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

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Obscuring Coelacanth Evolution

Many creationists point out that a species of armored fish called the coelacanth was presumed extinct for over 65 million Darwin years, then it was found in 1936 doing just fine. It was just the same as it was in the fossil record, and that's the beginning of evolutionist woes. A new bundle of evoporn is attempting to make excuses.


The armored fish called the coelacanth was an icon for evolution, but it was discarded by reality. Now evolutionists are trying to save face with more fact-ignoring speculations.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scientists cannot use the unscientific rescuing device of "stasis" for this or other living fossils because during those alleged millions of years, Darwinian mythology has a passel of things evolving. In addition, the claim that certain fins were evidence of it trying to evolve legs, but that was also disproved by Big C itself.

A paper on the coelacanth tried to save face for Darwin, and it did what his disciples so often invoke. They ignored some very important facts, then used weasel words loaded with the equivalent of "I guess maybe", then passed it off as science. Such evoporn may help them feel better, but it does nothing useful for either science or evolution. It is also yet another desperate attempt to obscure the simple truth of recent creation.
This fish hasn’t evolved for 66 million Darwin Years and is a classic “living fossil.” We get a Darwin fish story anyway.
By all accounts, the coelacanth (Latimeria) is a strange fish among an ocean of strange fish. . . .  The coelacanth (pronouned see-la-canth) is unique for its bony fins, and its cranial development and brain. Its neurocranium is divided into two lobes connected by an intracranial joint. If that detail is only worth a yawn, consider this: the fish is a classic living fossil.
You can sea the rest of the article by clicking on "The Coelacanth: A Case of Scientific Obscurantism".




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

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Pondering the Origin of the Brain-Eating Amoeba

For some reason, I found the subject matter of the so-called brain-eating amoeba (Naegleria fowleri) rather unsettling. The science behind it is interesting. Amoebas are single-celled organisms, and infections from these are usually fatal. Fortunately, they are rare. But where did they come from?


There is an amoeba that can kill you, but fortunately, these are rare. Both creationists and evolutionists are challenged with the origin of this nasty thing.
Processing a sample for detection of N. fowleri
Credit: USGS / Peter Wright, WY-MT Water Science Center
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Resisting the urge to make jokes about criminal cyberstalkers, the "brain-eating" part of the name is wrong. The nasty things enter through the nasal cavity and infect the host's brain resulting in  primary amebic meningoencephalitis. These amoebas are in contaminated warm fresh water or even hot springs. I found it interesting that drinking the water does not cause this particular disease. Take a look at this PDF from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Don't get on the prod about all amoebas, as many of them are beneficial and eat bacteria that we're disinclined to enjoy.

Evolutionists don't have a clue about their origin, so they fall back on their stock non-explanation of "it evolved" and call it science. Biblical creationists have to do both science and theology, because we believe that God created everything very good before the Fall of Man and things commenced to devolving. We reject the Aristotelian concept of the "fixity of species", which would indicate that God created harmful things that were not very good. 

Both creationists and evolutionists seem to agree that this foul N. folweri amoeba is the result of a minor mutation that had devastating effects on those it invades. Like other critters, venom, and other traits that we might find abhorrent, creatures were designed to adapt. This was likely to have been "front-loaded" at creation and adaptations engaged after the Fall.

The content of this article is technical and people with a good knowledge of biology would get the most from it. However, the rest of us can also learn a few things.
There is strong indication that the pathogenic N. fowleri differentiated from the nonpathogenic Naegleria lovaniensis on the American continent, then migrated to Europe and the rest of the world. It appears there has been an overall loss of genetic information. . . . The genetic differences between a nonpathogen and pathogen are small: adhesion to host tissue and coding for stealth/entry from nose to the brain via the olfactory nerve seems to be only differences between the two closely related species. Pathogenic N. fowleri appears to have emerged from a prolonged heat spell and an adaptive mutation in recent times.

Rapid multiplication, diversification, and adaptation to prolonged changes to environments appear to be themes in the Creator’s plan for life after man’s fall into sin. Changes in these amoeboflagellates have occurred, but they are still amoebas.
To read the entire article, click on "The Genesis of the “Brain-Eating” Amoeba".

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

Monday, July 29, 2019

Evolutionists Alarmed by Not-Random Mutations

Atheists and evolutionists claim to rely on fish-to-fool evolution being a process that relies on chance mutations — with some intangible pressures from the environment thrown in. Except when they invoke evolution as a deity that makes choices and something evolved because or for a purpose, which is teleology. Streng verboten!

