapon: slime! They can spread a net of sticky slime around them that can clog the gills of an attacker. And they have been doing this for at least 100 million Darwin Years, perhaps 300 million.
To read the rest, slide on over to "Hagfish Haunts Darwin". 

Next, we have an article that focuses on the difficulties that hagfish fossils pose for evolutionists.
Lead author Tetsuto Miyashita of the University of Chicago published results in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. His team managed to sandwich the fossil’s chemical details between long discussions of where it should be placed in evolutionary diagrams of supposed relatedness. Darwinists hunt for a bottom-to-top progression of fossils initially showing no backbone, then a partial backbone, and finally a full backbone. But bones found in the lowest layers are a hard act for that tale to follow. Amidst speculations of what role hagfish should play in evolution’s imaginary relationships lay little chemical remnants that carry a big message. 
That message conveys a conflict between fossils and evolution’s core aspect of long ages. Standard beliefs date this hagfish fossil’s sedimentary rock layer from Lebanon at 100 million years old. Other hagfish fossils come from even deeper layers with age assignments over three times older.
To read the entire article, click on "'Ancient' Fossil Still Has Hagfish Slime Residue".

The very short video below has no sound. There is a good close-up of the critter.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

A Trillion Scents from One Sense

The other day, I stopped by the cabin of Stormie Waters. She wanted to know what makes me smell. I thought mayhaps she meant my bay rum after shave, but she wondered about how the sense of smell itself works. I guess in her line of work she commences to wondering about many things.

The sense of smell and how we react is surprisingly complex. Research in genetics reveals even greater specified complexity.
Credit: Unsplash/Ruslan Zh

Believers in particles-to-perfumist evolution cannot account for the origin of the sense of smell, and they also inaccurately claim that this sense in humans is weak. Yes, other critters can smell more things better than we can, but there is a great deal going on in any creature that uses its sniffer.

Your nose picks up molecules, your brain processes and distinguishes the odors, you feel fear, disgust, pleasure, and other things so you can respond if needed. Various aromas can trigger our memories as well. The whole apparatus goes down to the genetic level, and those genes have to communicate with each other. All of this specified complexity has to be in place at the same time from the beginning. Those who want to evosplain it to you, well, tell them their tall tales don't pass the smell test. 
Humans have around 400 genes dedicated to olfactory reception. These genes reside in many different chromosomes. Scientists, including a group in Stavros Lomvardas’ lab at the University of Columbia in New York, have wondered how so few genes genetically separated so far from one another within each nerve cell nucleus coordinate to form such a formidable sense of smell. The researchers looked at the development of nose nerve cells called olfactory neurons in mice and made a startling discovery.
To read the entire article, click on "How One Sense Smells a Trillion Scents".

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Classifications, Cladistics, and Creation

To classify things is probably a part of human nature, whether with kitchen utensils, music collections, software, living organisms, and so forth. When classifications are uniform, then we can communicate with other people who need to have the same references. The cladistics system has numerous serious flaws, including circular reasoning.

Modern biological classification was initiated by Linnaeus, but evolutionists took that over and made it into a circular reasoning, evolution-affirming system. This raises some questions for Christians.
Family of Acrobats with Monkey/Pablo Picasso, 1905
Biological classifications went all the way back to the beginning, but Carl Linnaeus (a Christian and a creationist) initiated the system that we use today. Evolutionary sidewinders bushwhacked Linnaeus and made biological classifications all about their fundamentally flawed worldview. It has been skewed to affirm evolution, and similarities in organisms supposedly do just that. This is circular reasoning (using evolution to prove evolution through cladistics), and they choose to ignore the fact that the Creator saw fit to use similarities in his designs.

In addition, evolutionists get into the occasional dust-up over cladograms and such because the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective; it is not science. Stuck in the middle of all this are Christians who are trying to work in biological sciences but have no real choice but to use the evolutionary classifications as reference. The same happens with us reg'lar folk as well.
While God built certain classifications into the creation, man has named animals since the Garden of Eden. One of Adam’s first jobs was to classify the animals. “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” Adam was the world’s first taxonomist. He spent part of the sixth day naming the birds and the beasts. While this was a much easier job then than it would be today since no variation had occurred yet, it still would have taken him perhaps a few hours to name the kinds.
. . .

