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, April 30, 2019

Shipbuilding Skills and Noah

Due to the prevalence of evolutionary thinking on society, people today tend to think ancient people were stupid. We are modern, so we are smarter. That'll be the day! This criticism has been leveled against Noah, assuming he could not have built that Ark. Humans were intelligent from the beginning of creation.

Scoffers say it was impossible for Noah to build the Ark. This is based on prejudicial conjecture and biases. Sometimes they even lie. We can offer some reasonable speculations about the Ark.
Credit: Pixabay / Michael Wysmiersk
One area of cultural bias and scientific racism has been the assumption that Neanderthals and other ancient humans were unintelligent. They were actually very intelligent. (An attempt by Darwinists to save face over their bad science is to propose that they went extinct because they were too smart!) If you've watched shows or read novels about the old American West, you could easily wonder how those folks survived. Although they didn't have modern conveniences, they were inventive. Do a search for a show called Wild West Tech that ran for about thirty episodes, you should be able to find the videos online. Fascinating stuff.

"What does this have to do with Noah building the Ark, Cowboy Bob?"

Superb timing, I was just getting to that. Uninformed people as well as secularists and their religious comrades assume that primitive Noah could not possibly have built the Ark — if he even existed. However, atheists and evolutionists, in their great wisdom and mercy, will grant us Noah's existence so they can indulge in prejudicial conjecture and build straw man arguments.

Atheists and evolutionists like to put Christians and creationists on the defensive. While they may challenge us with legitimate questions, we are often given questions and statements loaded with atheistic and evolutionary presuppositions. We do not have to accept their declarations as truth. For some examples of questioning the questioners and turning their attacks around, take a gander at "Hummingbirds Evolving for Combat?", "Extraordinary Claims and Rejecting Evidence", "Dinosaur Extinction and Evolutionary Assumptions", and "Refuting Mountains of Fossil Evidence for Evolution".

For example, Bill Nye the Secular Propaganda Guy debated Ken Ham and presented information about the Wyoming, a large wooden vessel that sank. Last I knew, people who claim to represent science need to do their homework and to honestly present their material. If Nye actually researched the Wyoming, he left out several important details. He also made a fallacious comparison between the Wyoming and Noah's Ark. Nye gave the impression that it sank at the get-go. Quite the contrary! Nye didn't bother to mention other ships of antiquity.

I'll allow that we are not given many details about how Noah built the Ark, but we can utilize some informed, reasonable speculations without having to resort to "It's a miracle". Perhaps God gave Noah detailed instructions of which we are unaware. Noah could have already been a skilled shipbuilder. He could have hired unbelievers to work on the project (what, you've never worked for someone you disrespect?), and other possibilities. Remember, the ancients were not stupid.
Before examining the many challenges that large wooden ships must overcome, we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of accepting Nye’s unprovable assumptions. He claimed that the Ark’s eight builders were unskilled. Far too often, Christians go along with skeptical arguments instead of exposing the false premises on which they are constructed. For example, many Christians repeat Nye’s assertion when they happily state, “The Titanic was built by experts, and the Ark was built by amateurs.” But where does the Bible ever tell us that Noah was an amateur or that only eight people worked on the Ark?

We know from Scripture and our own experiences that when the Lord calls a person to a specific task, he will make sure the person has the capabilities and resources to complete the work. Does it make any sense to think God would have called Noah to such a vital purpose if he were inexperienced or incompetent? Noah may have been a highly skilled shipbuilder or he may have hired people who were.
To read this highly informative article in its entirety or download the audio version, click on "How Could Noah’s Ark Survive the Storm?"

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

Monday, April 29, 2019

Antibiotic Resistance is not Evolution

Evolutionists like to claim that antibiotic resistance is a clear example of evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth. Variations, natural selection, mutations, yes, but what is observed has nothing to do with microbes-to-medical doctor evolution. What is going on with bacteria, then?

Evolutionists say that antibiotic resistance is evidence for evolution. Not only is this claim false, but what actually happens supports biblical creationist views.
Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero
A great deal of research, testing, and expense are involved in making antibiotics in the first place, so it's not like a company can simply whip up a batch for something new or a variation. There are three primary mechanisms that cause microbes to resist antibiotics. Instead of supporting naturalism, these actually fit in with biblical creationist views. Let's saddle up and ride on over for some detailed explanations of what's going on.
The discovery of antibiotics was one of the most important advances in medicine, profoundly improving human health. Many bacterial infections (for example, tuberculosis and wound infections) that often killed people became treatable, saving millions of lives.

In the 15 years or so following their introduction in the 1930s, deaths in the USA, for example, declined by about 220 per 100,000 population per year. All other medical technologies only reduced deaths by about a further 20 over the next 45 years.

However, the development of resistance to antibiotics threatens this success. Globally, infections caused by bacteria resistant to many or all of the currently available antibiotics are increasing.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Antibiotic resistance: Evolution in action?" For a lengthy but detailed video presentation by Dr. G. Charles Jackson, click on “Bacteria are not Evolving Resistance to Antibiotics” (the main presentation is 1 hr. 40 min., then a question-and-answer session).

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

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Recent Humans with the Wrong Features

Racism has been prominent in evolutionary thinking ever since Papa Darwin published his version of evolution. People seem to have an inordinate fondness of dividing things into categories, and this applies to people. Although out of fashion, racism still exists in evolutionary thinking today.