Some evolutionists are not happy with the established view on mutations. Although they will not admit it, organisms are designed to adapt to their environments.
Credit: Unsplash / Jaron Nix
Some evolutionists believe that the current belief in the way mutations operate is actually harmful to Darwinism. Although they will not leave their religion of evolutionism in a steamy plop on the trail where it belongs, they are seeing that adaptations are not exactly purposeless after all, and that organisms adapt. Of course, they do not want to commit the ultimate heresy and admit that organisms were designed by the Master Engineer to adapt, no siree.
Increasing numbers of evolutionists question the validity of their own theory of evolution everyone is taught in school. A recent challenge came from a paper with the intriguing title, “What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes ‘jeopardize’ the modern synthesis.”

Some may ask: What is the “modern synthesis?” The modern synthesis is the technical name for the classic view of evolution that has held sway for over 80 years. It couples two unproven conjectures into a two-step process that are said to explain how adaptation and evolution happen. The first assumption is that the genetic variability, needed to fuel evolution, is produced through random genetic mutations within a given population. The second step envisions that this genetic variability is then fractioned out in the population through deadly struggles to survive. . . .

Why is the modern synthesis seen as important? The consensus among evolutionists is that the modern synthesis is a thoroughly natural, essentially anti-design way to explain why creatures only look like — but are not actually — designed to fit their environments.
To read the entire article, click on "Purposeful Genetic Changes Challenge Evolutionary Theory".

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

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Vegetarian Crocodiles and Imaginary Evolution

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have had a busy week, what with botching a study on dinosaur soft tissues and all. Now we have some foolish speculations on vegan crocodiles that have no merit. Mayhaps the silly work seemed good on tequila night, but taxpayers who fund this stuff should get refunds.


Researches raised many questions in some silly work by claiming that crocodiles evolved vegetarian lifestyles several times.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach, crocodile from Clker clipart
By examining teeth in crocodile fossils, researchers claim that the critters evolved vegetarian lifestyles multiple times. They really do not know what happened except using the scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Living creatures have complex teeth. 

Of course, this assertion of vegetarian evolution raises many questions. What caused it?

"Yeah, well, I wanted to do something to help save the world from global warming, so I evolved into a vegan. You'll thank me later."

Did the digestion change and then the teeth? What about the lack of evolution of crocodiles and alligators? And so on. No, they were doing what they have always done from the beginning of creation.
Now you’ve heard everything. Evolutionists say several groups of extinct crocodiles “evolved” a vegan lifestyle.

It’s hard to know in these days of widespread scientific fraud and fake news whether to take headlines seriously. A story from the University of Utah doesn’t seem like a practical joke or spoof on The Onion. It proclaims, “Some crocs of the past were plant eaters,” adding the subtitle, “Comparisons of the teeth of extinct crocodyliforms to modern day animals allow new insights into diet.”
To chew on the rest of the article, click on "Vegetarian Crocodiles?"

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

Friday, July 26, 2019

Not Observing Evolution After All

People tend to interpret evidence in light of their worldviews, including scientists. Champions of universal common ancestor evolution are fond of saying that evolution has been observed, but they are a mite confused. They think they see this evolution when there is actually nothing of the kind.


Atheists and evolutionist claim that evolution has been observed. This is based on convenient redefinitions and interpreting evidence through their evolutionary worldviews.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / khumthong
In addition to worldview-based interpretations of data, there is also a serious consideration of definitions. Many words are redefined to fit an agenda. One example is racist, which is used contrary to actual definitions and has humorously been defined as, "Someone who is winning a debate with a leftist".

 Evolution is often equivocated using the ol' bait 'n' switch tactic. Change, natural selection, variation, and speciation are most definitely not evolution. However, since evolutionists can't play with the hand they're dealt, they shuffle and deal from the bottom of the deck: suddenly, the variation that is observed is "evolution". I'll allow that because of worldview interpretations, some folks really believe that change is evolution. That's not the case. Another trick is that materialists believe that everything came from nothing, but "nothing" has also been conveniently redefined.


Passionate but foolish blind faith in evolution, false assertions, ignorance of facts and of science itself
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Although Papa Darwin believed that natural selection is what gave rise to the immense variety of living things, that does not happen despite the way some scientists treat it like magic. Another less popular way of "proving" evolution is polyploidy. It is more common in plants, but can also be found in animals. However, there has been no new genetic information added — actual evolution has not occurred.

Unfortunately, some Christians are bamboozled by evolutionary propaganda and accept such "evidence". They elevate atheistic interpretations of science philosophies above the Word of God.



