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, June 29, 2019

The Alleged First Molecule Detected in Space

The hands at the Darwin Ranch were whooping it up and passing around a bottle of rye to celebrate the discovery of the first molecule. Well, they did not discover the first molecule per se, but they found helium hydride. Cosmologists think that was the first molecule that formed after the Big Bang, but they have no actual scientific evidence. Looks good on paper, though.

Cosmologists think that the first molecule formed in the universe after the Big Bang is helium hydride. Astronomers found some in space, but the discovery is not really that impressive.
Credit: Hubble, NASA, ESA; Processing & License: Judy Schmidt
Space is full of atoms and molecules, but the ones that are the least likely to react are in the areas between stars. Planetary nebula NGC 7027 was the area being studied, and yee ha boy howdy, they found themselves the molecule that doesn't occur naturally on Earth! This thing is essential for the Big Bang, but all naturalists have are theories and guesswork. In reality, the discovery is not all that impressive happening because the helium hydride will probably react with other molecules quite soon. Try as they might, secularists cannot overturn the truth of recent creation.
From time to time there are news stories of the latest findings in astronomy that are a bit sensationalized and hence are misrepresented. . . . A case in point is the recent announcement of the discovery of helium hydride in space, the first molecule purported to have formed in the universe. Press accounts suggested that astronomers had discovered the molecules that first formed only a hundred thousand years after the big bang and have survived the 13.8 billion years since. However, the situation is a bit murkier than that.
To read the whole article, click on "Helium Hydride: The First Molecule?"



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

Friday, June 28, 2019

The Truth about Vaccinations and Health

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In 2019, there have been severe outbreaks of measles in the United States prompting official states of emergency in parts of New York and the State of Washington. Border guards are becoming infected by diseases carried by illegal aliens. There are many diseases that were considered under control or even eradicated, but there they are again. Part of the problem is the anti-vaccine movement.


The anti-vaccination movement is not only spreading, but has caused harm to other people. Many people who mean well and think rationally in other ways are drawn into this faulty idea.
Credit: Freeimages / Brian Hoskins
Although vaccines have kept people healthy and saved millions of lives, some people passionately resist using them. (Although atheists will ridicule some religious people and cultists who suffered the loss of a child because of this stance, it is not just a "theist" problem, as some atheists are also anti-vaxxers.) For some reason, the anti-vaxxer movement is growing despite science and common sense. Many proponents of this act like they are more intelligent and have higher moral standards than the rest of us, which makes no sense at all.

People get notions, and commence to finding dubious sources that support their views. There's a passel of anti-vaccination material on special sites and YouTube that may sound good, but are deceptive. Some of these people act like they have the moral high ground because they reject vaccinations, even though they are putting themselves, their children, and many other people at risk. There is a great deal of unbiblical pride in this movement, and some of its fans act like martyrs when their claims are refuted. There are also folks who believe that vaccinations are part of a strange government conspiracy. Oh, boy.

Unfortunately, some creationists have saddled up to ride with the anti-vaxxer brand. Some of them are very skilled at dismantling evolutionary, poor theological, and old earth arguments, but they don't seem to use those analytic skills in approaching anti-vaccination material. There was a recent article on a creationist site that bothered me, and I consulted Dr. Jonathan Sarfati who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and wrote the article featured below. He noted that the author was rather unskilled, and used an inaccurate graph by Children of God for Life. But if the author has an anti-vaccination view and the graph looks all sciencey and stuff, may as well use it, right? Not hardly! EDIT: I was informed that I missed the part where that author is anti-vaccination.

On a side note, some anti-creationists will claim that antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution, so that's why you have to get a flu shot every year. That's not evolution, pilgrim. Viruses are tricky things and can change quickly, but they remain viruses; no new genetic information is added. In addition, the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation has been refuted, which has been a great benefit to medical science and the development of vaccines. Despite the numerous times that evolutionary thinking has hindered science, secularists are shooting themselves in the foot when they try to use evolutionary concepts for medical purposes. Darwin cannot help doctors, old son.

Although primarily intended for Christians, the main article linked below will be useful to anyone (even anti-creationists, if they can get past their genetic fallacy predispositions), and I hope you will keep the shortcut for reference. It deals with several misconceptions, answers questions, and refutes several falsehoods about vaccines.

Unfortunately, this excellent work is rather long, so I have a couple of suggestions. First, use an add-on or built in "reader view" (or similar name) so you're not staring at a monitor for all that time if you're not so inclined. I use free add-ons to send articles to my ebook reader (like this one, and another one that lets you save in different formats), then articles like this are available at your convenience. You can also convert it to a PDF for more convenient reading. Just suggesting.
As a biblical, scientific organization, we often get asked by inquirers about our position on a range of related issues. One such issue is vaccinations. We realize that for some this is a highly charged issue that can engender strong emotions. Unfortunately, there is much confusion and even emotion, even in Christian circles, as a result of misinformation that is proliferated on the Internet. Often, with Christians, much of the thinking is driven by well-meaning, but misapplied biblical statements and, in some cases, even conspiratorial (anti-government or anti-establishment) constructs—an area outside of CMI’s purview.
. . .