Recent discoveries are upsetting evolutionary racism and supporting biblical creation. Evolutionary thinking is saturated with racism, whether individual evolutionists are racists or not is a different matter.

Do not disunderstand me. I am not saying that all evolutionists are racists. But their theory is laden with racism and subdivisions. Ever notice that the evolutionary parade illustrations of simple to more complex humans also progress from dark to light skin? For that matter, "primitive" and "archaic" humans are dark skinned, considered more apelike because of their physical features.

The Piltdown Man fraud included a human jaw and orangutan teeth.

For that matter, some professing Christians who need to be quirted for their terrible science and worse theology believe in a non-Adamite (and non-white) race. Humans sure like to emphasize otherness, and not-us-ness! As we have seen here many times, there are no "races" because we Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans. Ethnic people groups exist, yes. Races, no. You savvy that, Hoss?

A passel of folks get excited when evolutionary paradigms are kicked back under the rocks from where they slithered. I remember many years ago seeing someone waiting for the bus that had the features that I saw in an evolutionary book. Should't he have been extinct thousands of Darwin years ago? Evolutionary anthropologists are forced to admit that "archaic" features have existed in modern humans all along: no ape ancestor here. Look elsewhere.
Ideas shaping the concept of human evolution have largely played out through images. Characters with large brow ridges and sloping foreheads—including Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus—have consistently been depicted as the earliest forms of evolving humans. Now, new fossil evidence is turning the whole paradigm upside down.
To read the rest of this rather short article, click on "Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution". I also recommend seeing more classification and historical racism follies explained at "Questionable Categories of Human Ancestors: The Denisovans".

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

Friday, April 26, 2019

Deceptive Walking Whale News

There is both an advantage and disadvantage to writing up posts several days ahead of time. This one was set up and ready to go, and then suddenly three more posts appeared on the subject that offer additional information. This post can be a resource for those who want details on the alleged "walking whale".

 We know that paleontologists can determine a great deal of information about an organism, especially when they have something living to make comparisons. I reckon the would not be able to know that a frilled lizard will hiss and run on hind legs, for example. So, how can scientists know that a critter was a walking whale?

Evolutionists make assertions that they cannot support because the narrative drives the facts. An alleged walking whale is hype, not science.
Credit: Unsplash / Ryan Grewell
A fossil discovered in Peru was referred to as a "walking whale", and purveyors of evoporn got the bit in their teeth and told unfounded, unscientific stories about how it walked across continents and similar nonsense. There is no evidence for how it lived and acted, or that it was a long-distance traveler. The pretend whale has characteristics like modern otters or sea lions, but it must be a walking whale because evolution. Remember, the narrative drives the facts for these folks — can't be admitting that there is a Creator, no siree!
A skeleton of an extinct creature was found on the coast of Peru. Evolutionists are all calling it a walking whale.

In Current Biology, a team led by Olivier Lambert announced a skeleton of what they call an “amphibious whale” or a “quadrupedal whale” they found off the coast of Peru. When the story (complete with artists’ conceptions) hit the press, reporters took the bait and ran with it without asking any questions, printing blow-ups of the artwork as the leading tease under their breathless headlines.
No need to spout off or blubber, you can read the rest by clicking on "Otter Not Call This a Walking Whale". Be sure to come back for the rest.

The evolutionary narrative drives the interpretations of the evidence for Darwinoids and their desire for a missing link. It should not be much of a surprise that details are omitted and circular reasoning (as well as hilarity) ensues.
Like many claims of missing links, we should ask: what was the actual evidence? E.g. the original claims of Pakicetus (‘Whale from Pakistan’) as an aquatic whale ancestor were based on skull fragments only. . .evolutionary agitprop needs to keep claiming to have ‘found the missing link’, apparently hoping that we forget that they have said that before.

. . .

But it was missing a lot of crucial information as well: the skull for example, so we have no idea what its ear was like, and this is crucial for identifying putative whale ancestors. And while its tail vertebrae showed widening (“expanded transverse processes”), so it could have helped with propulsion in water, it was more like “those of beavers and otters”. There was no evidence for tail flukes as in real whales.
To read this article in its entirety, click on "Peregocetus pacificus, 43-million-year–old walking whale?"

Workers at the propaganda mill seem to be hoping that people do not have a basic education in science, or that they will not bother with critical thinking. Where are the intermediate features? Some of us would like actual evidence more than assertions and more non-science fiction.
The newly found fossil creature may have been amphibious because it appears to possibly have had webbed feet for swimming. It could definitely walk on land and possibly also swim in water, like beavers and otters. If all it takes is an amphibious capability to earn the name whale, then why not call otters, muskrats, and beavers “whales,” too?

. . .