Let's take a look at what is really going on with "observed" evolution.
Evolutionists like to point to variation within kinds and claim that species are evolving. While they are not evolving in the sense that affirms Darwinism, species do change as part of a process called speciation. Speciation occurs based on natural variation existing in an organism’s genome. Every species of animal has genetic variability built into its DNA. That allows the population to change in response to environmental conditions for survival. Evolutionists will cite this as evidence for their worldview. However, this change does not support evolution for several reasons.
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Feedback: Observed Evolution". There is another of interest, "Refuting Mountains of Fossil Evidence for Evolution".


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

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Evening Primrose Tunes In

We know that there is more to plants than it seems. In recent years, scientists have discovered that trees in the forest use the wood-wide web to communicate. People believe that talking to plants helps them grow, but there is apparently no evidence to support this. However, an evening primrose may be listening.

The evening primrose flower is built to listen. Not to you or me, but to bee-wing vibrations the way the Master Engineer designed them.
Credit: Pixabay / Manseok Kim
I am not saying that you should talk to a plant and ask for advice in dealing with how evolutionists have hijacked science. The only way a plant could really hear you is if a foreign power slipped a listening device into its pot. An extremely interesting study showed that an evening primrose can sense bee-wing vibrations and quickly sweeten the nectar to attract the bees.


Of course, Darwinists just assumed evolution despite no evidence whatsoever. If you study on it, you'll see that proclaiming evolution raises a whole whack of questions. The truth is that there are many interesting mechanisms that the Master Engineer designed; the bees and the flowers were built to cooperate. Really, is that so difficult to understand? It's not a problem for those of us who are rooted in the truth.
Botanists have known for decades that plants aren’t just static entities that simply photosynthesize and reproduce. Indeed, plants read the living world around them with an incredible display of clearly designed sensory features that continues to amaze scientists.

A budding field (so-to-speak) in botany is called plant acoustics. In 2019, it was discovered that plants can actually sense and respond to the frequency of bee-wing vibration (0.2 to 0.5 kilohertz). Put another way, some plants hear with their flowers—at least one species of evening primrose that was investigated.
To read the rest, dig into "Your Flowers Are Listening".

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

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Deniers Accidentally Support Creation

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch contracted with the Field Museum of Paleontology in Chicago. Like a pesky stain on a shirt or a bad penny, evolutionists cannot escape the devastating facts of soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, which support recent creation and the Genesis Flood.


Evolutionists continue to deny the reality of soft tissues in dinosaur bones. The latest effort inadvertently supports recent creation.
Original image credit:
Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum, US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secularists tried ignoring the problem, put the spin on tissues, and even sailed on Denial River with Cleopatra. Now they're trying something old and new by digging up failed arguments from 2008 and attempting to research up some confirmation for their biases. I reckon that these folks are unwilling to face reality.




They had some interesting results, but inadvertently confirmed several things that creationists have been saying all along. In addition, several very important facts have been left out in an effort to make a possible exception prove the rule. This is similar to something I've said: If scientists found conclusive proof of actual Darwinian evolution for some critter, it would not instantly prove the general theory of evolution for everything, you savvy?
By dismissing dinosaur soft tissue as bacteria, Field Museum scientists may have given creationists a selling point.

Scientists at Chicago’s prestigious Field Museum of Paleontology have made a frontal assault on claims of original dinosaur proteins in dinosaur bones. The claims that soft tissue can be found in some dinosaur fossils, made primarily by Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University, and by others, have invigorated young-earth creationists with alleged proof that the bones are only thousands of years old, not tens of millions. Are they wrong? Were they looking at bacterial biofilms masquerading as dinosaur proteins, blood vessels and blood cells?

It’s an old argument revitalized by new experiments. The Field Museum team of 19 paleontologists from a dozen institutions in the US, Canada, Britain and China sawed out some bone from Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada to check. They took precautions to avoid contamination. They found evidence of recent bacteria, but no collagen (bacteria do not make collagen).
To finish reading, click on "Showdown: Is Dino Soft Tissue Just Bacteria?" A related article of interest is "Soft Tissue Showdown".




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

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

The Complex Genome and Presuppositions

The article featured below has two important points to make. The first one is about how people interpret evidence, the second discusses some of the ways Darwinoids deal from the bottom of the deck while attempting to evosplain away facts that inconvenience their worldview.

