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

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The Perplexing Wombat and Evolution

There are all sorts of critters that baffled early Europeans, probably prompting perplexed exclamations of wonder. Some of them were quite a bit different from what they had seen elsewhere such as the kangaroo and the platypus. Others were a mite confusing because they resembled animals that they knew. One of these is the wombat.

The wombat resembles a badger but has significant differences. It is a testimony to the work of the Master Engineer while also baffling evolutionists.
Credit: Pixabay / Vic M
People thought it was a kind of badger because of its appearance and burrowing habits. Their burrows are far from simple. It also had mannerisms similar to that of a bear. To add to their confusion, the wombat is a marsupial while the badger is a mammal. While they seem cute and people try to make them into pets, the wild side comes out and they get dumped to fend for themselves — which is very cruel. To protect Darwin, disciples invoke the non-explanation of convergence because they have no plausible model of its evolution. In reality, the wombat is an example of the Master Designer's work.
Well equipped with powerful claws and shoulders, reports indicate that wombats can dig through 1.8 metres (6 ft) of hard soil in an hour. They use their incisor teeth to cut through underground obstructions such as roots.
The wombat is widely considered an agricultural pest, and not just because of its burrowing habits and its appetite for pasture grass (being semi-nocturnal, it mostly feeds at night). It can also cause considerable damage to rabbit-proof fences when it powerfully pushes its stocky body and wide pelvis through them. Wombats were declared vermin in 1906 in the State of Victoria—and still are, though population control requires a permit. Elsewhere in Australia, wombats are protected by legislation.
To read the entire article, click on "The wombat — ‘Badger’ of the south".



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

Friday, March 29, 2019

Evolutionists Overlooking the Obvious

Because we are human, we naturally see things from a human-centered perspective. Culture, learning, and even personal preferences can have a part in this. You may have seen movies where someone is leaning against an object, saying, "We'll never find it", but he was touching the object the posse comitatus was seeking. He had the wrong perspective while looking for the thing.


Many creatures have effects on their environments, which is the opposite of Darwinian expectations. We may tend to think that large things are important, but small creatures can have a significant impact as well.
Credit: National Library of Medicine / Open-i (CC by 2.0)
Reading the article featured below brought Basement Cat to mind. Some people dislike cats because they are bad people. No, actually, it's often because they operate from a human perspective, expecting cats to act similar to miniature people with fur and four legs. If you have problems with it, you can't treat it like you would a wayward child; Jackson Galaxy will tell you this. The same with other animals. If y'all want to get along with a beast, you have to take it on its terms, not on your own, you savvy?


Our presuppositions often lead us to think that it's the big things that matter, but we may tend to overlook the small things that can have an impact. Termites are small folk, but they build mounds that are the equivalent of skyscrapers — some can be seen from space. Picoplankton feed on organic compounds, but they can grow and foul up the waters. Oyster reefs do a heap of filtering to benefit the ecosystem. Our Creator enabled many creatures, large and small, with engineering abilities to effect their environments, which is the opposite of Darwinian assumptions.
Some ecologists try to limit the application of the ecosystem engineering concept to the impactful and “big” habitat alterations made by animals. Thus, beaver dams and coral reefs are “big enough” to qualify as ecosystem engineering habitat modifications, but bird nests and prairie burrows are often dismissed as de minimis—not worthy of comparable attention.

This is a “bigger is better” fallacy, which is a manifestation of an anthropocentric (human-centered) viewpoint that evaluates a situation only from the human perspective. If something doesn’t seem big to us, it must not be significant.
. . .

An anthropocentric perspective is unrealistic when evaluating whether animal activity is “big enough” to be ecologically important.
To read the entire article, click on "Termite Skyscrapers Hidden in Plain View". To see a related article, click on "Activist Animals and Ecosystem Engineering".




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

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Shining Cold Light on Bioluminescence

Quite a few people have seen living things that give off their own light. It can be a mite disconcerting sometimes, but a wide variety of organisms do this, including fish, algae, fungi, insects, and others. It is called bioluminescence, and is extremely challenging for adherents of microbes-to-miner evolution to explain.

Bioluminescence, where living things give off their own light, is baffling to evolutionists. It also demonstrates special creation.