It is a scientific and historical fact that vaccines have saved millions of lives. Thus, as a part of our duty of care for our staff and supporters, we should support medical treatments with a proven record of high safety and effectiveness.

To read the entire article, click on "CMI, vaccines, and vaccination". A related shorter article that deals a bit more with an issue raised is "Vaccines and abortion?" Finally, something I wrote that focuses on other aspects is "Vaccinations, 'Big Pharma', and Evolution".



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

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Artificial Intelligence and Fake News

A new expression that I have picked up on is fake news. In many cases, it is an accurate description of how some media outlets will omit important details or even lie outright in order to persuade people. Unfortunately, it also is growing in the secular science industry. Now we have to contend with fake news and artificial intelligence.


Fake news is a problem in the secular science industry, and artificial intelligence can make things far worse. The morality and worldview of programmers is very important.
Pixabay / Garik Barseghyan
AI can be used to generate fake news as well as to determine which news is false. This can be both good and bad, depending on who is doing the programming. The results have been a bit unnerving because they are difficult to discern from actual news reports, complete with references. 

Any kind of computer or AI depends on the programming it receives, which reflects the biases and worldviews of the programmers (see "Artificial Intelligence and Evolving Morality" and "Artificial Psychotic Intelligence"). Imagine if some sidewinders promote new pharmaceutical products that are not actually cleared for the market.

Also, biased programmers can arbitrarily decide that anything that supports biblical creation science or even Intelligent Design is fake news and should be herded off the nearest cliff, all based on personal preferences tainting the programming. Meanwhile, they could promote fake deep time and evolution news upon the unsuspecting public — and scientists. Social(ist) media are hunting down and removing things that they determine are fake news, so they would be thrilled to have their work computerized.



Science is supposed to be self-checking, but secular science has a mighty big reproducibility crisis, and secular peer review has serious problems as well. The standards of morality behind these things as well as AI fake news applications are missing integrity and morality. What do you expect when secularists believe that morality comes from evolution and reject our Creator, the true source of morality? This could be a big problem.
Without this essential ingredient, long taken for granted, science could collapse.

Imagine a world where science journals could not be trusted. In this imaginary world, at least half of all journal articles have been generated by artificial intelligence (AI), but are fake. The algorithms have gotten so good in this imaginary world, nobody can tell the difference—not editors, not peer reviewers, not even other AI algorithms. And as another consequence, suppose that reporters are fooled, and write up these fake research findings as fact. Is this dystopian vision possible?

We hear a lot about fake news in politics. Each election season, journalists worry about disinformation campaigns by the Russians using social media to stir up partisan attitudes based on bogus claims. Is science immune from the Big Lie? New Scientist looked into the very real problem that AI can generate fake science.
To continue reading, click on "How Science Could Destroy Itself".

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

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Denisovans in Tibet

It is known that, like Neanderthals, the Denisovans were not exactly content to stay in one place. They also managed to share their DNA with other people groups, and the Tibetan people have a genetic variation that is shared with the mysterious Denisovans and nobody else.


The mysterious Denisovans traveled quite a bit, all the way into Tibet where a fossil and DNA evidence has been found. We can examine the post-Babel timeline and see where they fit.
Credit: Freeimages / Niko Nami
Imagine the Denisovans looking around and saying, "Nice plateau here. Impressive planation surfaces, those are going to be irritating to secular geologists in a few thousand years!" Well, maybe they didn't say exactly that. Moving on.

In addition to DNA, a Denisovan fossil was found in Tibet back in 1980. Tests show that there was no DNA, but tooth dentine was examined to determined to be a close match to that of the former inhabitants of the Denisova cave way over in Siberia. Evolutionists commenced to using fundamentally flawed dating methods and using the scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Let's take a look at the biblical timeline and see how these these post-Babel Ice Age folks fit in.
The first Denisovan fossil outside Siberia has been found. While anthropologists are excited at the find, the location of the fossil in Tibet raises some puzzling questions for the evolutionary view. Secularly dated around 160,000 by flawed radiometric dating methods and with Denisovans often described as archaic hominins or evolutionary cousins to modern man, what are Christians to think of this mysterious people group? From a biblical perspective, this is a post-Babel (and completely human) fossil, which makes much more sense of the data. This fossil may also give us clues into which of the sons and/or grandsons of Noah could have been the father of the Denisovan line.
 To read the entire article, click on "Denisovan Fossil Found in Tibet".