Two problems for professing Christians are dealt with in the linked article. One is the basis of faith and evidence, the other is how Darwinists evosplain with bad material.
Background Image: RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg
When creationists ride with the evidence brand, they can be in for a world of hurt. I remember reading an article by an old earth compromiser who was thrilled that there was "proof" of the Big Bang and the inflation of the universe. Very shortly afterward, this was rejected. In a similar manner, I was being hounded by someone who was constantly alarmed when some evolutionary "evidence" was presented. "This can be refuted, right?" The faith of these professing Christians was not properly grounded and they are facing the barrage of fake news from the secular science industry, so they are often troubled.

Christians must presuppose the truth of God's Word which is the ultimate authority and basis for our faith. Materialists presuppose a godless universe (which cannot make sense of science and logic), prompting them to find rescuing devices on the frequent occasions that their supposed evidence for deep time and evolution are threatened. I mentioned those who ride for the evidence brand, which includes professing Christians who have a low view of Scripture as well as materialists. Their ride is a bumpy one, pilgrim.



When a creationist knows a subject and enters into a discussion, there is occasionally some tinhorn who wants to "educate" the poor deluded creationist. The evolutionist and his or her comrades may fire off several rounds of jargon and tell the creationist why he or she is wrong according to the evolutionists' allegedly superior knowledge. While it may look the the creationist is overwhelmed and shamed into submission, the facts provided are often outdated or even false. The writer of the letter to CMI presents a detailed evosplanation that gets a mite tedious and technical, but there are several logical points made with better science that can be helpful if you stay with it. Personally, the first part on presuppositions was my favorite.
Recently I’ve come across quite an interesting piece on the complexity of our genes, and as much as I hate to admit it, my faith is wavering due to this. It is the following…

‘The evolutionist refutation of this that I have heard so far is that “it is incorrect” to assume that all the enzymes, little mechanisms etc must be functioning perfectly in order for the cell to live. But nobody that I have found has explained why this is so. I would like some one on here to elaborate, please.

I can handle this one in pretty good detail

Let us first lay down some structure for the description.
To continue reading, click on "Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple?"




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

Monday, July 22, 2019

Those Kangaroos in India

It sure would be nice for me to take a trip to 'Straya and see the sights, meet a few Fazebook friends, say "G'day pilgrim" to some stockmen, and maybe see some of the unique wildlife, such as the 'roos. Those critters are one of the cultural icons of Australia, but there is evidence that kangaroos were in India!

An archaeologist in India discovered pictographs of kangaroos. This causes problems for evolution, but fits biblical creation science models.
Credits: cropped from Freeimages / Leena Naidoo, then modifed with FotoSketcher
Pictographs that look a great deal like kangaroos were found in India. That is a problem for believers in molecules-to-marsuipal evolution, as they believe those animals only lived in Australia. The big assumption is that just because kangaroos are not found in other parts of the world today, they were never there.


Since the observations did not fit the narrative, the evidence was waved off. Worse for Darwin and his death cult, this evidence fits biblical creation science Flood, Ice Age, and animal dispersion models.
Evolutionary narratives insist that kangaroos, and the marsupials they represent, evolved millions of years ago in Australia. Supposedly, that’s why today they only live there. In contrast, Genesis teaches that all animals—including kangaroos—migrated to their present locations from the Ark’s landing place “on the mountains of Ararat”1 in or near modern-day Turkey. New evidence fits this biblical option.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Indian Kangaroo Pictographs Challenge Evolution".



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

Saturday, July 20, 2019

NASA and Wernher von Braun

It seemed fitting to post this on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing. A few years ago, I posted a quote from Dr. Wernher von Braun in a forum about God. An atheist disparaged his remarks by calling him a Nazi. Aside from the obvious genetic and ad hominem fallacies, this attack was illustrated the disinformation that has been carried out by secularists for many years about him.

Dr. Wernher von Braun was instrumental at NASA and in the Apollo program. He was a Christian and a creationist, but secularists are attacking him again.
Dr. Wernher von Braun image credit: NASA / Marshall Space Flight Center
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
This rocket scientist worked under duress for the Nazis, desiring only the peaceful exploration of space. He and his team sought out the Americans after the war and willingly surrendered to them. Eventually, he became an important and respected figure at NASA and worked on the Apollo program. At that time, he became a Christian and a creationist, rejecting the one-sided teaching of evolution in schools.

Naturally, atheists and evolutionists seek to put him in a bad light, even using works of fiction in their portrayal. That is akin to the way some owlhoots use Inherit the Wind as a documentary of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The article featured below also has a link to his biography (or you can use duplicate), which is also quite interesting.
Revisionist historians who weren’t with this man keep trying to disparage his past. We set the record straight.