When Darwin came along, the classification system Linnaeus envisioned was hijacked to imply that the structure inferred from the taxonomic system actually existed in nature and was used to allege a continuous relationship into the past. “[T]he theory of evolution states that the apparent relationships of organisms in a systematic classification are real relationships, because “relationship” in such classification is not a metaphor but is actually to be ascribed to community of descent.”5 In other words, the structure of the classification system is actually the structure of a giant, universal family tree of all life. While this was not the Linnaean intent, it is what classification has come to in the modern world.
To read the entire article, click on "How Should Christians View Biological Classification?".

Monday, February 18, 2019

Pseudogenes and Evolutionary Pseudoscience

While scientists work from their presuppositions and interpret the evidence accordingly, many owlhoots will attempt to force-fit the evidence into their views. For years, proponents of muck-to-misotheist evolution have claimed that we have "junk" DNA, arguing from ignorance. In addition, they claim that we have pseudogenes. This was also based on assumptions and lack of knowledge. Then they commenced to making excuses with what they called pseudo-pseudogenes.

Evolutionists speak from ignorance when they say we have junk and pseudogenes in our DNA. Further research shows that the Master Engineer put things in their places and they are functional.
Background image modified and furnished by Why?Outreach
There is still a great deal to learn from the science of genetics that Mendel began (peas be upon him), so a bit of humility from scientists is in order. Similar "mistakes" in different organisms are illogically hailed as evidence for evolution. Not hardly! When further scientific research with better methods is conducted, we learn that there is no "junk" DNA and that pseudogenes do indeed have functions. Important functions.

Yes, sometimes they have broken down due to mutations and genetic entropy. That does not mean that the Master Engineer was not involved; he put things in place for specific reasons. Biblical creationists have maintained that God did not make junk, nor did he use evolution. Unfortunately, naturalists cannot admit to evidence for creation, so they continue with their unscientific vexatious antics.
Some evolutionists have promoted the idea that similar sequences in pseudogenes strongly support common ancestry, especially between humans and great apes. The alleged disruptions in the sequence are attributed to random copying errors. If two organisms appear to carry identical disruptions, then it is considered far more likely that they both inherited them from a common ancestor than that those errors occurred independently. While created genes might need to be identical in some regions to carry out their normal function, no-one would expect a creator to put the same error in two different organisms.
To read this article from the beginning, click on "Pseudo-pseudogenes: revealing further complexity in the genome".

Saturday, February 16, 2019

SETI Fans Cherish Failed Drake Equation

Evolutionists have their invisible imaginary friends that they call extraterrestrial beings. Like dark matter, they have never been scientifically observed but secularists believe in them anyway. This is probably because they know abiogenesis is impossible on Earth, so it must have happened out there. Our Creator made Earth a special place, and they don't take kindly to that fact. One concept to justify belief in ETs is the Drake equation.

The Drake equation is SETI dogma, but it is full of logic holes. Even a secular astrophysicist condemns it.
Credit: RGBStock/Dez Pain
Alien enthusiasts do not have much hope, as it seems that every time NASA comes up with more exoplanets, their hopes are dashed (such as those around TRAPPIST-1, for example). Indeed, the habitable zone is fraught with problems. Unlike it's smarter brother the Fermi Paradox, Drake's equation looks very math-like. It was illogical and unscientific from the get-go, but it is still dogma for SETI folks; you could fly a starship through the holes in it. Secular astrophysicist throws down on the Drake equation, and what he says supports what biblical creationists are encouraging: the use of critical thinking and rejecting excessive variables.
Paul Sutter has a way with words. In a Space.com article entitled “Alien Hunters, Stop Using the Drake Equation,” he says, “The Drake equation is simply a way of chopping up our ignorance, stuffing it into a mathematical meat grinder and making a sausage-guess.” What is the Drake equation, you ask?
. . .

An equation needs certainty, Sutter argues. Without some grasp on precision with the factors in the equation, it becomes useless, no better than a wild guess. The equations of physics deal with measurable factors that can be ascertained often to many decimal points of precision. How do you specify the uncertainty in some of Drake’s factors?
To read the rest, click on "Time to Ditch the Drake Equation".

Friday, February 15, 2019

Underground Oil Buffet Thwarts Old Earth Beliefs

Evolutionists and other proponents of deep time have insisted that oil and natural gas are evidence that the earth is very old. Creationists have pointed out that evidence shows that oil formation requires proper conditions such as temperature and pressure, not huge amounts of time. Secular scientists also have to deal with problems in keeping the oil in a usable form.