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

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Draining the Dinosaur Swamp

We do not exactly see dinosaurs hitched up to carts for manual labor or getting saddled up for use in a posse comitatus. Practitioners of evolutionary pettifoggery will have us believe that dinosaurs joined the choir invisible millions of years before humans evolved, but biblical creationists have different ideas.

Biblical creationists affirm that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. There are three main reasons that they are probably extinct today.
Assembled at PhotoFunia
Apparently they are bereft of life and taking dirt naps, except in a few possible instances in modern times, in the Bible, and in other instances of ancient history. Biblical creationists reject naturalistic presuppositions and believe that not only was there a global Flood at the time of Noah, but various dinosaur kinds were on the Ark. (Apparently, many dinosaurs were ill-tempered critters and became nuisances, so they were hunted.) The Flood radically changed the world, including the stomping grounds that dinosaurs preferred. Even the Sahara Desert was wet many years ago. Loss of habitat is a primary cause of extinction, you know.
Genesis says that “every beast after its kind…went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life.” Dinosaurs were beasts, and their fossil nostrils show they had the breath of life. So, if a breeding pair of every dinosaur kind entered the Ark, why don’t we see dinosaurs alive today?

Many other animal kinds also died out after the Flood. Mammal-like reptiles called synapsids left Flood fossils and then later went extinct. Other animals that vanished include the “bear dogs,” rat-size morganucodonts, and Leptictidium, which walked like a tiny, hairy tyrannosaur. We can’t know specifics about their extinction without going back in time, but three key clues sketch an answer.
 To read the rest, click on "What Happened to Dinosaurs after the Flood?"

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

Monday, June 24, 2019

River Piracy on the Tibetan Plateau

If you mention Tibet, there are several things that can come to mind. These include Mt. Everest, the Chinese communist invasion of Tibet in 1949-51, the "top of the world", Mahayana Buddhism, and other things. Oh, yes. We must remember the geology of the Tibetan Plateau — and river piracy.


Secular geologists saw river piracy happen once, but observations of the Tibetan Plateau refute the latest model and support creation science Flood geology.
Credit: Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA / GSFC
No, this river piracy is not about owlhoots on the waterways getting the drop on folks out for some recreation. We are going to discuss planation surfaces a bit more. You might recollect that these are flat surfaces (most dramatically at higher elevations) that uniformitarian geologists cannot adequately explain. River piracy is not performed by humans, but by rivers themselves (also called river capture). Like planation itself, river capture is almost never observed today. Piracy is a word that describes what secularists do with real science, but we'll set that aside for today.

A new model of river capture was proposed, but it has numerous flaws. One simple thing that occurs to me is how evolutionists and secular geologists attempt to find one or two instances of something happening, then extrapolate it as evidence that this thing happened throughout history — but without evidence. This river capture model is too simple, and what is observed on the Tibetan Plateau clearly illustrates numerous problems with it. However, creation science Genesis Flood models effectively explain what is observed.
The idea of river piracy is that the tributary of a river erodes through a headwater barrier and captures the water from another river or stream. As a result, the water increases in the pirating stream and decreases at the downstream end of the captured river. By this process, river piracy or capture is considered one of the main uniformitarian explanations for how a water gap (a deep pass through a mountain, mountain range, plateau, or any other transverse barrier) can be formed.

However, despite the presence of thousands of water gaps across the earth’s surface there is no concrete evidence that this is an adequate explanation. More surprising, though, is the recent argument that water gaps, apparently derived from river piracy, are also responsible for explaining regional scale planation surfaces. The concept that low-relief landscapes can be formed by river piracy and river network disruptions such as water gaps, put forward in a recent paper, is strongly challenged here.
To read the rest, weigh anchor and sail the net for "Planation surfaces formed by river piracy?"




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

Saturday, June 22, 2019

The Real Pseudoscience

Atheists and other anti-creationists are known for using labels in their attacks on biblical creationists, but those are ad hominems and used for building straw man arguments. They call us "science deniers", which is based on equating evolution with all science. (One rancorous tinhorn says certain creationists "hate science" despite being shown that his claim is completely false.) Many also like to say that biblical creationists use pseudoscience. Actually, the opposite is true!


Anti-creationists have claimed that we use pseudoscience. Upon examination, we see that evolution is the real pseudoscience here.
Original image: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler
To fully appreciate this question, we need to lasso ourselves some important definitions. Science is a system of knowledge using a scientific method. However, there is other knowledge to be had that is not scientific. Pseudoscience is a false claim that knowledge is gained by scientific principles. Astrology uses scientific approaches and appears scientific, but that is not the case.