The 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing takes place this month, and numerous celebrations are taking place around the country. The mission control center at Johnson Space Center in Houston has been refurbished like new, space museums are hosting week-long special events, and a new CNN documentary features long-lost Apollo memorabilia. Unfortunately, in spite of the spirit of happiness for one of the country’s finest moments, certain journalists who feel obsessed to cast America in a bad light are digging for dirt. A particularly heinous rumor has arisen again.
To read the rest, blast off to "Defending America’s Apollo Rocket Scientist".



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

Friday, July 19, 2019

Devastation from Secular Environmentalist Ethics

Utilitarian philosophies are rooted in rebellion against the Creator, claiming to have a noble purpose for the good of the many. Essentially, for the pleasure and what is good for the majority. Secular views are inherently self-refuting and contradictory. Climate change and other environmental initiatives are often utilitarian.


Secular ethics are rooted in the rejection of God. Some ethicists want to see millions of people eliminated for the good of the world. Our Creator has far better plans.
Background image credit: Pixabay / icheinfach
Individuals are often required to sacrifice their freedoms for the good of the majority. In the movie Minority Report, three people with precognitive abilities were essentially imprisoned so they could provide information for the Premurder division of the police. While the results gained from their skills were considered helpful for society, nobody questioned the fact that they were essentially slaves — in a tank of water, no less. The purpose was utilitarian, to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many.



We know that most environmentalists have good intentions, wanting nature and humanity to live together in harmony. As we read in "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans", some sidewinders have the notion that to save Earth, the human populations should be radically reduced or even eliminated! So...this is for the good of the many? Not hardly!

Evolutionary thinking is contradictory here. If we have climbed to the top of the food chain by our own efforts, should't we reap the benefits? We should be doing whatever it takes to help us survive and thrive, including our own pleasure. But no, there are secularists who see us as predators on the earth.

Similarly, global climate change extremists use leftist policies supposedly for the good of the many to save the world. These are actually restricting freedoms and a means to power for elitists, and enthusiastic people fall for the bad science that is rooted in evolutionary thinking.

Bible-believing Christians know (or should know) that we are stewards of the world that our Creator has given us and are accountable to him. Conversely, secularists who deny God make up their own rules and are answerable to others who deny God. I for one do not want their version of "ethics" for the making of policies. It is far better to trust in God's Word.
Normally, when someone goes to college, we can assume they are competent in their specialization. But when someone claims to be an ethicist, what comes out of their mouth is so predictably absurd and satanic that it’s not even interesting anymore. So when philosopher and author of Secular Ethics in a Materialist Age Todd May wrote a New York Times piece entitled ‘Would human extinction be a tragedy?’, one hardly needs to read it to know that May thinks, on balance, it could be quite a good thing for the earth if humans were no longer on it. However, he is wrong in several key areas.
To read the rest of this rather disturbing article, click on "The horrifying calculations of utilitarian ethics".





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

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Design Features Part 2

Back in the first part, we examined how organisms show that they were designed according to engineering principles by the Master Engineer. There is a correlation between various designs of humans and those of organisms, but any form of natural selection has no application.

An organism or device can perform well, but if its limits are exceeded, the engineer is not at fault. So-called selection pressures do not work in nature or in mechanisms.
Rocket engines image in background from Freeimages / Terry Eaton
Let's saddle up and ride this trail a bit further. Something can perform well and fulfill its designed purpose, but if its limits are exceeded, that is not the fault of the device, organism, or the engineer. In fact, some things are designed to break. Even the infamous Windows computers' Blue Screen of Death was designed to protect the computer, probably from software that was not properly designed or an excessive load on the computer.

All factors are not the same for all organisms. The mystical "selection pressures" that supposedly cause minerals-to-machinist evolution may affect you and I the same, but our Basement Cat might respond in a different way. This is because our Creator designed living things to utilize built-in responses and not go react by evolving into something else. You savvy?
Last month’s Engineered Adaptability article considered two examples of human-designed structures that were exposed to identical conditions but did not respond in the same way.
. . . 
All known creatures and human-engineered things have vulnerabilities. Since biological systems operate according to the same laws of chemistry and physics human engineers use to govern their designs, there should be a correlation to explain why even the most brilliant designs still have points of vulnerability.
To read the article as it was designed to be read, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure, Part 2".



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

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Tube Anemones Enemies of Evolution

More trouble at the Darwin Ranch. Scientists along with everyone else tend to reason from their presuppositions, but those should be questioned when they are so frequently refuted. Advocates of atoms-to-anemones evolution have to deal with unpleasant facts regarding tube anemones.