The claim that oil is millions of years old has several problems. One is that microbes will eat it. Secular scientists suggest that oil is pasteurized, but that idea has been refuted.
Credit: Freeimages/Enrico Nunziati
When you hear that drillers struck oil, it tends to kind of strike back. It is often under a great deal of pressure, and experts need to get it under control.

When oil wells catch on fire, they are dangerous in many ways. This includes the environment. What may be the most dangerous job in the world is putting out an oil well fire, and I'll be switched with snakes if I'd even consider doing that!

Creation scientists point out that over the millions of years that secularists allege, oil pressure would have dissipated and it would not be enthusiastically offering itself to us (Creation Research Society Quarterly 44:1 PDF). Instead of admitting that they have a problem, secular geologists don't pay it no nevermind and throw out some rescuing devices that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© use to "refute" creation science and claim victory. That'll be the day!

Another problem for underground oil reserves is that they are buffets for microbes. They don't need to search much for the chuckwagon, because there are so many of them available for chow time. You guessed it, microbes eat oil. This has been observed in a big way when they were involved in cleaning up oil spills. So why isn't the ancient oil in the earth all eaten up? Evolutionary owlhoots suggested that oil was pastured by temperatures. A long study was recently released that refutes that notion, and indirectly supports not only recent creation, but biblical creation science models about the making of oil and other products.
Secular geologists have long claimed that oil can survive millions of years underground because it somehow becomes pasteurized at 80o C (176o F), preventing further biodegradation. . . . it will all somehow remain pristine for eons of time.

However, a recent announcement detailing the results of a 10-year study involving 1,200 scientists from 52 countries has challenged that pasteurized notion.
To read more about this slick study, slip on over to "New Reservoir of Life Eats Oil".

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Coral Confounding Evolutionists

When people discuss coral, they are usually talking about the hard accumulations of calcium carbonate, since the animal itself is small and rather unattractive. Those deposits of coral in reefs and atolls are mighty bad news for ships and divers as well. Coral are evidence against evolution and in favor of special creation.

Coral is not just a hard shell, but a complex animal that defies evolution and affirms creation.
Coral reefs, Kwajalein Atoll image credit: US Geological Survey/Curt Storlazzi
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Corals have many characteristics that cannot be explained by universal common ancestor evolution. Although they are animals, they also process nutrition through photosynthesis. Although they are hunters and snag vittles with their tentacles, they need more, so they have a symbiotic relationship with algae inside their cells and receive nutrition while giving algae a nice homestead. When stressed, they commence to doing something called bleaching, where they expel the algae and corals themselves turn white.

Some corals diversify themselves. As they grow, so do their food needs. In some cases you can be seeing one animal with many mouths. This is another evolution-defying evidence that the Master Engineer front-loaded them with this ability, along with having an extremely complex genome.

Evolutionists and deep time proponents claim that coral reefs are evidence of an old earth, but that is the opposite of the truth. Those things can only be built under certain conditions. They are not deep, just wide. Secular scientists admit that, even in their time frame, coral colonies cannot be more than a few thousand years old. Indeed, coral reefs are thriving communities for many denizens of the deep.
God designed corals to be both hunters and farmers, and they do both very well. They don’t have eyes, but they can detect light, and react to passing shadows by retracting into their homes. Corals are active predators, snagging small floating food particles with their tentacles. There is not much food in the clear tropical waters, but they are very good at grabbing what is there. That food (small crustaceans and bits of organic debris) is protein-rich but has little in the way of carbohydrates (sugars).
To read the entire article, I won't mind atoll if you click on "Coral: The animal that acts like a plant, but is an active predator, and makes its own rocks for a house".

Want to see a coral? Here's a cuttlefish, the master of rapid disguise, doing an imitation:

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Exterminate Humans for a Better World

One of the dangers of evolutionary thinking is the way some two-bit owlhoots use their fundamentally flawed worldview to saddle the rest of us with their dictates. While taking care of the environment is a biblical principle, radical environmentalism is downright dangerous. Some think killing off people will bring about a utopia.