Also, these owlhoots rely on appeals to emotion, not logic. You are unlikely to find a cogent argument based on an accurate representation of what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, nor about what the Bible really says. While it is acceptable to refer to public schools using the suppression of facts refuting evolution and presenting false claims as "education", when Christian parents want their children to know the missing facts, we are "indoctrinating." See how that works? It is an appeal to emotion based on misrepresentation. To be blunt, they are lying to provoke negative emotions for their side.

Both evolutionists and creationists use knowledge, and interpret it based on their presuppositions. However, there are fundamental differences between the claims that both camps make. Creationist maintain that Genesis is historical, and factual. Evolution cannot be supported by science, but the biblical basis makes science itself possible. Darwin's disciples use circular reasoning, assuming evolution to prove evolution, and call it scientific.
Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience.  Is such a claim defensible?  Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible?
That's all the excerpt I'm going to provide. I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article, "Science vs. Pseudoscience". The fan-made music video below was done by ApologetiX. Note how well the video of Rush matches the music.




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

Friday, June 21, 2019

Our Cooling and Shrinking Moon

You would think that if the solar system was several zillion Darwin years old, things would have settled down. Instead, we have planets and moons showing signs of youth. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon and left behind some equipment (as did other missions). Seismomaeters on the moon detected quakes.

Apollo 11. Purveyors of cosmic evolution would have us believe that the earth and solar system are very old. Data from the moon is added to other information indicating a young solar system.
Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin with the seismic experiment
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular scientists were shaken by the data and unable to explain it. The moon should not have any tectonic activity, but yee yaw boy howdy, it's there! This also indicates that  the moon is cooling, which it "should be" long cold according to secular views. Yet more evidence that Earth and the rest of the solar system were created recently.
Scientists have concluded that our moon is probably still in the process of slightly shrinking as it cools.
Photographs from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) showed embankments called scarps on the moon’s surface. These scarps are caused by a slight contraction of the moon’s crust as it cools. The moon’s cooling creates thrust faults which push up small sections of the surface, forming scarps. 
Because these scarps sometimes distort small craters when they form, scientists inferred that the scarps formed in the relatively recent past. This is because larger meteorite impacts eventually deface or destroy smaller craters. Since these smaller craters had not yet been defaced by more recent large impacts, we know these small craters are quite young. And since the scarps distorted these young craters as the scarps formed, the scarps have to be even younger than the small craters.
To read the rest, blast off for "Moon Is Unexpectedly Still Cooling and Shrinking".



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

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Scratch Another Fake Evolution News Report

Darwin's disciples often try to tell us that a little bit of evolution builds up to minerals-to-mocker evolution, but such a claim ignores facts of biology. It also involves equivocation on the word evolution when variations, speciation, and natural selection are observed. Such is the case in research on pigeons.


Once again, Darwin's disciples attempt to claim evidence for evolution. What they found was natural selection, but no evolution.
Pigeon on a Peach Branch by Emperor Huizong, 1108
Specifically, the research is on the pigeons: lice. That's one reason you see birds preening. Evolutionists are claiming that their research shows microevolution and that this leads to full-blown evolution. (Biblical creationists should avoid the word microevolution because of confusion and deception.) What did they find? Natural selection, a concept that creationists affirm. No genetic information was added, and the lice remained lice. They were created to adapt, not change into something else, old son.



Mayhaps those sidewinders wanted to pull another peppered moth icon, which has been soundly refuted. At least there is no evidence of outright fraud in the pigeon lice research, but this child lacks belief that the scientists were not trying to deal from the bottom of the deck.
As part of the evolutionary dogma, evolutionists are constantly seeking to bridge the gap between simple adaptation and variation and change between types of organisms. This has never been observed, despite numerous evolutionary claims to the contrary.1 However, they persist in attempting to prove their ideology, leading to studies like one published recently by a group of professors from several universities across the United States. This article will demonstrate that the study of lice on pigeon does nothing to confirm molecules-to-man evolution as one of its authors publicly claimed. Instead, while illustrating natural selection, it provides evidence that lice remain lice.
I know you're itiching to read the entire article. Just click on "'Lousy' Pigeon Professors". 

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

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

The Magic of Evolution

Since evolutionism is pantheistic in nature, we should not be surprised then its adherents appeal to animism regarding the origin of life or the usual "forces" and "evolutionary pressures" in their imagined explanations. If you ponder it a spell, evolution seems like magic more than science.