The mechanism is extremely efficient, and evolutionists claim that it happened over forty times. They have no idea how, but "stuff happens" is somehow a valid evolutionary explanation. Scientists are studying fireflies for biomimetics applications (as usual, refusing to give credit to the Creator). The diversity of bioluminescent critters is baffling to evolutionists, as is the specified complexity of the mechanism: everything has to be in place and working at the same time, else nothing works or makes sense. Another puzzler for them is that some self-glowing has no apparent purpose; perhaps the Master Engineer put some in place for our appreciation of their beauty. He does that kind of thing, you know.
Bioluminescence requires a light-emitting pigment, known as a luciferin; the chemical reaction that turns energy into light is aided by an enzyme called luciferase (Latin lucifer, ‘light-bearer’). It is sometimes called ‘cold light’, because the efficiency with which this process turns chemical energy into light rather than wasting it as heat is extremely high; around 40%, some 20 times higher than an incandescent light bulb, and higher than the best fluorescent and LED bulbs.
Marine organisms alone exhibit more than four types of luciferin. Many of these creatures emit blue light which travels farther in water than the green light of fireflies, for example. The enzyme involved varies in structure between species even within the same phylum, and the variants show little correspondence with one another. This lack of similarity makes it impossible to establish a plausible common evolutionary origin for bioluminescence.
To read the entire article, click on "Bioluminescence—the light of living things".



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

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Refuting a Flat Earth Claim about Moonlight

It is a mite distressing that some people believe the earth is flat, and some of them are professing Christians and even creationists. This is ironic because not only was the idea started to make the Bible look foolish, but it has been soundly refuted both scientifically and theologically. (The president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, by the way.) One of the strangest claims that some flat earthers make is that moonlight removes heat and cools things.


One of the strangest claims flat earthers make is that moonlight makes things cooler. They claim to have demonstrated this, but a proper use of science shows the opposite is true.
Sea View by Moonlight, Ivan Aivazovsky, 1878
This idea should be subject to verification or refutation scientifically. Some owlhoots have made a pretense at proving their claim, but their efforts are woefully inadequate. Like faulty evidence for evolution (including "junk" DNA), people doing what passes for research argue from their presuppositions, find a bit of data they think is confirmation, and think their work is done.


Experiments and research must be done as completely as possible. Neutral or negative results are often omitted from evolutionary and other areas of research, but these are important as well as the results that seem positive. I lack belief that flat earth research on the cooling effects of moonlight included negative results, or that they were even remotely thorough.

In the following article, Dr. Faulkner detailed his experiments. It is rather long and appears even more lengthy than it is because of the charts (I think most people would skim those), but it is useful in that we can learn to have healthy skepticism over unusual claims. It also puts the silliness about moonlight to rest.
Flat-earthers often claim that moonlight has a cooling property. I present the results of three independent experiments that test this claim. The results of all three experiments disprove the claim that moonlight cools objects exposed to it. Not only is this claim not supported by carefully conducted experiments, it defies all that we know about the nature of light and energy. Furthermore, this claim has nothing to do with flat-earth cosmology, and easily could be jettisoned by flat-earthers without jeopardizing their model.
To read the rest or download the PDF, click on "Testing a Flat-Earth Prediction: Is the Moon’s Light Cooling?"

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

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Detecting Baloney in Natural Selection

There is a popular cold cut product in these here United States that is popular for lunches. While it is not my first choice, baloney (Brits call it polony) is okay when it is fried up. The stuff is made of scraps of beef, pork, chicken, or whatever, then seasoned, cooked, and packaged. The word is also an exclamation of disbelief.

Baloney is a meat product and also an exclamation of disbelief. Creationists can learn to use baloney detectors when evolutionists trot out their natural selection silliness pawned off as science.
Cropped from Pixabay / Erad
Ever have someone describe something you said or wrote as baloney? Seems like when people say it with enthusiasm, some bark it out like three short words. Apparently it has been mostly replaced by something more profane involving cattle.) Mayhaps the ingredients of the sausage food product inspired the exclamation.



Biblical creationists who keep up with material on the origins controversy tend to develop an eye for faulty science. It is mighty helpful to learn to spot logical fallacies, watch for arbitrary assertions, just-so stories without substance, piles upon piles of unsubstantiated conjectures, and that sort of thing. Especially in what is considered natural selection.

It's not very difficult to see when the hands at the Darwin Ranch are dealing from the bottom of the deck and cheating in other ways when reading the popular science press, but what about the advanced material? Mr. Coppedge wants to have us engage our baloney detectors and gives us some examples of Creator-denying foolishness pawned off as "science". See "Graduate Level Baloney Detecting About Natural Selection".



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

Monday, March 25, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Anticipatory Systems

The continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is being developed by the Institute for Creation Research is getting extremely interesting. Darwin's concept of externally-driven changes is being refuted, and CET shows not only validity, but can be used to predict changes in organisms.