Examining the DNA of tube anemones caused several big problems for evolutionists. The research also supports special creation.

Researchers did some genome sequencing of mitochondrial DNA on tube anemones and had some big surprises. For one thing, the genomes of most organisms is circular. the mtDNA of the tube anemones studied is linear. Also, the mtDNA of one species was 81,000 base pairs long. Ours has 16,569. The hands at the Darwin Ranch might be sorry they examined the anemones, since this causes more problems for evolution but also affirms special creation. By the way, some people like to put them in their home aquariums.
Anemones come in a wide range of sizes, shapes, and colors. Members of phylum Cnidaria, anemones are most commonly associated with clownfish in popular culture. However, there is much more to anemones than that. In particular, one recent study sequenced the mitochondrial genome of several species of tube anemones and revealed some startling surprises that provide headaches for evolutionary classification.
To read the rest, click on "Anemone Complexity Confounds Evolutionary Classification".



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

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

The Perplexing Pangolin

Before we get into the details, I want to share an opinion. We were created in the image of God and many critters seem to indicate that he has a sense of humor. Some creatures including the hoatzin, kangaroo, and the platypus almost seem like pranks our Creator made to fluster evolutionists. The same could apply the the pangolin.


The pangolin is another creature that baffles evolutionists. It is difficult to classify and has no evidence of change, and supports special creation.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / A. J. T. Johnsingh (CC by-SA 4.0)
If I took my glasses off, it might look like a miniature sauropod, being small at one end, much thicker in the middle, and small at the other end (according to a theory by Miss Anne Elk). It has scales, which are not found in mammals today, and the scales are unlike those of reptiles. This misnamed "scaly anteater" does the armadillo thing by curling up into a ball when threatened. It should do more of that, as vile humans are driving them to near extinction.

There is no sign of evolution; the pangolin remains a pangolin. The truth does not stop evolutionists from Making Things Up™ to explain the scales, even invoking guesses about DNA. As in so many other instances, we are given stories with an Adrian Monk approach, "Here's what happened".



Except that Monk provided reason and evidence. Evolutionists are mighty keen on using "perhaps", "possibly", "maybe", and others. In addition, the magical mystery device of natural selection is invoked. Then Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ swoop over and use the speculation as evidence: "Take that, creatards!" You didn't give us anything to take there, Buttercup.
Classification has been a major problem as documented by many past failed attempts. They were once classified with various orders of ant-eating mammals, the Xenarthra, which includes true anteaters, sloths, and the armadillos which pangolins superficially resemble. Newer genetic evidence, however, points to their closest living relatives as the Carnivora with which forms the clade Ferae. Other evolutionists have classified the pangolins in the order Cimolesta, together with several extinct groups, though this idea has also fallen out of favor since cimolestids were not placental mammals.
A 2015 study found close affinities between pangolins and the extinct group called Creodonta. In short, pangolins have features of several diverse animals. This has stymied not only their classification, but also attempts to determine their evolution, a subject largely avoided due to almost no hint of transitional forms in the fossil record, although a number of extinct pangolins have been found.
To read the entire article including descriptions of its traits, click on "The Pangolin: The Strangest Animal Known to Man".




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

Monday, July 15, 2019

Intricate Feather Architecture

The next time you find a feather, you may want to pick it up and give it a good look-see. There are many fine and delicate elements that may cause you to wonder how even a large number of those can keep Chirpy in the air.


Feathers seem delicate, but they have to support birds in flight, offer protection, and much more. Their specified complexity indicates the work of the Creator, but evolution gets praise despite logic and evidence.
Credit: Unsplash / Tevin Trinh
Birds make flying look easy, but their feathers deal with enormous stresses. They have to keep their owner airborne as well as protect them from the elements. Wind is a factor, yet the feathers were designed to keep from breaking.




Feathers are attached through the central shaft, and new research using an electron microscope provides us some insight. It is amazing that despite the obvious specified complexity, the main researcher still had to give homage to evolution even though there is no sign of bird or feather evolution in the fossil record. Want to know why there is no evidence for evolution? The evidence points to the fact that our Creator did all the work. He is the one who deserves the credit, not some vague force called evolution.
It has long been known that the feathers on birds are well engineered structures. They are strong, lightweight, aerodynamic, and even when ruffled, they can be preened back into shape readily. This comes from their intricate architecture: feathers have a long central shaft called a rachis, and from this come barbs, which in turn have barbules. In flight feathers, the barbules have hooks that link them to adjacent barbules. Evolutionists once taught that they came from reptilian scales, but this is discredited now, as one evolutionist has pointed out:
"'Microstructural architecture' of feathers makes them tough".