Evolution seems less like science and appears more like magic, invoking forces and misusing natural selection.
Background image credit: Pixabay / Kai Kalhh
Papa Darwin bushwhacked creationist Edward Blyth and stole his concept of natural selection, then then turned it upside down. Instead of culling the unfit and preserving the best members of a species, Darwin imagined it as a creative force. It was largely abandoned, but neo-Darwinism conjures up new life forms through mutations and natural selection. Like magic.


via GIPHY

Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ will use evolution to "explain" anything, even when phenomena are contradictory. If something explains everything, it really explains nothing, old son. The late Philip Skell was an evolutionist, and he had problems with the way Darwin is invoked at every turn:
...Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
I still think that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are ingesting too many peyote buttons, as they think they see evolution via natural selection at every turn. How about the "magic" of reality and admitting that there is no molecules-to-magician evolution and that life was designed by our Creator? Cowboy up!
If it exists, it evolved. How? By natural selection. How does that work? It makes things evolve. That’s all you need to know.
Darwin’s “Stuff Happens Law” (natural selection) persists in the media. Why? It has to; Darwinists and their willing accomplices in the media and academia have outlawed every other explanation, including logic.*
*If logic evolved, it isn’t logical.
To read the rest and learn what we're talking about, click on "Natural Selection: Darwin’s All-Purpose Magic Wand".




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

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Canyons, Valleys, and the Genesis Flood

Uniformitarian geologists offer assumptions based on deep time presuppositions regarding many aspects of geomorphology (an expensive word meaning the study of features on the earth's surface). They cannot offer actual evidence. However, there is a rational explanation for what is observed.


Secular geologists have ideas about how canyons and valleys form, but they do not fit the evidence. Instead, observed evidence supports the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Unsplash / Jonathan Auh
During debates about the formation of canyons and valleys back in the 1800s, people wondered which came first, the valley or the water that was often found in it. Catastrophists believe that they are the result of a huge amount of water in a short time, while uniformitarians insisted that they were carved out over millions of years. Obviously, Flood geology was shouted down. After all, Darwin needs lots of time, so secularists want to make sure he has it. However, the evidence fits the global Genesis Flood models instead of secular ideas.
Continental valleys and canyons come in all sizes and shapes. Some are V-shaped valleys, and others U-shaped canyons. Some are shallow and others have tall vertical walls, like the Grand Canyon. We rarely observe valley and canyon formation taking place today and then only in association with a flooding event. Therefore, uniformitarian theories about valley and canyon formation are not built on observational science but instead upon their assumptions about the past.
To read the rest of the article, click on "How valleys and canyons formed during Noah’s Flood".




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

Monday, June 17, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Design Features

Some critters can put up with a great deal of bad conditions and still survive. Darwin wanted us to believe that they had to evolve in response to their environments, but that is the opposite of the truth — and the opposite of what can be observed. We can make some comparisons with construction.


Using engineering principles as a model, we can see that our Creator has designed living things to adapt to conditions they face. This is the opposite of what Darwin believed.
Earthquake damage in Chile image credit: USGS / Walter Mooney
Usage does no imply endorsement of site contents
We see damage from natural disasters like earthquakes and storms (and even man-made disasters) where some buildings have fallen but others are still standing. I'll allow that there are many factors involved such as where the storm or quake struck, but we can see that the buildings were designed in anticipation of potential damage to remain standing. Evolution cannot happen if an organism cannot survive, obviously. Instead, the Master Engineer set up creatures to adapt.
Engineers are rarely able to redesign external exposures. Conditions like wind, waves, and geology aren’t economically feasible to control. It is the traits and features designed into entities that are controllable. These can be engineered to solve a range of uncontrollable and uncertain challenges. These features, not the conditions, determine both whether a design is successful and if that engineered solution becomes dominant in a trade.
The engineers assess if they have correctly gauged the external challenges the designs were purposefully intended to solve. When failures happen, they focus more on an entity’s traits than its exposures. They search for possible poorly or under-designed traits and correct them—not the challenges.
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure". You may also want to see more about a creature that was discussed early in the previously linked article at "Tardigrades too tough for evolution".

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

Saturday, June 15, 2019

Atheism, Grief, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

While I was studying a podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler on grief without God, a trolling raid millennial atheists began at The Question Evolution Project. They did not have anything of value to say, preferring instead to build up their own egos and rebellion against our Creator with ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and basic affirmations that we are stupid.

This is nothing new, and you will often find professing atheists who claim that they are happy and fulfilled since they ditched God. Some of the "former Christians" betray that falsehood because their comments show that they never were in the faith. I had a cyberstalker who claimed to be a Christian, but he originally belonged to a religion that is distinctly unchristian. Although claiming to be happy and fulfilled, he was angry, hateful, and bitter. How do "happy" atheists deal with tragedy?


When an atheist is faced with severe personal grief, he or she has nowhere to turn. Only biblical Christianity, beginning from the first verse in the Bible, provides a consistent worldview.
Credit: Freeimages / Glenda Otero
In Dr. Mohler's podcast, he discussed a woman who had rejected the Christian faith as she called it (but she was a Jehovah's Witness, which is opposed to biblical Christianity). She lost her child, and had no idea where love came from or how we got here in the first place. There is no message of hope in atheism's effete worldview. One of the cornerstones of atheism is evolution, which is their mythology of origins. Evolution is their basis for the origin of everything, including religion. This, too, is folly because there is no message of hope in evolution.