Besides the enormous differences in size and specializations—filter feeding versus toothed whales—many designs are only found in whales. To name a few, whales have specialized bodily features that allow for unique breathing, swimming, deep diving, reproduction, echolocation, communication, specialized feeding, and many other novel traits not found in any other type of sea or land creature.
 To read the whole thing, click on "Whale Evolution Dives to New Low"

Finally, Dr. Jerry Bergman has been working on yet another book. This one is about whale evolution, so he has already been doing his homework. Darwin was embarrassed and frustrated by his own theory that the ancestor of whales was a bear. That didn't work out so well, so the substitute was something resembling a dog or wolf. All this "science" speculation raises more questions than it solves.
Peregocetus pacificus (“the traveling whale that reached the Pacific”) was the name given to the “whale” fossil. It is a “remarkably well-preserved” four foot long, fairly complete animal, the discoverers say. The fossil includes its jaw, front and hind legs, bits of its spine, and most of its tail. The fossil was found in 2011 at a site called Playa Media Luna and is the first ostensible “whale” found in Peru. Due to possessing characteristics similar to modern otters and beavers, this mammal was apparently well-adapted to both land and water.

Another popular article was more accurate and did not call it a whale or a Protocetidae but an “unknown species of animal.” Claiming this animal was a whale is worse than claiming a dog is a cat. It is rather more like claiming a dog looks like a crocodile. The illustrations used to publicize the creature show a large doglike body and a crocodile-like head that contains the brain, head and mandible. Plus, it has a crocodile-like tail. So what is the more absurd comparison? Although shown swimming in the water, it had four legs and could navigate on land as well as any other land mammal. The problem is, “Whales look so unlike other mammals that it’s hard to imagine the type of creature that they evolved from.”
You can read all of that one by clicking on "Calling Something a Whale Doesn’t Make It a Whale"

There are so many examples of storytelling, circular reasoning, and downright bad science, I wonder if this is yet another instance of desperation. Indeed, it may very well be deception — there's lotsa grotzits in evolutionary "discoveries", you know. Creationists to shine light on the truth, and thinking people are not fooled. Yippie ky yay, secularists! You may also like to see "Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales".

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

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Refuting Mountains of Fossil Evidence for Evolution

You may rightly ask how we can refute all those mountains of fossil evidence that are presented for evolution. If you start at the foundation, it is far less difficult than my may think. Readers have seen that a fact is a fact, a fossil is a fossil, but it is the interpretations of facts that are the key to correctly understanding evidence.

Darwinists claim that there is a mountain of evidence in the fossil record to prove evolution. Not only is their claim unsupportable, but the evidence actually supports creation science.

Yesterday, we saw that alleged evidence for the dinosaur extinction impact theory actually supports the Genesis Flood. Atheists and other anti-creationists make a wagon train-load of assertions accompanied by fallacies used to intimidate Darwin doubters. You know the kind: "So much evidence for evolution, you don't want people to think you're a st00pid dumb fundie by denying the facts, do you?" Questions and rational thinking can dispel a great deal of inflated claims. Also, a well-informed creationist can show that many evolutionists do not know their own dogma, nor do they keep up to date with findings.

When asked to provide their alleged evidence about fossils proving evolution, we invariably get hit with evolutionary propaganda sites containing lists of fossils. Big deal. Keep in mind that the number of dinosaurs was exaggerated, each new "find" was not necessarily a new find but a version of the same: young, old, male, female, and so on. Actually, there are never indisputable transitional forms (something clearly changing into something else), but simply variations. Even evolutionists admit that there are very few plausible candidates for transitional forms. Why do you think some cling to debunked critters like Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, and others? They're desperate to find scraps of evidence to justify their rebellion against the Creator.

One's presuppositions and worldview have a huge impact on how evidence is viewed. We see this time and time again, and correctly interpreting evidence without bad logic of evolution actually supports recent creation. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ try to bamboozle us with their claims of evidence as well as using ridicule and other methods of manipulation. Ask questions. Challenge them back. Do not be willingly deceived. Pull out the right stones in the foundation, you can see pretty much all of those "mountains of evidence" avalanche into rubble, Barney.
A commenter from Australia describes some of his exchanges with evolutionists and asks about some of the claims they made:
If evolution is only a philosophy, how do you explain all the fossils to support evolution? I was recently called an idiot, and very ignorant for believing in creation. I was told the evidence for evolution is overwhelming considering the thousands of fossils displayed in many museums around the world. These fossils include thousands of intermediate fossils to such an extent that evolution is no longer beyond reasonable doubt. I was told that people who don’t believe in evolution have never visited these museums, or considered the evidence, instead they deliberately ignore it. The majority of scientists say that evolution is one of the most robust and corroborated of modern scientific theories.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

Thanks for writing in. Life will be much easier if you don’t give credence to these skeptics. By your own account, all they’ve done is insult you, committed the bandwagon fallacy, and given you a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Don’t let them put you off balance. The following questions will help you see what is going on, restore your confidence, and help you ride over such hostile attacks.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of "Is the fossil record ‘overwhelming evidence for evolution’?" Note that there are several links in the response and afterward that can give you further insight.

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

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Dinosaur Extinction and Evolutionary Assumptions

A spell back, a reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook messaged a link to us involving the dinosaur extinction impact theory with information on new fossil discoveries (several versions of the report are circulating). You know the basic story: 65 million Darwin years ago, a meteorite/asteroid/comet hit the earth and killed off the dinosaurs, but left other critters still alive.

Researchers think they found fossil evidence for the Chicxulub dinosaur-killer asteroid. Instead, what they found supports the global Genesis Flood.
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
I didn't get back to it for a while. What I did find was some of the usual arbitrary assertions that secularists make based on deep time and evolutionary presuppositions. They also tend to go with the prevailing view (an impact by a space object caused dinosaurs to push up daisies), but also ignore the flaws in this theory. For that matter, scientists are divided on what caused dinosaur extinction.

