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

Tuesday, 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?".




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

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".




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

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".
 

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

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".




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

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:


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

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".





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

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.

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.




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

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!"




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

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.




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

Friday, February 8, 2019

Darwinism and Destroying Brains

What follows is an unpleasant reality of Darwinian thinking, which was based on presuppositions in a materialistic worldview. As biblical creationists have shown many times, evolution may look good as presented, but its foundations are flawed. Especially in psychology.

Another dangerous area of Darwinian quackery is evolutionary psychology. Lobotomies were a terrible destructive practice based entirely on evolutionary presuppositions.
Background image credit: Freeimages/Miranda Knox
Modern psychology is based on evolution, and it is downright dangerous. It is, to use the technical term, quackery. Researchers deceive their subjects, which raises ethical concerns.

People are prescribed medications for depression, schizophrenia, and other conditions but doctors really do not know how and why things work. (I have known people who took "cocktails" of medications that would be shuffled and adjusted until the patient felt better. That ain't science, old son, that's a crap shoot.) One of the worst horrors in medical history is the frontal lobotomy.

Using assumptions and piling story upon story, the idea was that our brain evolved in stages, and that the reptile brain caused problems for us. How about if doctors removed the link between the reptile area and let the more evolved part commence to doing productive thinking and feeling? Bring the ice pick!

Yes, really. Ice pick lobotomies became popular for many years, and doctors lied. Tens of thousands of people had the procedure and there were many terrible side effects — for those who survived at all. If those medical sidewinders hadn't been so concerned with their materialistic worldview and had questioned evolution, they may have thought about how the Master Engineer put things in their places for a reason, they may have been able to do something useful instead of the butchery called "psychosurgery". We are created in God's image, and he knew what he was doing from the beginning.
The frontal lobotomy was a psychosurgery treatment based on the evolutionary belief that, as the human brain evolved, the newer sections evolved on top of the older parts. The evolutionarily older brain section was later called the ‘reptile brain.’ A lobotomy, the theory postulated, could reduce undesirable ‘reptile’ behavior. In the end, as many as 35,000 persons were lobotomized, producing what neurologist Frank Vertosick called “a mental health holocaust.” We now know most patients replaced their reptile behavior with a sluggish, disoriented, even moribund, countenance. Some were reduced to vegetative states, and many died of cerebral hemorrhaging or other complications.
Brace yourself, and you can finish reading by clicking on "Frontal Lobotomies: a Darwinian Mental Health Holocaust".
 

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

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Mites in Amber Stymie Evolutionists

People who believe in deep time and particles-to-paleontologist evolution are not having success when studying amber. This tree resin trapped insects and other critters long ago, which trapped and encased them. It is an excellent way of preserving them, and has been friendly to biblical creation science and provided evidence for a young earth.


Mites preserved in amber are dated at 230 million Darwin years but there is no real difference between them and the ones living today.
Credit: Freeimages/Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski
Many people are familiar with amber in jewellery, and some are fascinated by seeing bugs in it. Of course, uncluttered amber can also be mounted on a ring or in a necklace. They are told and pass along the secularists' claim that the amber is millions of years old, but that is based on tendentious interpretations of data and spurious dating methods.

Mites were found in amber, and they were dated at 230 million Darwin years. Problem is, there wasn't any appreciable change between them and their modern counterparts. This is where Darwinists circle the wagons and cry, "Stasis!" That is, things did not evolve because they didn't have to — which is a ridiculous rescuing device that actually falsifies evolution. Secularists cannot change the fact that the earth was created recently and there is no evidence for evolution, try as they mite.
Amber (fossilized tree resin) has been known to entomb many things, including ants, ‘gladiator’ insects, crustaceans, water beetles, barnacles, oysters, clams and water striders. Evolutionists have a hard time explaining how large amber deposits formed, but a recent find is even more problematic for evolution and its long ages.
To read the rest of this short article (and you may want to check out the related articles afterward), click on "Mighty mites stifle evolutionists".