According to materialism, we are just bundles of chemicals following our impulses. We are supposed to pass along our genes. Why? Everything dies in the end. There is no hope or ultimate justice, after all. A child dies? Make another. That is the logical conclusion of a godless worldview, but biblical Christians know that we are all created in the image of God, and all life is special.

Atheism is incoherent and lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience, which can only be found and consistently applied in biblical Christianity. This includes the authority of the Word of God beginning at the first verse. All else is futility and foolishness. Further, science is impossible without God, and modern science could not have arisen without biblical creation foundations. There are also professing theists who deny the authority of the Word of God, and they are idolators — de facto atheists. Their outlook is also bleak, but they will face Judgment and give an account of how they deceived people and helped shipwreck their faith.

I hope you will listen to the podcast or read the transcript of The Briefing for June 3, 2019. The first segment is the one we are considering: "Grief Without Faith: What the Total Absence of Belief in God Looks Like in the Aftermath of Crushing Grief".



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

Friday, June 14, 2019

The Clam Eyes Have It

Evolution is not supported by the evidence. Clam eyes have it, motion carried. Well, it seemed funny when I wrote it. Or were you unaware that those things on the beach and in the water that have hard shells have eyes? Supposedly simple organisms have simple eyes according to Darwinian mythology. Nope.


Darwin and his later followers considered the eyes of clams and the like to be simple. In reality, they are complex, defying evolution, and affirming special creation.
Credit: RGBStock / K Rayker
The Master Engineer has surprised scientists with the specified complexity of eyes, even with clams, scallops, and such. Their eyes are very different from ours. Although their pupils expand and contract like ours, the light hits them in a different way. The retina is between the lens of the retina. Evolutionists all the way back to the Bearded Buddha thought that their eyes were simple, but they actually support special creation and defy evolution.
Aside for the problems noted above falsifying Darwin’s rationalization, we now know that so-called simple eyes are not at all simple, but in some ways are more complex than the so-called highest, most evolved, eye type. One review of a new article on scallop eyes concluded their eyes “function similar to telescopes, are even more complex than scientists previously knew.” Scallop is the common name of any one of numerous species of saltwater clams or marine bivalve mollusks, also commonly called clams. The scientist added scallops “have up to 200 tiny eyes along the edge of the mantle lining their shells, although scientists still don’t know exactly how they all work together to help the mollusks.” Another researcher added “For over half a century, the multitudinous mirror eyes of the lowly scallop have continuously amazed us with their visual eccentricities. The latest surprise is the mirror itself, which turns out to be an extraordinary optical wonder.”
To read the entire article, click on "Complex Eyes of ‘Simple’ Clams Confound Darwin". Also, you may want to read a startling comparison at "Scallops and Telescopes".



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

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Global Warming and Bird Habitats?

It is indeed unfortunate that logical thinking skills are not taught very much nowadays, as a great deal of bad information and even deceptions could be challenged by the public. Fallacies abound in politics, evolutionary science, atheism — and a passel of deception in global climate change propaganda.


Global warming alarmists are using bad data to claim that bird habitats are threatened. Their views are rooted in atheistic old earth evolutionary ideas.
Credit: US National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The global warming hysteria is a political idea that is used to manipulate people through fear and intimidation, but much of the data is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the concept is rooted in atheistic old Earth evolutionary ideas, denying that God is the Creator and he is still God. 
Ask them if we only have twelve (or ten) years to live and nothing can be done about it, why should we pay money to leftists? 

Two examples of how activists used flawed information and even contradicted themselves. They got away with getting what they wanted, and you can see an example of what happens when people "think" with their emotions. The bad guys in these instances are those in the yucky wicked evil nasty petroleum industry.
If you love birds, should you fight petroleum production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How you answer depends on whether you believe man-made global warming is threatening Earth’s climate. That crisis scenario is actually based on evolutionary old-earth assumptions,1 and constant media stories feed the fear.
To read the rest about this hot topic, click on "Does Global Warming Threaten Bird Habitats?"

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

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Evolution Experiment on Mimicry is in Bad Taste

Mimicry is often very useful, such as when someone pretends to be like John Wayne when he is really the unimpressive town character. This is by calculated planning, however. In nature, mimicry happens for the benefit of some critters. Darwin's acolytes cannot explain this because they would need to invoke teleology (purpose). Evolution is supposed to be without plan or design.