What I saw immediately is that scientists found catastrophic, rapid burial with lots of water involved. Really? Sounds like further evidence of the Genesis Flood to me. Unfortunately, the narrative drives the interpretation of evidence, and their worldview precludes an honest investigation of Flood geology. This is indeed unfortunate, since the Flood better explains what is found in geology far better than uniformitarian (slow and gradual processes over long periods of time) assumptions. What makes things worse for materialists is that evidence shows that everything was created far more recently than fit with their paradigms, and the Flood is arguably the best evidence for creation.

My analysis was not needed. Ken Ham and the staff writers wrote an post about this report, and consulted geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling. From my own experiences dealing with evoporn (it makes atheists and evolutionists feel good, but has no actual scientific value), we need to think critically, ask questions, do some research, have healthy skepticism — and maintain a good working knowledge of biblical creation science.
The news has been buzzing recently with headlines such as this one from New Scientist, “Incredible fossil find may be first victims of dino-killer asteroid.” These headlines are announcing the discovery and analysis of a fossil deposit in America that is interpreted as “an unprecedented record of the mass extinction event that wiped out most of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.”

The article about this North Dakota find goes on to state, “The fossils appear to be animals that were killed within minutes of an asteroid striking Earth, in a flood triggered by the shattering impact.” The asteroid impact mentioned is, of course, the impact at the Chicxulub crater on the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico, thousands of miles from North Dakota. . . .

Such an impact would’ve caused earthquakes and flooding, and this site, in the evolutionary interpretation, appears to preserve part of that catastrophe, as a flash flood of fossils and tiny pieces of natural glass (called tektites) formed from meteorite impacts are also found.
To read the rest, click on "First Victims of Dino-Killer Asteroid Found Buried?" Tomorrow's post has a similar theme about the "mountains of evidence" for evolution in the fossil record.

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

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Fossil Disorder at the Hell Creek Formation

Just the other day Stormie Waters was overhearing a dispute at the Darwin Ranch. They were getting mighty loud, and sound carries in those parts. Seems that the evolutionary faithful are uninformed or dishonest about fossils being in the wrong place, so they want to keep on saying fossils are always where they should be.

The Hell Creek Formation has some serious problems with fossils in the wrong place for evolutionists, but what is found can be best explained by the Genesis Flood.
Hell Creek State park image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Vladimír Socha (CC by-SA 4.0)
The source of contention was, again, about the Hell Creek Formation. Over in the Montana Territory (okay, I shouldn't call it that, Montana became the 41st of these here United States in 1889) near the town of Jordan. Small town, but they have themselves a state park and all.

Most people who pay attention to dinosaur and other fossils have probably heard of the Hell Creek Formation (HCF), which stretches through parts of four states. Many paleontologists head over there, so you'll probably encounter some if you commence an expedition.

If you ask paleontologists why marine, freshwater, and land fossils are mixed in there, they'll probably evosplain with circular reasoning and deep time dogma. Secularists are known for ignoring data that conflicts with their paradigms — especially since what is seen in the HCF and other places around the world is best explained by the global Genesis Flood.
Recently, a new species of shark was found at the site where T. rex “Sue” was extracted. While this didn’t surprise Flood geologists, it required some special pleading by evolutionary scientists to explain away another apparent marine animal in the “wrong” place.
. . .

A few years ago, I researched the HCF and showed that it was encapsulated, top and bottom, by sedimentary rocks that even secular scientists agree are marine in origin.
To read the entire short article, click on "Marine Fossils Mixed with Hell Creek Dinosaurs". A related article is found at "Misinterpreting Fossil Graveyards".

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

Monday, April 22, 2019

Video Review — "The Fool" by Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort has been maligned as the "Banana Man", based on atheists editing and misrepresenting him. Find out the truth and more. And be encouraged.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Obtaining and reviewing The Fool by Ray Comfort/Living Waters has been a goat rodeo for me. I knew it was going to be released, and one of the web sites indicated February 2019, so I passed. Later, I checked again and saw that the release date been moved out. I purchased the video downloads to help the ministry and see them (the second being "The Angry Atheist") in advance. However, I wanted my review to coincide with the release of The Fool, so I contacted Living Waters. The fellow I spoke with did not know, but his supervisor believed it would be released two weeks after Easter. Nope. Looks like it was released to YouTube at midnight their time on Sunday, April 21. So I moved this review to almost the top of my priority list.

Early Days

New Zealand native Ray Comfort has been an evangelist for years. He is a "walk the talk" guy, living what he says. Mr Comfort is involved in street preaching , and sometimes people get mighty hostile. His autobiography, Out of the Comfort Zone, includes descriptions of how he was not only preaching the gospel but giving food and care to people in the extremely dangerous MacArthur Park area of Los Angeles, California.

In the early days, Ray was promoting "Hell's Best Kept Secret" and "True and False Conversion" (which are still very important resources). You may want to watch this short documentary from around 2011 for some interesting information. Things began to move from a trot to a canter when he teamed up with Kirk Cameron and working on "The Way of the Master", which includes biblical evangelism courses. However, his ministry began to gallop because of misrepresentations by atheists.