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

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Water Flux and the Age of the Earth

Biblical creationists have maintained that the earth is thousands of years old, not billions, and creation scientists are repeatedly shown to be right. Oceanic salinity fails uniformitarian assumptions, and new research regarding the volume of ocean water menaces deep time beliefs as well.

New research in the deepest part of the ocean surprises secular geologists. Water is being pushed into the mantle, causing problems with the geological record and supporting creation science models of the Genesis Flood.
Mariana Trench map credit: Wikimedia Commons / Kmusser (CC by-SA 3.0)
If you venture toward Micronesia, look for an archipelago there called the Mariana Islands. They have themselves a nice trench there, and the deepest point could easily cover Mt. Everest! The continental plates are moving along, and when one hits another, one of the plates subducts (gets pushed under) another. Some researchers decided the very deep blue sea was a good place to check out subduction.

What they found is that water is being subducted below the crust of the earth into the mantle. Lots of it. Once again, secular scientists are saying things along the lines of, "More than we expected". The whole shebang causes problems with the geological record. Time to rewrite uniformitarian history again. Of course, this research indicates not only a young earth, but supports creation science models of the Genesis Flood.
Secular science believes Earth’s oceans have existed for about four billion years. They also think the level of the ocean has remained about the same over that vast period of time. However, a new study published in Nature creates serious problems for the uniformitarian origin of our oceans and their long-term sustainability.

Chen Cai and his colleagues from Washington University in St. Louis found that the global water flux into the mantle was three times greater than previously estimated.

The researchers used ocean-bottom seismographs near the deep Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean. The team estimated the volume of water trapped in rocks that were being dragged down into the mantle by subduction. By studying changes in the velocity of shear waves generated by earthquakes, the scientists were able to calculate the volume of water trapped in rocks both before and after subduction.
To finish reading, click on "Mantle Water Flux Indicates a Young Ocean".




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

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Hoatzin Bird Hassles Evolutionists

One of the major problems with fossils is that scientists cannot get a complete concept of the critter under scrutiny, especially if it is rather complex. There are about a dozen Archaeopteryx fossils, some of which are good. It was considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs. When that was discredited, other speculations were presented. How about comparing Archaeopteryx with a similar living bird, the Hoatzin?


The living hoatzin has some things in common with the extinct Archaeopteryx. It has many characteristics that defy evolutionary ideas and affirm special creation.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Napowildlifecenter (CC by-SA 3.0)
Seems to me that the hoatzin is the platypus of the bird world. In both cases, our Creator seems to be having some fun with us and with devotees of baryon-to-bird evolution. There are very few decent fossils of the hoatzin, but those that do exist do not show any kind of evolution. Better yet, we can see the peculiarities and characteristics of this bird that defy evolution and affirm special creation. These include claws on the wings that only last for a short time in the young 'uns, problems in classification, vegetarian, digestion and microbial colonies, and more.
Evolutionists love to talk about how dinosaurs evolved into birds. Their favorite example is undoubtedly Archaeopteryx, which they believe is either one of, or the first transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. In making this argument, they point to Archaeopteryx’s combination of feathers, wings, and claws on the wing, among other traits, which they claim are indicative of a creature evolving from a reptile into a bird. Yet there is a living bird which displays all of these features, at least as a chick and fledgling. That bird is the South American rainforest denizen, the hoatzin. The hoatzin provides evidence that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form after all.

The hoatzin is a very unique bird, something of a conglomeration of traits typical of birds, reptiles, and even mammals. As a bird, it shares characteristics typical of birds such as being warm-blooded, having feathers, and so on. It is roughly the size of a turkey, with a colorful, crested head and long tail feathers. However, its most interesting and unique features are distinctly un-birdlike.
 To read the rest, click on "Hoatzin Bird: Evidence Against Evolutionary Ideas".





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

Monday, February 4, 2019

British Evolution Indoctrination as Education

There was a time when educational institutions were places of learning, and for preparing young people to deal with the challenges of the world. Students were taught critical thinking and logic, and even how to present a strong debate. Not any longer.