Evolutionists cannot explain mimicry. An experiment was performed on the nasty-tasting viceroy butterfly to prove evolution, but it failed miserably.
Viceroy butterfly (with incorrect identification) image credit: Flickr / libbycat89 (CC by 2.0)
The viceroy butterfly can puzzle evolutionists until their puzzlers are sore. Sometimes their predators find them mighty tasty, but when they hang around with monarchs, they are more likely to be left alone. They look like the nasty-flavored monarch, you see. However, when away from monarchs, they also taste dreadful. And give off an odor that puts off predators.

Researchers commenced to doing the usual circular reasoning by assuming evolution to prove evolution. They had a kind of taste test, but it only had limited value because it was fraught with feckless procedures. The conclusions were big and brave but did not have evidence. Our Creator built in the possibilities for variations within kinds and species, Darwin was not present at Creation nor found in the experiment.
The viceroy is a colorful butterfly native to the United States that is known to mimic other species. However, the viceroy is not just a tasty option that looks like the unpalatable models it mimics. It has its own chemical defenses. These traits become especially prominent when the other model species are not present. A recent study attempted to demonstrate mimicry and how it evolved in the viceroy butterfly. However, limited experimental design and faulty assumptions undercut the study.
To read the article, flutter on over to "Bitter Butterfly". 



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

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Grow Grow Godzilla!

Mayhaps I should set up a game show where scientists and other Darwinoids trot out their speculations, then everyone in the audience can shout, "That. Is. Not. Evolution!" Sure, and we could start with the peppered moth fiasco. Then we could move on to the Elvis of the monsters, Godzilla!

An amazingly bad idea is to call Godzilla a dinosaur and then mix Darwinian evolution with cinematography. That's neither evolution nor science.
Ceratosaurus image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Warpaintcobra
"No, that's king of the monsters, Cowboy Bob! Elvis was the king of rock and roll."

Oh, right. I got confused in my enthusiasm and his monster hits. Thank you, thank you very much.

There is speculation that Godzilla was made to be a kind of Ceratosaurus, but that is a mite difficult to justify this this 1954 daikaiju was named "Gojira", merging Japanese words for gorilla and whale. ("Godzilla" is an English transliteration of Gojira that was given by Tohu studios.) It is proper to examine cinematography, culture, and history regarding Godzilla and call it evolution. Unfortunately, some owlhoots are mixing in molecules-to-monster evolution.


The writers took an evolutionary worldview and looked at how the critter grew and changed over the years. This child was silly enough to think it was because of movie technology and audience demands, not the alleged evolution of a maybe Ceratosaurus. Secularists sure are grasping at straws to find excuses to deny the Creator and indoctrinate their mythology in all areas of life. This is amazingly stupid. People get paid for doing this stuff, you know. Let's hope they examine the Darwinian evolution of Gamera the flying turtle!
When evolution is your proverbial hammer, you can go crazy pounding everything that looks like a nail.
No, Godzilla Is Not Evolution; It is Semi-Intelligent Design
A movie monster evolves, fed by fear (Science Magazine). “In this essay, we suggest that Godzilla—which has grown significantly since its debut— is evolving in response to a spike in humanity’s collective anxiety,” say Nathaniel J. Dominy and Ryan Calsbeek in advance of Godzilla’s latest reincarnation in a monster movie. If you think Dominy and Calsbeek are just speaking metaphorically, look at what they say in a press release from Dartmouth University:, where they use human anxiety as the selective pressure on the monster’s evolution:
That's not evolution. That's not even science. Try not to get neck strain by incredulous reactions, but you can read the rest of this plus some bonus Darwin absurdities by clicking on "Godzilla Evolves, and Other Darwin Silliness". With this in mind, I suggest you see "Unusual Fossils Call for Unusual Explanations".

I had to post this, and really like Don "Buck Dharma" Roeser's guitar solo:



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

Monday, June 10, 2019

Hybridization and the Tree of Life

As any well-indoctrinated schoolchild can tell you Charles Darwin envisioned a tree of life where life evolved from the simple to the complex, with many branches. Hybridization is problematic for evolutionists, and the branches would wind up fusing back together.


Hybridization is a problem for evolution, but is fully compatible with biblical creation science.
Otero Tupac working with orchids
Credit: CSIRO / Carl Davies (CC by 3.0) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Informed creationists do not believe in the "fixity of species". Not only do we accept hybridization and speciation, but they also support biblical creation science. The Master Engineer designed organisms to adapt, and sometimes hybridization is a way they can survive. 

Carl Linnaeus established modern taxonomy and saw that new species could arise through hybridization. William Herbert also saw that the created kinds referred to in Genesis can diversify. Note that the biblical kinds are considered to be above the species level, more closely aligned with the family classification. The biblical worldview explains what is found in biology, and arguments about what constitutes a species is left to the secularists.
In 2016 Science featured an article with the provocative title “Shaking up the Tree of Life”, stating: “Species were once thought to keep to themselves. Now hybrids are turning up everywhere, challenging evolutionary theory.” Despite its sensationalized tone, this article brings up a number of valuable points. To understand their significance, we first need to look at some history behind our understanding of species and observations regarding hybridization.
To read the rest, click on "Hybridization shaking up the evolutionary Tree of Life—what does it mean for creationists?"