Mr. Comfort tries to be friendly to atheists, but they get on the prod when confronted by the truth of the gospel. They get even angrier when evolution (a foundation for their religion) is challenged — which is something I've experienced with Question Evolution Day and other activities. Ray speaks to atheists and has had formal debates with them. This is rare, because atheists and evolutionists are seldom willing to engage in debates or intelligent discussions with biblical Christians and creationists. Ridicule and trying to silence us, yes. Civil discussion, not so much.


Ray has the moniker of "Banana Man" and has been called a fool because of a parody that he made using bananas and a soda can as props. Let me interrupt myself for a moment. Comfort said that atheists don't think their beliefs are ridiculous and worthy of ridicule, but I disagree on that small point. From my observations, atheists and evolutionists in general are exceptionally proud and cannot take a joke, but are more than willing to ridicule others, even when they know their attacks are blatant misrepresentations. This is ironic because their claims to owning "reason" because of atheism and that people of faith are irrational are highly fallacious. I've discussed that elsewhere, so no need to saddle up that one just now.

Scene changes are often shown with bananas. Unlike many atheists, Mr. Comfort appropriated an object of ridicule that is used against him. Meanwhile, atheists deliberately misrepresented Ray and the parody mentioned earlier for ridicule purposes. (I keep bringing up ridicule because people like that are in rebellion to their Creator; atheism and origins are not intellectual, they are spiritual problems. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, as seen in Romans 1:18-22. If it were a question of intellect, everyone would be Christians. Indeed, they would be biblical creationists.) A tremendous irony of the Banana Man mockery is that atheists were allowing the gospel message to be shared. As indicated in other posts here, atheists don't trust each other, and will even become angry when their comrades show civility to Christians.

For fun, count the times Ray had a gaffe and said, "Then I forgot about it". Several things were used to attack him, but atheists and other anti-creationists don't seem to understand that ad hominem attacks, mockery, straw man arguments, and the many other fallacies they use not only show that they do not have a firm grasp of reason, but such things do not make atheism and evolution less false. God exists, and we will all have to stand before him. Logic, reason, and evidence are on our side.

Publicity from haters. All because of Banana Man.

Personal Applications

I found some encouragement in this movie, and there were a couple of quotes that stood out for me: "In the Bible, God often uses what seem like disasters and failures and uses them for his purposes". In that case, the Banana Man label opened doors for Mr. Comfort and his ministries to gain a larger audience. Also, "God delights in taking that which is a seeming failure and making it a success". This reminds me of what Joseph said to his brothers in Genesis 50:20.

My own online ministry efforts stirred up criminal cyberstalkers and even a libelous hit piece at (ir)RationalWiki, as well as an attack by an atheist who is an internet celebrity. All of these are pretty much unknown in most of the real world, so mayhaps I don't have the right haters. (I was even scorned for my musical preferences, as if that was helpful for atheism.) Like Ray's experiences, the things I've endured have occasionally left me bruised, but I know that God has his purposes. I keep on going to give God the glory, spread the truth, and provide information to equip the saints to stand up for the authority of God's Word.

Wisdom of God

Materialists and professing Christians who compromise on the Word of God think they are wise. Not hardly! The wisdom of the world is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:21, Psalm 14:1), and our spiritual weapons pull down fortresses raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:3-4). True wisdom comes from God (Prov. 1:7, 2 Peter 3:18, Prov. 3:13-14, Psalm 104:24). We must spend time in the Bible and get solid biblical teaching so we can be properly handle the truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

I hope you will see The Fool. It takes just over an hour and has far more material than I presented here, and I reckon that unbelievers and Christians can benefit from seeing it. You can get there from here. The trailer is below if you want it.

No, I don't have the book yet.

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

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Human Value, Genesis, and the Cross

In an evolutionary worldview, the death of Jesus on the cross is nonsensical. His bodily resurrection is unthinkable. According to materialists, this life is all there is, and it has no meaning, no hope for future justice, and when you die, you're worm food. Did you remember to pass along your selfish genes first? What a depressing way to live.

The biblical worldview is the only one that consistently makes sense of human experience.
In reality, atheism is incoherent. Only the biblical Christian worldview — beginning from the first verse of the Bible — consistently makes sense of human experience. We have joy and pain, life and death, and all kinds of experiences. Our Creator took human form. He lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and bodily rose from the dead. He did this out of love. The wisdom of the worldly wise is frustrated by the wisdom of God.
No one wants to live in a world where evil is ignored, or worse still, approved. Everyone yearns for justice when they have been mocked, insulted, betrayed or abused.
Who has not rebelled when they have been treated like an animal or a thing? We have a deep desire for our wrongs to be put right, for our suffering to have meaning.
The cross of Christ answers our human need. In Jesus’ Passion we discover that behind the universe is a God who treats every person with immeasurable value, who cares about justice.
To read the entire article, click on "Genesis and the Cross".

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

Friday, April 19, 2019

Giant Bee as a Living Fossil

People who have followed the origins controversy have probably heard the term living fossil, originally used by Charles Darwin. This term essentially means that something living shows no appreciable change over millions of Darwin years. Wallace's Giant Bee is an ironic contribution.