Evolutionary thinking leads to radical environmentalism that is inconsistent. Some want to eliminate a lot of people for their twisted vision.
Credit: Pixabay/Free-Photos
The ugly kid brother of radical environmentalism is the fanatical cult version of anthropogenic global climate change, and some tinhorns use the scare tactics of that to inflate the bigger picture that they imagine. To make the world a better place, eliminate a whole heap of humans. (This also fits with eugenics and abortion concepts.) Killing off many people is not new to the radical environmental movement, but this is a variation on a theme. Maybe the socialistic "Green New Deal" by Ocasio-Cortez will head in this direction if implemented?

To be consistent with their evolutionary worldview, we should be able to do what we please because we clawed our way to the top of the food chain and you can just deal with it. Biblical creationists know that we are not just another animal, but are created in God's image and responsible to take care of our world. Do you want people who rebel against the living God deciding who is worth keeping alive for the sake of their twisted vision?

Humans must be re-imagined, then re-made to fit the new global utopia, according to an environmental evolutionist.

Reimagining the human (Science Magazine). As Eileen Crist writes in part of Science Magazine’s “Tomorrow’s Earth” series, she forgets the horrors of past generations that tried to “re-imagine” human beings to fit an elite agenda. As usual, the elite only wants to “help” mankind avoid an imagined threat. Crist has a whopper to scare people about:
To read the rest, click on "New Utopian Vision Requires Drastic Demotion of Humans".

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Book Review: Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Review of Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped by Richard Corwin. Atheism and evolutionism have no place for people with handicaps, but the biblical creationist worldview not only requires compassion but also provides how the handicapped can have fulfilling lives in Christ.This is something rather different for Question Evolution Day but it is about a subject that I think is largely neglected. As we have seen many times, atheism is irrational and unable to deal cogently with the conditions of human experience. Foundational to atheism are materialism and evolution.

To be consistent with evolutionary thinking, "survival of the fittest" would, according to materialistic presuppositions, entail leaving anyone less than perfect  behind — or even eliminating them. The Nazis referred to Jews and other "subhumans" as "useless eaters" who consume food and resources but did not contribute to society. The same could be said for people with handicaps, but there are still people with a Christian worldview that will not let the handicapped be subjugated or exterminated.

The "science" of eugenics (which justifies abortion) was popular in the United States in the early 20th century. This had people forcibly sterilized because others decided that they were unfit to breed. If the concept continued, it would have led to the elimination of many people. (When Nazi Germany took eugenics to its logical conclusion, it fell out of favor, but is gaining popularity again.) Eugenics is one form of social Darwinism. Biblical creationists believe that humans are created in God's image and have intrinsic value, so it is ironic when handicapped anti-creationists attack those of us who oppose the worldview that would (if its adherents were consistent) have them put away.

Pastor Corwin was visiting The Question Evolution Project and mentioned that he had written this book which was published in 2016. The ebook was affordable on my budget, so I bought a copy. The full title is Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped: Crushing the Death Image. I was expecting a social consciousness diatribe that would browbeat Christians into feeling sorry for those with handicaps, but I was very mistaken. I will tell you straightaway that I learned some things that would be useful for any biblical creationist.

The word handicapped has many definitions. There were two times in my life when I had injuries or conditions where I had a special handicapped parking permit. One of these was a "hidden handicap", so people probably wondered why a guy that wasn't limping or using a wheelchair was getting a special parking place. For that matter, I was informed that my medical records had a condition listed for me of which I was unaware! Then there are the more obvious physical handicaps.

Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped has this propositional statement:
I will defend the following proposition: that Evolution is not a logical theory, it is self-contradictory, self-fulfilling, dogmatic, and simply “scientism” cloaked in the guise of a first century religion. I will show the evolutionary hypothesis is detrimental to operational science and that only the Biblical worldview sustains the preconditions for intelligibility sufficient to sustain empirical science. Finally, I will show that if evolutionary dogma is followed to its logical conclusion, it promotes a climate of death, a devaluing of life, and is directly detrimental to the disabled and handicapped.
As biblical creationists have pointed out for a mighty long time, evolution was not invented by Darwin. It is actually an ancient religious and philosophical concept that he modified, slapped his version of natural selection on it, and presented it as science. Atheists and religious compromisers went ape over it. Richard Corwin explains some of the philosophical and ancient religious underpinnings of evolution and scientism.