Students in the UK are being subjected to additional evolutionary indoctrination. They are also being taught poor reasoning skills for the purpose of promoting Darwinism.

If a cowboy was to look at only the horses in one corral and claim that he has found the best horse in the whole wide world, that would be silly. Suppose he checked out the occupants of three corrals and made the same claim. Also silly. He might have a valid claim if he said, "I have examined the horses in three corrals, and the best one is that one over there." That's quite a bit more reasonable because he limited his claim and increased the amount of information that he had to work with.

Biblical creationists (and a few others) lament how modern education does not do well in teaching critical thinking; creationists still try to teach people how to think, while secularists tell people what to think. We have seen before that censorship of creation science in UK schools has been increasing. Now they are making claims of teaching critical thinking in regards to evolution.



However, students are being taught circular reasoning and to draw only from specific evolutionary information sources. That's not education, old son, that's indoctrination. (I get to wondering which evolutionary views they are using, since not all evolutionists are in agreement.) There are people who do not realize that Darwin's acolytes often scrap like junkyard dogs over scraps of raw meat. They are also unaware that creation science not only exists, but creation scientists have far more plausible models for speciation, the age of the earth, genetics, logic, morality, and so on. This is another reason that Question Evolution Day is so important. 

Students cannot be trained in logic or science the way it is pushed in the formerly Great Britain. It is like living with the telescreens in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
With new methods and materials, UK teachers will be promoting Darwinism on Grade 5-6 students.

Good news: The UK has developed curricular materials for teaching evolution that include argumentation.

Bad news: The only arguments allowed will be Darwinian arguments, aimed at correcting students’ misunderstandings of evolution.

This is a bit like a teacher directing students to believe that fish sticks are better than fish spheres or fish cubes in the cafeteria—fish being the only food on the menu. Only the shape of the fish will matter; students will never be exposed to the existence of beef or chicken. The DODO curriculum will be all evolution, all the time. And it will be all Darwinian evolution at that.
To finish reading, click on "UK Pushing Darwinism on Elementary Students".

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

Saturday, February 2, 2019

Science Fiction and Genetic Engineering

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This here article is going to take you on a different trail for a spell. The subject was recently discussed in "The Downward Spiral of Gene Editing Ethics", but I had an inspiration from an unlikely source: a 1989 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called "Unnatural Selection".


Science fiction has often been prescient when imagining the future. A Star Trek episode from 1989 set in the 2300s praised genetic engineering as evolution and they dismissed disaster.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerhard Janson
Science fiction is a very flexible medium, especially if people are willing to suspend their disbelief. It lends itself to many possibilities for stories including deep philosophies, speculations about human nature, questions about reality, comedy, social commentaries (Rod Serling did this on The Twilight Zone. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four presented dystopian views that are coming true, especially with leftist policies.) Science fiction is also good for simply spinning a good yarn. There have been several instances where science fiction stories anticipated technology, yet tales set in the future utilize outdated equipment. Jules Verne has been considered the first science fiction author and some of his ideas (including electric submarines and the location of the moon shots in Florida) were startlingly accurate. 

What got this child all het up was that story mentioned above; "Unnatural Selection" (yes, that title is used quite frequently by many folks) which anticipated tinkering with human genetics. If you can find a way to watch that show, I suggest you do so after reading the material on gene editing ethics linked above. Sometimes you can check them out of a public library, buy it, or mayhaps you can stream it like I did on our Roku device. (Fans didn't like Diana Muldaur as the ship's doctor in that season, but I think she did a good job.) "Unnatural Selection", set in the late 2300s, had several interesting similarities with the 2018 case of genetic engineering in China undertaken by Dr. He Jiankui.

Science fiction, and especially the Star Trek franchise, has been a platform for atheism and evolutionism. Indeed, Gene Roddenberry was a humanist — and it showed. Many times, Star Trek shows praise humanity for how wonderful we are. Evolution was given a prominent role in the shows, whether real in that universe or simply attributed the way scientists "see" evolution and natural selection when they are not really there. Don't misunderstand me, I know that humanity has done and will continue to do great things, but those happen because our Creator has given us that ability.