Wallace's Giant Bee was rediscovered alive and well after several decades. It is considered a living fossil, and is a problem for evolutionary views.
Megachile pluto, Wallace's Giant Bee drawing by Dr. Heinrich Friese
This bee was made famous by Alfred Russell Wallace, a friendly rival of Charles Darwin, when Wallace was in Indonesia. It was thought extinct since 1981, but was found again recently. Nice when that happens. However, it also prompts evolutionists to come up with Just So Stories that rival Rudyard Kipling. You see, amber is quite a preservative, better than a typical fossil, so they have to explain away the lack of change. "Stasis" is a non-explanation that buzzes the wrong way for evolutionists' claims, and is just an excuse to get out of admitting that life was created recently.
Every now and then one of these ancient giant insects is discovered to be still living today. An example is the world’s largest bee, Megachile pluto, which was recently rediscovered on an Indonesian island. The bee, which grows up to an inch and a half long and has a wingspan of 2.5 inches, is roughly four times larger than a honeybee. Morphologically, it is clearly a bee, and yet it is very different from all of the bees we are familiar with, especially the honeybee. Called a living fossil, it has very large un-bee like mandibles that resemble those of a stag beetle. . .

Reported widely by the press, this find created an interest in the enormous variety of insect life on earth. Unfortunately, labels such as “primitive” are often applied by evolutionary scientists and reporters to describe life assumed to have existed eons ago, but this ancient bee was anything than primitive. It had as complex a body and brain as modern insects have.  How do we know this? The answer lies in the way they were preserved.
To read the entire article, click on "Living Fossil Giant Bee Challenges Evolution".

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

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Populations

Further development of the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model by the Institute for Creation Research has previously examined how organisms are designed to respond to environmental changes. This is the opposite of Charles Darwin's view and that of his followers. What about adaptation by populations?

Organisms were designed to adapt according to the CET model, which is the opposite of Darwin's view. Engineered adaptability applies to populations as well as individuals.
Credit: Unsplash / Chad Kirchoff
This model takes an engineering perspective; the Master Engineer designed both individuals and populations to work together in order to solve problems. Since they are designed to adapt, there is no randomness involved. Organisms have adapted rapidly, rocking evolutionists back on their heels with exclamations of "faster than we expected". After all, their paradigm requires long ages and slow processes.
At the population level, natural selection envisions these organisms locked in mortal competition with each other, with a few individuals emerging victorious at the expense of the rest of the population. They pass on their genes while the “weaker” genes are eliminated. Evolutionary scientists imagine that the survivors were lucky enough to be endowed with superior genes through random mutations.

In stark contrast, an engineering-based model would suggest that both the individual and the population are vitally important. Thus, in order to arrive at optimal solutions to environmental challenges, individuals and populations work together in a targeted, non-random approach to problem solving. Such a model has the potential to liberate biologists from the selectionist mindset. What characterizes this mindset?
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: New Distributed Problem-Solving Model for Population Adaptation".

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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Hypsilophodon, an Overlooked Dinosaur

Hypsilophodon foxii was easy to overlook because it was small. Sure, we get excited about the behemoths because they were big and impressive, but there were others around that may not get as much coverage. Like the big ones, Hypsilophodon and other small dinosaurs were designed by their Creator to survive in their environment.

Big dinosaurs seem to get most of the attention, but even the smaller ones show the design skills of their Creator.
Hypsilophodon reconstruction at Brussels image credit: Wikimedia Commons / MWAK
A good deal of what paleontologists describe about creatures from way back when is necessarily speculative, but there are other aspects that make a lot of sense. Some of what we read and hear comes from comparisons with other animals today as well as the way they were built.
It isn’t easy being so small, especially if you are only 1.5 feet (0.4 m) tall. Imagine being surrounded by massive long-necked sauropods or herds of Iguanodons. Just one misstep and you’re an instant pancake. Or what about those vicious killers, known as theropods, many times bigger than you and always on the prowl?

How does a little guy survive in a land of giants? With some special designs, of course.
To read the full article or download the audio version, click on "Hypsilophodon—Least but Not Last".

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

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Extraordinary Claims and Rejecting Evidence

When dealing with atheists and other anti-creationists, they often try to bushwhack us with statements or questions that are designed to put us on the defensive. The assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (attributed to Carl Sagan) is downright viperine.

We expect scoffers to want us to support our claims, but they use tactics to put us on the defensive. We can turn it around.
Credit: Pixabay / moritz320
Biblical creationists are often challenged to defend our positions, which is to be expected. When asked about a subject under discussion, creationists often provide discussion, logical points, and links to relevant material. These are ignored much of the time and the subject is changed, which makes people like me think that they are not interested in learning. Worse, we are erroneously told what we believe which is rooted in the scoffer's prejudicial conjecture and not from honest examination of our point of view.

Some owlhoot will invariably drag out the platitude about claims and evidence. We may respond, "What evidence are you willing to accept?" Sounds good, except that not only are we letting them make up the rules and set the odds, they're dealing from the bottom of the deck and hiding cards. That is, we're letting them take control and put us on the defensive! We can turn it around and use the same demand on them.