Organisms are not only designed to adapt (the opposite of Darwinism), but they have internal logic and even make changes in their progeny.
Credit: Unsplash / Ivan Timov
People using an engineering perspective desire to have their products able to respond and react to changes and design them accordingly. The Master Engineer has equipped living things to respond in both short-term and long-term situations — including equipping progeny to adapt for changing environments. 

Tomatoes respond with their anticipatory logic and respond to threats (at the speed of plant, of course) and essentially circle the wagons. Honeybees deprived of nutrition have anticipatory responses all the way down to the molecular level. Sea urchins equip their offspring to deal with changing temperatures. These changes (and others in the linked article) are consistent with the CET model. Just between you and me, I think the development of the CET model is exciting.
Previously in this article series, we’ve considered the way organisms use innate logic mechanisms to rapidly produce solutions to environmental challenges that are so targeted they can be predicted.1 This observation deals a serious blow to the central anti-design tenet of evolutionary theory, which holds that evolutionary change must be random with respect to an organism’s future needs.
Now we’ll see that many adaptations are not just reactive in real time but rather flow from logic-based systems that give creatures foresight—both conscious and unconscious—of how they ought to preemptively self-adjust to predicted external conditions. Given that biological anticipatory adaptive systems are both predictive in nature and extend the design features of reactive systems to new heights, their impact is substantial support for ICR’s design-based continuous environmental tracking (CET) model and against chance-based evolution.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Creatures' Anticipatory Systems Forecast and Track Changes". For a related article, you may like to see "Research Fails to Identify Causal Mechanism".

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

Saturday, March 23, 2019

The Biases of Evolutionists and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
 
At The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook and in other places, we see atheists and other anti-creationists complain that we do not share material from unbiased sources. Then they trot out links to sites that promote evolution and atheism. Apparently, they consider "unbiased" to mean "not creationist".


One reason anti-creationists reject creation science material is because we are biased. They often refuse to admit their own biases. Unlike them, we admit to our biases and why we have them.


Who is biased?

People who have read this site have probably seen my remarks that people who want to convince others of their viewpoint are biased. Not only are biblical creationists biased, but we are also quite open that we want to convince people that muck-to-misotheist evolution is false and that the evidence supports special creation and the worldwide Genesis Flood. Evolutionists are biased just like anyone else.

Someone posted my article on the Roku streaming device in a Fazebook group. I mentioned that Roku carries the NRA channel, and someone hysterically typed that nobody should read the article because it was "right wing". Not hardly! She had a leftist bias.

Also politically related, the US media are notoriously leftist and hate President Trump. Their reporting is skewed to the far left, even using frequent dishonest statements. Positive news about Trump is mostly obtained from non-mainstream sources. Respected left-leaning journalist Ted Koppel showed some of his bias, but clearly stated that the media are against Trump. Of course, the biased media tended to ignore his comments.

I had a manager who claimed that the day shift was slacking, but the night shift did all the hard work. His bias interfered with his judgment, and he didn't understand the process: day shift got the ponies saddled and night shift put them into the corral. That is, the system needs several processes that begin early and are completed later.

Ever hear of the Dinosaur Bone Wars? A couple of jaspers back in the late 19th century were competing with each other to find more, bigger, better, impressive dinosaur bones. They spent a lot of money, and I reckon it was more about egos than science. More importantly, their presuppositions and biases contributed to their mistakes. To learn about this, you can see the video and also read the introduction at "The Great Dinosaur Wars".

Biblical creationists are biased because we presuppose the Bible is true. The evidence supports this, including recent creation and the Genesis Flood. I'll allow that my bias shows in that I detest the twisting of Scripture to support old earthism, theistic evolution, and hybrids that compromise secular views with the Bible.


Calling creationists "liars"

Some tinhorns insist on calling us "liars" because of their antipathy for the creation message, although they cannot document their claims. (Some simply continue to repeat them, which is the fallacy of repeated assertion.) If you study on it, you can see that calling us liars is ridiculous. We believe that God is holy, righteous, and just. He hates lying. So we're going to lie to get you to believe in him?



There are people who willingly ignore the difference between disagreement and dishonesty. They prefer to poison the well by calling creationists liars (without evidence, mind you, making them the liars while preaching to their choirs). This sidewinder (who is asking for money via Patreon) ridicules Dr. Jason Lisle because Lisle does not sing from the secular sheet music:


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Fallaciously yours...