Pastor Corwin contrasts the evolutionary worldview with the biblical worldview. Bible-believing scientists of the past set up the foundations for modern science, essentially "thinking God's thoughts after him". Our worldview is based on the ultimate truth and leads to great progress when the Bible is given preeminence. Richard also demonstrates that the Bible contains real history which is supported by archaeology. Modern science has devolved, emphasizing materialism and leftist political trends over truth.

The third chapter should prove interesting to fans of C.S. Lewis. Despite the claims of theistic evolutionists, Lewis was no fan of Darwin.
C. S. Lewis understood that not only the Biblical worldview, but also the foundations of modern empirical science would make no sense without the rational construct provided by the Word of God. When one dismisses the Biblical worldview, the concept of the “Uniformity of Nature” becomes irrational.
Lewis knew that the uniformity of nature cannot be found in naturalism, but only through biblical foundations.

What follows is a chapter that will make you work your cognitive skills. Corwin postulates that the first evolutionist was Satan. Using Scripture and history, he shows us that Satan gave a huge emphasis to Gnosticism (which has taken many forms over the years) to distort the truth.
The Gnostic Gospel of evolution is as old as Genesis 3 and as new as the New Age religions of the twenty first century. The new Gnosticism includes the “idea that human beings can together form a global Brotherhood of Man and create heaven right here on earth.” Evolutionary Gnosticism is not a pastime but a system of dogmas that postulate that mankind will be able to save itself through enlightenment. The evolutionist would dismiss any Christian eschatology, but firmly defend the doctrine as applied by evolutionary metaphysics.
If you study on it a spell, you can see that evolutionary thinking is Gnosticism, as evolution is supposedly the esoteric path to truth. Evolution's true doctrine is absolute materialism and has its own religious tenets, and these claims are explained in the book. The consequences of the evolutionary worldview are shown in Nazi Germany (as well as in Socialism and Communism), as this philosophy is not only dependent on, but also leads to, nihilism and death.

Later on, we learn how the biblical worldview crushes Satan's death image of evolution. We are created in God's image, but live in a fallen world. Atheists and evolutionists can't handle the truth. Darwin's disciples promote death as a creative animistic or pantheistic force which leads ultimately to no purpose in life — and ultimately to more death. God has the ultimate victory and gives life to his people.

There is a great deal to learn in this book, especially for Bible-believing Christians as well as seekers of truth. There are some practical aspects and encouragement for those who know or live with those who are handicapped.

Elsewhere, I wrote about Jack, my oldest brother. He was born "severely retarded" with Down Syndrome. Despite the claims and predictions of medical science, he lived far longer than was expected. His handicap was obvious. He spent most of his time in state institutions because of his needs, and only came home on short visits. As the youngest of three boys by a ten-year margin, I was lousy at dealing with by oldest brother's handicap all those decades ago. Many of us "normal" folks need educating in how to deal with and treat those with handicaps; we can accidentally be insulting to them.

Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped challenges professing Christians to properly deal with handicapped people — whether the handicap is visible or not. There is suffering and guilt already:
Individuals with handicaps suffer from guilt as they see their family suffer. The family suffers from guilt as they are forced to stand by helplessly as their loved one suffers. The Church suffers from guilt because they do not know what to say or do.
There are also lessons to people who have handicaps, and how they can have fulfilling lives in Christ. I have seen some who not only feel sorry for themselves, but use their conditions as a means to bitterly manipulate others and spread suffering. Instead, submission to Jesus and the authority of the Word of God is the way for anyone to have fulfillment in their lives.

There is quite a bit of material so I must curtail my review because it might become cumbersome. I hope I provided enough to spark your interest.

While I strongly recommend Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped: Crushing the Death Image, there are some things that bothered me a bit. First, I do not know Pastor Corwin's theology, but there was nothing amiss that I found in this book. Second, he used the King James Version exclusively as far as I could tell, which may hinder some readers. At least he did not use The Message or some other bad translation! Third, I was not thrilled with the formatting. Richard underlined instead of italicized, which falls into the category of "get used to it"; I simply did not prefer this method. Also, I would have liked to see an emphasis on repentance. The concept is there, but I would have liked to see it used more directly.

I have a Kindle version, and the pagination works as expected. Swipe up, you go to the next chapter. Tap on the chapter title, and you are sent to the table of contents. When you tap on a chapter title, you go directly to it. Richard backed up his claims with a few hundred endnotes, and they were at the end of the book (which is something I prefer). He also had a "Select Bibliography" of many books. Obviously, he put quite a bit of work into writing this book!