The whole thing is subjective. The scoffer is calling the shots and deciding what evidence suits his or her fancy; anything you offer can be dismissed as being insufficient. The "extraordinary evidence" requirement is also hypocritical because they believe in cosmic and biological evolution, deep time, and other things that are based on assumptions and biases.

A biblical creationist will probably be told to argue from "neutral ground" and leave the Bible out of it. Not hardly! This trick is simply to manipulate us to give up what we claim we believe and go to their naturalistic game: they are in no wise neutral, and the Christian should not be, either. We are to presuppose that the Bible is true, and they presuppose their naturalism. You can hardly make any progress if you admit defeat at the get-to, pilgrim.
Since all evidence is interpreted from within the framework of a person’s worldview, don’t expect that when we, for example, are arguing for the reliability of Scripture, or for the evidence of God’s existence from nature, that the skeptic will suddenly ‘see the light’ just because you mention things like early independent attestation (in the case of New Testament reliability) or the incredible design in nature (in the case of God’s existence). They already have ways of looking at these things through their ‘agnostic/atheist glasses’ that render these things unremarkable, or ‘not extraordinary enough’, in their eyes. Yet at the same time, they will embrace all manner of highly extraordinary claims (like chemical evolution or ‘abiogenesis’ and undirected evolution of life from single cells up to human beings) with very weak or no evidential backing.

The ‘extraordinary claims’ maxim is a double standard. You can usually be sure that the person uttering this statement is not willing to apply it to their own claims! If you play their rigged game and it proves unfruitful—as it almost certainly will—try a different tactic instead.
To read this article in its entirety, click on "Do ‘Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence’?"

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

Monday, April 15, 2019

What is the Antimatter with Cosmogony?

We have seen in several posts that the Big Bang story has been Frankensteined for many years, but it is still deplorable. In fact, efforts to imagine a universe without God (I lack belief that a universe without God can exist) actually defies basic laws of physics. Then there's that pesky antimatter problem.

Another problem for cosmic evolution and the Big Bang is antimatter. There is not enough of it, and some scientists are admitting it.
Credit: National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According to the non-science story, there should be a passel of antimatter in the universe equivalent to the same amount of matter (possibly to satisfy affirmative action laws). Good thing this is not the case. Matter and antimatter collide and release energy. The universe would destroy itself, but scientists cannot detect very much of the stuff at all. Certainly not enough to power a warp core.

Some scientists are admitting that the lack of antimatter does not fit their cosmic evolution expectations. Since the narrative is more important than the truth, we are told things like "something happened". Perhaps if they were willing to drop their naturalism for a spell and realize that the evidence shows the universe has a Creator, they may be able to commence doing some useful work.
An astrophysicist explains that the predominance of matter in our universe is just weird, and has no explanation.

The big bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter, but it didn’t. If it had, our universe might not be possible, because the oppositely-charged particles would have annihilated each other in a blaze of energy. Antimatter is so rare, that if it survived, annihilation events would be visible throughout the universe, but we don’t see them. This failed prediction of the big bang theory has been known for decades. What is the latest thinking about it?
To read the rest, click on "Still No Explanation for Matter/Antimatter Imbalance".

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

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Asteroids, Volcanoes, and Dinosaur Demise

Secularists really have no idea what caused dinosaur extinction, and that is a thunder lizard-sized reason their stories keep changing. The alleged Chicxulub asteroid impact down Mexico way is the dominant explanation, but not all scientists are in agreement on that. Perhaps it was volcanic activity. Mayhaps it was a combination.

Research in volcanism and the alleged Chicxulub asteroid impact area have received some research. Strip away flawed dating methods, and the information supports creation science Flood models.
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
There is an area in India known as the Deccan Traps that has significant lava flow layers. Geologists got a hankering to do some research, and tied this volcanic activity with the Chicxulub impact. Wait, what? There is quite a bit of distance between the two points of significant geological activity. If you take out the circular reasoning and fundamentally flawed presuppositions in radiometric dating, the relative timeframe can be useful. Bad news for old Earth advocates, though: the evidence actually supports creation science Flood geology models.
In its October 2nd, 2015 issue, Science published a report announcing a more detailed study of the many lava flows in the Deccan Traps located in Western India. The Deccan Traps are a massive igneous province—think of it as a lava flood plain—comparable in size to the US states of Oregon and Washington combined and composed of numerous lava flow layers having a total depth of over 6,500 feet (2,000 meters). The strategy was to examine the mineral composition of the lava flows from older samples on the bottom, to younger samples near the top of this thick sequence of lava flows. According to the report, the lava flows show differences in composition, and the timing of their eruption, according to the radiometric dating methods used, coincide remarkably well with the 66-million-year-old conventional date of the Chicxulub impact (within 50,000 years). The volcanic fissures in the area are interpreted to have been active before the impact, but with much smaller eruptive events. Lava flow rates appear to have markedly increased at roughly the same time as the asteroid impact.
It would be right neighborly of you to read the entire article. To do this, click on "Asteroids Hit First, Volcanoes Deliver Knockout Punch to Dinosaurs?" You may also like "Dinosaur Extinction and Chicxulub Revisited".

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

Friday, April 12, 2019

False Claims Supporting Evolution are Refuted

We have seen numerous times that the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass have a nasty habit of dealing from the bottom of the deck by conflating evolution with natural selection, variation, and speciation. This time they took the rag off the bush by being dishonest about Darwinian evolution.