Another aspect to the charge of bias is that it is a genetic fallacy. That is, the material is rejected because it came from creationist sources.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Watch for the subtle combination of ad hominem and genetic fallacy where people distinguish between "real scientists" and "creation scientists", implying the lie that creationists are not "real" scientists.


This next vampiric example involves the old "mountains of evidence" canard (and several other fallacies). When called out on his faulty reasoning, he demonstrated not only his extreme bias and bigotry, but also that he did not have a coherent response. Instead, he resorted to insults and arbitrary assertions:
Click for larger
 
Using the genetic fallacy again, anti-creationists have mocked the RATE project, a creation science initiative on the age of the earth and radiometric dating. Mockery and ridicule are not refutation, nor do they advance an intellectual argument. Their bias prevents them from having intellectual honesty.


Idolatry

In my unfortunate dealings with theistic evolutionists and others who insist on elevating constantly changing man-made science philosophies above the unchanging Word of God, they not only propagate bad science as long as its in their best interests, they also torture Scripture until it confesses to whatever they want to hear. Dealing with TEs is like being invited to a necktie party.

One particular angry bigot stated:

Largely due to changed personal circumstances, I have in fact (if I am being sincere time will tell) re-embraced Christian belief and church going (Church of England).
While I suspect they are mostly sincere in their views, and sincerely think they aren't actually lying about various topics that they go on about (eg geological time or current climate change or the Donald) my views on the fundamentalists in America - notably young earth creationists - remain unchanged.
So if I have 'changed sides' a second time, and I believe I have, that change of sides has its limits.
In an email spam that I indirectly received, he said:
Although I have returned to Christianity, my days of making some - occasional - inconvenient sacrifices for God are probably over. Because all I ever found was an entity that allowed me to make (sincere) mistakes that did not help me, caused me to feel wrongly guilty about some things, and let me think it was a good idea (was there any ready alternative) to listen too much to headstrong church leaders in order to gain 'acceptance' at church. Also an entity that never much helped me to my knowledge, which pretends not even to exist, and which assuming he does also presides over huge injustice in this world whilst calling himself a God of 'justice' (who demands eg that all people - who are not all equally strong - keep to the same general standards of behaviour (of avoiding 'sin') as practising Christians (and who apparently sends murderers, and well-behaved but unsociable or misanthropic people, both to the same 'hell' if they fail to believe in Christ)). And the Bible is patently not (as claimed by people like R T Kendall) 'infallible', and young earth creationism is not truth/the truth/scientific truth even if it is 'sound doctrine'). So - now, better late than never, a better informed and in consequence of that a questioning Christian (a term used once by David Cameron I think). Not - if ever was - a 'fanatic'. I am not going to pretend certainty about things I am not certain of to gain God's acceptance, I am not going to say stuff to non-Christians that I am not certain is true simply because I'm supposed to be terrified of God. I would never - as was the case in the past (from 1979 to 2007) - deny being 'Christian' if asked. But - I now know why I was so reluctant to bring up the subject outside of church. I do not feel very much 'love' for a God who gains converts out of fear and guilt as much as love for sinners. I made a recommitment on 5 January - but nobody else is going to get to define my commitment for me more than myself.
He claimed to be "more Christian" than I am in a forum, but these are not the words of someone who has submitted to God in repentance. He says I am evil and has even called God a liar on more than one occasion, and he expends tremendous amounts of energy attacking biblical creationists in general. I lack belief that he is a Christian, and he needs to humble himself and repent.

Someone else encouraged the aforementioned character, 
...that's a useful piece of text from the Cowboy. It's classic! I've just got to keep it for the record! That sort of spiritually intimidating character deformation and slander of Christians who don't follow the  fundamentalist line is to be found in every sectarian cult between here and the Watchtower's Brooklyn HQ.! Keep up the good work!"
That is a combination of straw man and ad hominem from a professing Christian who acts just like an atheist and is cheering on an enemy of God.

Similarly, I was told by a theistic evolutionist that I need to "follow Jesus" because he disliked an article I wrote. When I challenged him to show what in that article or my statement of faith would indicate I am not a follower of Jesus, I was ignored. His bias prompts him to bushwhack creationists.

Theistic evolutionists are often difficult to distinguish from atheists, and they are frequently found in bed together, hating the God of the Bible. I have concluded that they are idolaters, having made a god that they are comfortable acknowledging. They need to humble themselves and repent. You can easily see bias from their false religion of evolutionism and pretense at religiosity. James 2:19 NLT.