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

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Flat Earth Beliefs and Special Knowledge

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In my years of writing, doing social media, having conversations, and simply observing people, I have come to the conclusion that many want to believe that they are better in some ways than other people. One means to this end is to have some kind of special knowledge.


We can learn from people who claim to have special knowledge. The flat-earth movement has deceived many, including Christians who need to learn how to handle the Bible and science. Some flat-earthers are creationists who are playing into the hands of deceivers.
Image credit: Pixabay / Vicki Nunn
Atheists rank near the top of the uppity scale, imagining that they own science and reason. They use these to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). Universal common ancestor evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and of anti-creation compromisers. Those of us who believe the truth of Scripture and the reality of biblical creation science are deemed inferior. This is primarily based on their arbitrary presuppositions that science must be rooted in naturalism. However, their presuppositions and assumptions are not supported by logic or evidence.




Conversely, there are professing Christians who are full of pride about their salvation and use the Bible like a club. (Some proponents of certain Christian beliefs have inflated egos: other Christians are immature, unsaved, or in some other way inferior because they do not accept the doctrines of their particular group.) Cultists are often the same way because they belong to the One True Church™.

Some folks seem to have made the leftist politics of anthropogenic climate change into a religion. They accept polished-up "facts" while ignoring anything that does not support their belief system. Sometimes believers in this farcical misadventure are so wrapped up in the emotionalism of the moment, they forget the failed doomsday pronouncements of the past. Don't you know who they are? They have special knowledge. Bow down.

Recently, I posted an article refuting some of the dogmas of the anti-vaccination crowd. This loud minority chose to slap leather with me rather than consider the scientific evidence. After all, they saw videos on YouTube and obtained material from people who support their views, so anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. The respondents were haughty and condescending because they had knowledge and opinions that they considered superior. I was told by one that she did not want to deal with that material, then later contradicted herself by claiming she did deal with it. Some seem rational, but their emotional reactions clouded their logic. I think some of them are not quite right in the head, based on their intensity and emotionalism.

The flat-earthers really take the rag off the bush — especially those of a religious mindset. They not only seek out people and fake science that supports their views, but when challenged by outsiders, Katie bar the door! Flat-earthers are also into conspiracy theories, and are prone to accepting many other odd beliefs.

Mayhaps flat-earthers will prove everyone else wrong when they go on their cruise to the end of the earth.

The sad part is that some professing Christians believe that the earth is flat, and because of poor exegetical skills, rigidly hold to their opinions. Their superior "knowledge" helps them proudly pretending to be more spiritual than the rest of us. Ever hear of context, pilgrims? Not everything in the Bible is intended to be taken literally (Jesus is not an actual door, for instance); the context and the rest of Scripture are extremely important. Like the anti-vaxxers, flat-earth proponents have refused to deal with evidence presented. They get all het up to be evangelistic with their false views.

Bible verses have been taken out of context and twisted to support flat-earth beliefs, and then unbelievers also use these to not only mock the Bible but also flat-earthers. One of these is Matthew 4:8, which one sidewinder ripped out of context for the purpose of ridiculing the inerrancy of Scripture. (He had been shown a refutation, but he was infallibly speaking ex cathedra, so the rest of us mere mortals are wrong.) To see the refutations of this and other Bible verses that allegedly teach that Earth is flat, see "A flat earth, and other nonsense" and especially "Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?" If you want to find the discussion on that particular verse right away, use your browser search function and type in "4:8".

Bonus: In Luke 11:31, Jesus said that the queen of the South (that is Sheba, which may be near modern-day Yemen) came to Solomon "from the ends of the earth". No rational person would think that Arabian areas are the ends of the earth. It was clearly figurative.

Some people say that the "truth" of the flat-earth has led to their conversion to Christ and a deeper commitment. A sad fact is that when people realize that they have been lied to (especially former cultists like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the like), they tend to reject all truth about God and the Bible. How will flat-earthers react when confronted with the truth?

Like evolutionism, these views and others where people to have special or superior knowledge smacks of Gnosticism. Unfortunately, if people understood basic logic and used critical thinking, they would be less susceptible to fake news and outright deception. Indeed, there are atheists who pretend to be creationists and are in effect agents provocateurs

Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and others are prone to react in a very unchristian manner.