C. reinhardtii algae were falsely reported to be seen evolving. Nope. In fact, we see support for a creation science model!
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii algae image credit:
Dartmouth Electron Microscope Facility, Dartmouth College via Wikimedia Commons
Secularists cannot explain the origin of life, nor can they explain how it allegedly developed. They certainly cannot explain how or why single-celled life commenced to becoming muti-celled. There's an alga known as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a single-celled thing that buzzes around with a pair of flagella. Now we get to the part that got researchers so excited they were dishonest.

Using circular reasoning, the report claims that we "know" evolution happened from single-to multi-celled organisms. Good job, Hoss, you assumed evolution to prove evolution.

Even algae want to avoid being food for something else. A group of them will effectively circle the wagons and clump together. Dishonest Darwinists claim that they have witnessed evolution in action. Stop shooting holes in the saloon ceiling in your celebrations, because that's just not so. Good thing we have biblical creationists around to keep those owlhoots honest.

They saw activities in a controlled environment that they induced that are still not evolution. Worse for them, they inadvertently supported the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model by the Institute for Creation Research. C. reinhardtii responded in a way that demonstrates the work of the Master Engineer. Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Recent headlines claim, “Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism.” In reality, the experiment showed that nothing more than a crude clumping together of individual cells had occurred. A new multicellular organism was not created, nor was any real evolution observed.

One of the major hurdles in the grand story of molecules to man evolution is how life first transitioned from unicellular to multicellular organisms. Plants and animals are complex systems of interlocking cells that form tissues, structures and whole bodies. How could creatures like bacteria or algae make the grand evolutionary hurdle into complex multicellular creatures? There is no evidence of this ever occurring in the fossil record and we don’t see this sort of thing happening now.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Algae Multicellular Evolution Study Debunked".

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

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Basilisk Lizard Sprints on Water

There is a lizard down in Central and South America called the basilisk. I wonder what prompted Carl Linnaeus to name it after a creature that could kill you with a its gaze or breath. Maybe it looks like the art from mythology. Anyway, this critter has baffled scientists for a mighty long time because of the way it runs across the water. Funny to watch, but it works.

The basilisk lizard baffles evolutionists by the way it runs across water. Also, it is clearly the product of the Master Engineer.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / The Rambling Man (CC by-SA 3.0)
It doesn't just take a leisurely stroll, because that won't work. It has to be moving right quick. Even then, its feet sink in a little bit.

When it gets all tuckered out and can no longer run, the basilisk will be content to swim. Proponents of molecules-to-machinist evolution have trouble explaining ability to run on water, but the specified complexity in the details involved clearly indicate the work of the Master Engineer. By the way, God's design is up for plagiarism again: scientists are studying this creature so they can design machines that run across the water.
A lizard that walks on water? The Basiliscus genus of lizard is often irreverently called the ‘Jesus lizard’, an obvious allusion to the miraculous act when the Lord Jesus Christ walked on water. But a far more accurate description is that the basilisk (as it is commonly known) runs on water.

Basilisk lizards consist of four species ranging from areas of southern Mexico to the northern areas of South America, as well as Florida in the United States. They are excellent swimmers and climbers, but when a predator threatens, escape comes by sprinting across the water’s surface.
To read the rest of this short article, take a stroll over to "The ‘water-walking’ lizard". For some additional material, see "Basilisk Jesus Lizard Frustrates Evolutionists".

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

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Design of the Tyrant Lizard King

T. rex is probably the most famous dinosaur. It shows design and there is not evolutionary history for it.

Tyrannosaurus rex is arguably the best-known of all the dinosaurs, and has been prominent in movies, television shows, documentaries, and so forth. We only have forensic information from fossils. However, while there is a great deal of speculation about this critter, fossils do tell scientists a great deal.

It had a very large head. Although T. rex did not have big arms and was subject to ridicule from other dinosaurs that could run fast or birds on the wing, it had a large tail for counterbalance so it didn't faceplant when lunging for it's prey. If you were to stare one down face to face, what do you think would get your attention?

It had many large, pointy teeth. These were different from its relatives but could take a huge chunk of lunch. Was it actually a predator? Fossil evidence suggests so and its design was conducive to predation. Rexie may have been a scavenger, especially the older, larger ones. There is no explanation for dinosaur evolution. Instead, we see that T. rex was designed by the Master Engineer. It apparently did well until the global Genesis Flood took most of them away, and dinosaurs that disembarked from Noah's Ark eventually became extinct.
Since T. rex is found only in Flood deposits, our knowledge of this great animal is limited to his fossilized remains from Noah’s time, nearly 1,700 years after Adam’s Fall. We’re all fascinated to learn more, and that’s where the fun of forensic science comes into play. Like crime investigators, paleontologists try to reconstruct organisms and their environments by the partial evidence left at the “crime scene.” Though lots of “ifs” remain, we can learn many amazing things from fossils.

One thing is clear: T. rex was big, and he was well designed for his dominant role after the Fall. But being big didn’t mean that God just scaled up the design of other average-size, meat-eating dinosaurs, called theropods. To understand how T. rex was specially designed, we need to compare him to the “normal” proportions of other theropods.
To read the entire article, click on "T. rex—Fashioned To Be Fearless".

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