Creationists admit their bias, and why

Many anti-creationists, atheistic or otherwise, think that ridicule is refutation, as if it makes atheism less foolish or Darwinism less false. Folks who think like that are clearly biased against biblical creation science as well as the Bible. But as I said before, creationists are biased and we are open about it.
Creation critics object that creation scientists are biased. Since we seek answers to skeptical objections to the biblical account of creation, this supposedly means our research results are automatically suspect. This argument might seem reasonable at first glance. After all, shouldn’t researchers be completely open-minded and approach their work without any preconceived ideas? Even some intelligent design proponents take pains to claim that unlike “religiously motivated” creationists, their research is purely objective and free of any prior commitments to a particular belief system.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Are Creationists Biased?"




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

Friday, March 22, 2019

Deep Time Proponents Continue to Deny Facts

Atheists and evolutionists bucked and kicked at the news that soft tissues were found in fossils. Some even accused creationists of lying or at least misunderstanding the reports. It was not our problem that they were the ones who were uninformed or in denial. Worse for them, the more soft tissues and other fascinating instances of preservation were found.


Proponents of deep time continue to struggle with the facts of soft tissues and other examples of remarkable preservation. These support the Genesis Flood.

Once again, there was mandatory overtime at the Darwin Ranch where help was needed at the excuse mill to save deep time dogma. Rescuing devices were utilized to no avail; the facts were not made to ride off into the sunset. (Who does that, anyway? You can't see where you're going none too well.) Sometimes the preservation is on a large scale, and other times very delicate features have been preserved. Sorry Hoss, they cannot last millions of years, nor can things be buried slowly. Excellent preservation (indeed, as are fossils themselves) are testimony to the Genesis Flood and the young earth.
The first question ought to be, how can such things survive hundreds of thousands or millions of years?
When the first dinosaur blood vessels, proteins and skin cells were discovered, many creationists thought the fix was in for the moyboys. . . .
Evolutionists used to state adamantly that proteins, cells and DNA could not last for a million years, let alone ten thousand. Any biological material would become permineralized and turn to stone in short order. But when soft tissues started turning up fossils from the age of dinosaurs and earlier, they began saying, like the dead man, “Well, I’ll be. Soft tissue can last for tens and hundreds of millions of years.” Watch them do it right here.
To see the show — well, to read the entire article — click on "Amazing Preservation Fails to Shock Evolutionists". You may also like this short article: "Delicate Spider Fossil Discovered". 

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

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Sea Level Curve and the Genesis Flood

Secular geologists do that thing they do, which is to interpret data from their presuppositions. Since no scientist is unbiased, such approaches are expected. Unfortunately, they reject data that conflicts with their views. Uniformitarian geologists made up a sea level curve that is not supported by the data.

Secular geologists developed a sea level curve that is not supported by the data. Creation science studies show that the data fits the Genesis Flood.
Ocean, Vartan Mahokian, 1918-1920
The Institute for Creation Research compiled a great deal of data from three continents, then wanted to see if maps and sedimentary data support their hypothesis that the sedimentary patterns were generated by the Genesis Flood.
Evolutionary geologists compiled a global sea level curve from the Cambrian system to the present using assumed environmental interpretations and deep time. They infer global sea level was lower during deposition of the Permian system because they believe that many sedimentary layers, like the Permian Coconino Sandstone, were deposited across dry land. For this reason, they show a lowering of sea level during the Permian. But creation geologist John Whitmore has shown that the rock data better support deposition in a marine setting—further evidence for the global Flood of Noah’s day. 
ICR compiled stratigraphic data from over 1,500 columns across North and South America and Africa. These data have allowed us to clarify the true nature of global sea level. . . .we see that the generally accepted secular sea level curve doesn’t match the actual rock data. Instead, we see evidence of a single, progressive flood event that began slowly in the Sauk Megasequence . . . All of the continents show the same general pattern, making the result even more compelling.
To read the entire article, click on "A Rock-Based Global Sea Level Curve".




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

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

No Hope for Finding Alien Life

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


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

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

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




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

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

The Samurai and the Evolutionist Storyteller

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


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

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

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




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

Monday, March 18, 2019

Further Problems for the Junk DNA Concept

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


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

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





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

Saturday, March 16, 2019

You Cannot Find It If You Do Not Look

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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


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



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

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




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

Friday, March 15, 2019

Paleosols and the Age of the Earth

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


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

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

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

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

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Ice Sheets and the Age of the Earth

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


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



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

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

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Fast-Forming Mudstones and the Genesis Flood

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

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



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

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Atheism and Fundamentalist Evolution

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


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

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

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

Monday, March 11, 2019

Male Reproductive System Puzzles Evolutionists

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


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

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



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

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

Labels