On a side trail, my mind kept going back to a fiction book that I reviewed earlier, Taking Up Space by Steven J. Wright, which deals with similar subjects. Mayhaps you'd like to read Creation, Evolution, and the Handicapped as well as Taking Up Space so you can see what the two have in common. EDIT: You may also be interested in a related article, "An Unlikely Masterpiece".

What follows is the beginning of a 2015 video by Dr. Georgia Purdom. It is extremely interesting and the points made are relevant to this discussion. It can be found in its entirety at "Eugenics, Abortion, and Genetics" for free viewing or for purchase.

Monday, February 11, 2019

Penguins Puzzle Evolutionists

Some time back, I was watching a game show on the television box where a contestant was asked to name a place that penguins are found. The answer given was Africa, which prompted the audience, host, and embarrassed contestant to laugh. I'll allow that many folks think of the Antarctic for these swimming wonder birds, but they are all over the Southern Hemisphere of our world — including Africa.

Penguins adapt and their unique features are clear, evolution-defying testimony to the work of the Master Engineer.
Credit: National Science Foundation/Dr. Paul Ponganis
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Believers in universal common ancestor evolution cannot back up their claims about the penguin other than the non-explanation of "It evolved". The fossils are virtually unchanged, and there is no explanation of the origin of their amazing swimming ability — and they do it faster than humans. The fact that they adapt and their unique features are clear, evolution-defying testimony to the work of the Master Engineer.

To read about these clever web-footed flightless birds, click on "Penguins—Perplexing and Proficient!"

Saturday, February 9, 2019

Hummingbirds Evolving for Combat?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Something I try to emphasize, with extra emphasis on Question Evolution Day, is that people need to have healthy skepticism regarding claims of "evolution". We need to do some critical thinking. For example, what is this about hummingbirds evolving "weaponized" beaks for fighting and romancing?

Here is an example of questioning recent alleged evolution in a hummingbird.
Credit: Pixabay/Free-Photos
Folks who ride for the Darwin brand will "see" evolution that isn't there, and use a bit bait 'n' switch (conflation) on variation and speciation to get people thinking that baryon-to-bird evolution is true. Watch for assertions, and when you read of hear them, you can ask yourself, "Where is this alleged evolution? What changed? Is a hummingbird changing into something else or is it still a hummingbird? Is there observed evidence?" 

Plug your questions into your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, and you'll get the default response of "it evolved", which is unhelpful. Besides, we want to think, not repeat Darwinian dogma.

Mayhaps I gave those to you a mite too quickly. Let's look at this short news article, "Hummingbirds are evolving ‘weaponized’ beaks with teeth for fighting", about tiny male hummingbirds in South America. It's obviously not a full report, but I think it will work for our purposes.
  • The first thing to note is that this is one instance of small hummingbirds in a specific area, not hummingbirds everywhere.
  • We are told that they have started to develop beaks for fighting, not for feeding. They have teeth. Okay, so have the ill-tempered little scrappers been seen fighting? Yes, they fended off rivals. No comment about the use of teeth.
  • Speaking of these teeth, do other hummingbirds have them?
  • Some of the birds use their beaks to run off the competition — you're the best-looking dude in the place if there's nobody else around.
  • Has this species been observed before without the beaks? The article implies that this is the case.
We have a mix of statements that seem to be supported by observations, but also a fair amount  of conjecture. What we need to be careful of is that we don't get the bit in our teeth and gallop off, saying, "Scientists say! Scientists say!", which is the appeal to authority. Scientists say a lot of things, and sometimes they say things that are unsupported or even untrue.

It is interesting that there is teleology involved. That is, these researchers are saying that the birds are evolving the beaks for a purpose. Evolution is supposed to be without purpose. Also, they are assuming evolution and not considering other possibilities, such as how the Master Engineer has equipped critters to adapt. (That concept would be rejected out of hand because it refutes their naturalistic paradigm.) This could be another instance of engineered adaptability.

What I have shown is not that difficult. Anyone can do this, and it involves a bit of thinking, a fair amount of questioning, and refusal to accept the arbitrary assertions of evolutionists at face value. We cannot forget the wisdom and skill of our Creator. You know what would be really helpful? If secularists would cowboy up and question evolution.