Dr. Danny Faulkner wrote an article than inspired my own missive here. He points out that flat-earth creationists are inadvertently supporting atheistic ridicule of creation science. It's not a short read, but I really believe that it's worth your time.
I have been studying the flat-earth movement for nearly three and a half years. In this time, I’ve published more than a dozen web articles or blogs on the flat-earth movement, and I’ve written a book on the subject that will soon be published. As I’ve studied this movement, I’ve become fascinated with its sociology. I’m very curious as to what motivates flat-earthers, how they became convinced that the earth is flat, and what their thought processes are. In early May, I attended the premiere of the documentary Faith on the Edge: Exploring the Biblical and Scientific Case Against Flat Earth at Calvary University in Kansas City. There I joined a panel discussion with “The Creation Guys,” Kyle Justice and Pat Roy, the producers of the video, as well as Hebraist Steve Boyd, who, along with me, appeared in the documentary. In preparation for this event, I gathered my thoughts on the sociology of the flat-earth movement into 20 bulleted points, and we discussed these over dinner before the premiere. Though I’m no sociologist, I’ve fleshed most of the 20 points into a narrative, which I share here.
To finish reading, click this link to "Reflections on the Flat-Earth Movement". You may also be interested in the links at "The Bible and the Flat Earth".



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

Friday, July 12, 2019

A Stupid Dinosaur Bat Evolution Trick

Reading this report got me on the prod because I found it insulting. Sometimes I think that proponents of molecules-to-mammal evolution think that we are unable to see through their just-so stories, but then I see anti-creationists gobbling them up and pretending to believe "science". The latest instance is of a fossil that is laden with silliness.


An insulting report tells us that evolution experimented on flight, calls a bat a dinosaur, and other just-so stories.
Credit: Pixabay / Andrew Martin
A fossil was found that strongly resembles a bat, and Darwin's disciples evosplain with not only circular reasoning (assuming evolution to prove evolution), but are making evolution into a decision-making entity. Here, evolution experimented on the development of dinosaur flight with a bat, a story that belongs in comic books. They're calling it a dinosaur because evolution.


There are many bats in the world, pilgrim, like there were in bygone days. What they found was just another bat. Further, evolutionists have no means of showing any sign of bat evolution, nor can they explain the origin of flight. It's really quite simple: evolution didn't happen. Instead, living things were created recently, which is the logical conclusion.
A new fossil discovered in northeastern China recently was described by Reuters as a “feathered dinosaur a bit bigger than a blue jay that possessed bat-like wings [which] represents a remarkable but short-lived detour in the evolution of flight and the advent of birds.” A 3-D reconstruction, completed at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, China on May 8, 2019 shows it flew with bat-like membranous wings. The Jurassic Period dinosaur Ambopteryx, (meaning “both wings”) longibrachium (meaning “long arm”) looks nothing like a dinosaur, so why call it a dinosaur?
To read the rest, click on "Can a Dinosaur Have Bat-Like Wings?" ADDENDUM: A more recent article on this subject is "Ambopteryx – bird or bat-winged reptile?"

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

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Water and Wind Gaps Plus Poor Secular Logic

Secular geologists have a great deal of trouble explaining landforms according to their uniformitarian (slow processes over long periods of time) belief systems, and they even attempt to use very unscientific and illogical explanations for what is observed.


There are many water and wind gaps around the world. Secular geologists cannot adequately with them them, but they can be explained by creation science Genesis Flood models.
Delaware water gap image credit: Freeimages / Tom S
Wind and water gaps are found in mountains. To use the technical term, there's a bunch of 'em. Secular storytellers cannot adequately explain their existence and especially their formation, even resorting to explanations that defy basic physics and gravity. The explanation for the Lake Missoula Flood of the Ice Age was fought for many years, as secularists wanted to cling to their outdated ideas.  There is a far better explanation for landforms, including water and wind gaps.




That would be the Genesis Flood. There are people who reject this out of hand, refusing to consider the evidence from geology. However, uniformitarian geologists (as I indicated before) do not have rational explanations or models.
Water and wind gaps, two amazing landforms on the earth’s surface, cut through mountains and ridges. They are exciting evidence for the global Flood., According to the Glossary of Geology, a water gap is defined as: “A deep pass in a mountain ridge, through which a stream flows; esp. a narrow gorge or ravine cut through resistant rocks by an antecedent or superposed stream.” In other words, a water gap is a perpendicular cut through a mountain range, ridge, or other rock barrier. It is a gorge that a river or stream flows through. It is highly unlikely these gorges were cut by the river that now runs through. Wind gaps are like water gaps but are not deep enough for water to flow through. Only wind passes through, which is why they are called wind gaps.
To read the rest, click on "Water and wind gaps carved during channelized Flood runoff".

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

Labels