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

Saturday, June 8, 2019

The Confusing Clownfish

There was a popular animated movie involving a clownfish a spell back, but movies are not a good source of accurate information about nature. Even so, clownfish are kind of cute. We see the typical image of orange and white, but they are found in a variety of colors. The most baffling thing about them is their companionship with sea anemones.

Clownfish are problematic to evolutionists in a number of ways. Not only the way they have a mutually beneficial relationship with anemones, but numerous traits defy Darwinism.
Credit: Unsplash / Sebastian Pena Lambarri
How can the clownfish get so cozy in the tentacles of the sea anemones? Those things sting their prey, after all, and are related to jellyfish. You might be unpleasantly stung your ownself. Scientists think that the slime coat (mucus) on this fish makes it chemically invisible to the anemone, but there may be other factors involved as well. (Fish need their slime coats, but this dude's is special, I reckon.) They make their homes around anemones. Yes, you can keep both in home aquariums — if you know what you're doing.

To preserve the species, clownfish have the organs of both males and females. The womenfolk are in charge, so he can become she and preserve the species. No gender dysphoria, they just do what the Master Engineer equipped them to do.

There are many fascinating facts about clownfish that show the providential design of our Creator. Also, purveyors of fish-to-fool evolution cannot explain the symbiotic relationship with anemones, nor can the come up with anything plausible about all those other design features. Best they can do is state, "It evolved" and expect you to accept the authority of scientists.
The defining characteristic of the clownfish is the ability to safely nestle into the tentacles of the anemone. Anemones are equipped with stinging structures called nematocysts. Anemones use these nematocysts to capture prey. It has been postulated that anemones use both mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors to capture prey and that they are capable of deciding when to fire the nematocysts, based on feedback from the chemoreceptors. Yet clownfish are not stung, despite freely swimming in and out of the deadly tentacles. Numerous reasons have been proposed for this immunity.
Don't pay the big words no nevermind, the article is still very interesting. To read the entire thing, click on "Designing Nemo".



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

Friday, June 7, 2019

Amino Acids in Amber?

In their efforts to convince people about universal common ancestor evolution, its proponents continue to use circular reasoning and incomplete research. As see in other posts, amber is a mighty fine for preserving things. Amino acids have been discovered in it.

Amber preserves things exceptionally well, and amino acids were discovered in it. Scientists are using bad logic and inefficient research to force millions of years into it.
Credit: Morguefile / GaborfromHungary
Although amber preserves things exceptionally well, it is not perfect. Especially over millions of Darwin years. Proteins can deteriorate even there. Cosmic rays, temperature variations and other aspects of nature don't help matters.



Using the same bad logic that was applied to dinosaur proteins, a test involving proteins and amber was run and then extrapolated over a huge amount of time. Try as they might to get away from the truth, reason and evidence support recent creation.
If this doesn’t take the cake for soft tissue preservation: intact amino acids in amber said to be 100 million years old!

Even this one evoked a ‘wow’ response from Jon Tennant at the PLoS Paleontology Community blog. On April 23, McCoy et al in Nature Scientific Reports announced “Ancient amino acids from fossil feathers in amber.” Tennant writes,
To read the rest (plus another interesting piece), click on "Amino Acids Found in Cretaceous Amber".

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

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Puzzling Planation Pediments and the Genesis Flood

Secular geologists are unable to explain planation surfaces according to their uniformitarian beliefs. These are found at the tops of mountains and such, and pediments are at ground level. They are caused by erosion, are very flat, and gradually slope down from a mountain toward a valley.

Large flat areas near mountains are pediments. These cannot be explained by secular geology, but fit creation science Flood models.
Lake Mead pediment image credit USGS
Pediments are similar to alluvial fans, and caused some confusion for geologists long ago. Planation surfaces, pediments, and other landforms are not being formed today. Some pediments are in areas that are low in erosion, so they have kept their shapes. If we plug the observed data into creation science Genesis Flood models, ye ha boy howdy, we see that they were formed by massive water runoff.
The uniformitarian ‘slow and gradual’ belief has great difficulty accounting for many of the features on the earth’s surface, called landforms. These can, however, be explained by Flood runoff.

Landforms can be divided into two main types, those shaped during the runoff of the sheet flow phase of the Flood, and those shaped during its channelized phase. I have pointed out a number of sheet erosion features in this magazine; this article refers to a channelized-phase landform, the pediment.
To finish reading, go to "Pediments — Rapidly carved by channelized Flood runoff".




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

Labels