I will not give a synopsis of "Unnatural Selection" and stay with important elements. First, the Enterprise is en route to the Darwin station where genetics is being studied. Papa Darwin knew little or nothing of the science that was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), so the research station was misnamed.


via GIPHY

One of the concerns with Jiankui's work is that there could be unforeseen complications with his human guinea pigs and their subsequent offspring. In this show, the children were being made perfect. When they were exposed to a virus, their genetically-engineered response kept them healthy but had lethal DNA-altering effects in other people. Instead of questioning the ethics of making children in this way and trying to be God, the humanistic program praised the work of the scientists.

This show discussed natural selection and equated it with ribosome-to-researcher evolution. Genetic engineering could be consider unnatural selection, as the traits that scientists desire are artificially selected. This episode gave an especially strong homage to evolution; I almost expected them to sing a hymn to Darwin, blessed be! It was said that "scientists believe no experiment is a failure", but research is often misleading because important negative results are often unpublished. We can know what works, but it's very helpful to know what did not work.

Sometimes science fiction is ahead of progress. "Unnatural Selection" praised evolution, dismissed disaster, and ignored ethics and morality. If the writers had a worldview that began with the first verse of Genesis, their episode may have been even more prescient. In this case, the imagined future is happening today. In both that ST:TNG episode and Jinkui's work, the Creator is being usurped.



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

Friday, February 1, 2019

Fruit Flies, Our Supposed Evolutionary Cousins

Before we start, here is a quick, humorous remark. Those of you who study logical fallacies with me can appreciate it even more: "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." It takes some people a while to get it. I think it is hilarious, and part of that is because I like humor with ambiguity. Here, we have two key words that flip meanings, flies and like. But apparently, we are supposedly related to the things via evolution.

Using bad logic, evolutionists are assuming that we have an evolutionary relationship with fruit flies. Their reasoning is easily refuted.
Credits: Credits: NASA/Ames Research Center/Dominic Hart
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Being as how it's easy for researchers to do, they have been fiddling with making mutations in fruit flies for a long time. What do they get? Messed up fruit flies. Nothing changes into anything else, so there is no evolution. Those annoying bugs have a habit of defying Darwin. But there are genetic similarities between humans a many other things, including fifty percent of the banana genome.

So they commenced to doing that Making Things Up™ thing by conjuring up "deep homology". That is, they presuppose evolution so they can prove it on paper. Because there are similarities, things must have evolved from a common ancestor, never mind other possible explanations.

The only picture so far. I think I'm going to like this car quite a bit.
I got a replacement vehicle yesterday. My previous one was a 2000 Subaru Outback, and the one I purchased is a 2005 Subaru Forester. (There were many setbacks in getting it finalized. When everything was done, I said to my mechanic/dealer, "Looks like we're out of the woods on the Forester.") He pointed out that the engine is essentially the same on both vehicles. Well, of course. No need to reinvent the entire engine for each model a company is going to produce! The same sort of thing happens with genetic similarities. Instead of assuming evolution, we see the work of the Master Engineer.
There are around 152,000 named species of flies (the order Diptera) representing approximately 10% of all species on Earth. One genus in particular, the pesky fruit fly Drosophila, is found all around the globe. It’s used in fields of scientific research that include behavior, physiology, genetics, and development.

. . .

Scientists have conducted over a century of detailed fruit fly research. If real evolution were to be observed, it would be in a lowly insect like the fruit fly.

. . .

Developmental biologists know that in order for macromutations to affect body-plan formation in such a way that could change one kind of animal into another kind, the mutations must occur early in the animal’s development. Ironically, it has been consistently found that early developmental mutations damage a creature.
To read this article in its entirety, click on "Are People and Fruit Flies Related?" You may also be interested in seeing "Design in Early Fruit Fly Development".



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

Labels