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

Thursday, August 22, 2019

The Life-Giving Blood

The outlaw decided to slap leather with the marshal, but he came out on the losing end. The town doctor needed to stop the bleeding to keep him alive. Way back when, the barbaric practice of bloodletting was used to drain off supposedly bad blood. Too much bloodletting led to the death of George Washington. We are plainly told in Leviticus 17:11 that the life is in the blood.

Blood is far more intricate than it may appear, and performs many functions. All this activity and specified complexity defies evolution and affirms special creation.
Credit: Pixabay / allinonemovie
When we have accidents with sharp things, we see blood. However, there is a great deal more to it than a river of red. There are many components involved doing various specific and complex activities. The cells have to travel a great deal and they even change their shape to fit into tight places, then take on their proper shape afterward.

A mother and her unborn child can have completely different blood types.

Many great scientists (many of the Christians and even creationists) have studied the stuff, building on the work of others. One of the great pioneers is Antony van Leeuwenhoek, who contributed to microscopy, refuted spontaneous generation, and was fascinated by studying and drawing blood cells.Joseph Jackson Lister improved on Antony's work and inventions, then others followed. I reckon these pioneers of microscopy would be thrilled with the equipment we have today.

Blood cells clean up our system, fight disease and infections, and is important for medical diagnosis and treatment. Although it seems like the phlebotomist is taking quite a bit out of my arm, it is actually a small amount to test for various things. Basement Cat was recently sick (she's thirteen years old, so we're not casual about things) and had blood work done. Not nearly as much was taken, but the results were very good; I was surprised by the number of things the veterinarian could investigate. The power and irreducible complexity of the blood cannot be the products of random evolution. They exist by the plan of the Master Engineer.

The life is is in the blood. Eternal life is also in blood — that shed by Jesus, our Creator who took human form for our redemption. He bled and died, and was bodily raised from the dead for our salvation.
It takes about 60 seconds for all the blood in your body to complete its journey. It travels from your heart to your extremities and returns, there and back again. Blood moves with the rapid current of the great arterial rivers and through the smallest capillary creeks. William Harvey first noticed circulation (1628) through the heart into arteries and veins; however, he could not see how they connected since he did not have a microscope. The man who first described this was Anton van Leeuwenhoek about 46 years later (1674). Then, J. J. Lister and Thomas Hodgkin described the rouleaux formation or stacking of RBCs through a capillary bed. All of these men mentioned above were committed Christians.

. . .

Knowledge of the blood and circulatory system gives us insight into spiritual, biological, and clinical applications. Blood reveals much about the majesty of our Creator and Master Craftsman, irreducible complexity, and the health or disease state of the human body. Capillaries are the smallest blood vessels through which blood cells can move through in single file. This blood vessel network knitted with lymphatic capillaries shows an interwoven complexity, thus revealing the fearfully and wonderfully made . . . In this article, we also show a biblical worldview and notable Christians who expounded the biblical concept that “Life is in the Blood.”
To read the full article, click on "Life Is in the Blood".

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

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Geological Unconformities and the Flood

What are unconformities? They are the nonconformists of geology. No, they are not people, but instead are rock formations that do not fit the deep time uniformitarian presumptions of secular (and compromising Christian) geologists. In fact, geologists have several categories but not a whole heap of agreement on the things.

They are called unconformities because these geological features do not conform to secular expectations. However, the Genesis Flood models have explanations.
A view of the Grand Canyon, with the Great Unconformity visible
Credit: US Geological Survey / Alex Demas (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Geology has a deep time stratigraphy approach built in. Americans use several different kinds of unconformities, but the British do not recognize them. (So much for scientific consensus, huh?) Unconformities are not outliers, but cover large areas and are rather common. Secularists cannot adequately explain them, but the catastrophic deluge of the Genesis Flood offers the best fit.
An important distinction between diluvial and uniformitarian geology is their contrary interpretive approach to unconformities. Uniformitarian geology has long emphasized unconformities as repositories of all the time that cannot reasonably be attributed to the strata. But that interpretive framework would be unworkable if most unconformities formed during the Flood. Diluvial geology must focus on the physical interplay of hydraulics, tectonics, and sedimentology to investigate the formation of erosional surfaces of all scales.
To finish reading, click on "The meaning of unconformities".

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

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

The Tyranny of Consensus Science

Something we often hear about in discussions of science is consensus. While that can be useful in some situations, it is not helpful in science. In fact, consensus is used to censor evidence that is contrary to the view of the majority. Anti-creationists often claim that microbes-to-materialist evolution is "settled science" and appeal to a consensus (as do other people with an agenda), as if that settles the matter under discussion.

People appeal to a scientific consensus as if it settled a matter under discussion. In fact, consensus suppresses science and inquiry.
Credit: Unsplash / Pedro Lima
Climate change alarmists really take the rag off the bush by appealing to their selected authorities and becoming irate when contrary scientific evidence is presented. (Indeed, I have been called a "science denier" and a "bigot" for presenting refutations.) Global warming alarmists have been proven wrong repeatedly, such as in this article about the prediction that the Maldives and other areas would be under water by now.

Some jaspers will exclaim, "Weather is not climate!", then post news about heat waves as evidence of climate change — while ignoring news of record low temperatures from a few weeks back. Some even assert that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. Whatever you say, Hoss. 

Chris Plante has a couple of quick reports about climate change wackiness. The site gets on the prod about ad blockers, so if you want to here there, you need to pause them or something, then click here and head to the 2 hours, 45 minutes, 55 seconds mark if the link doesn't go there like it's supposed to.

Embryonic stem cells were all the rage a few years ago and a spurious "consensus" was used to support abortion for this research. Today, adult stem cells are more beneficial as well as ethical.

Fun facts: a flat earth was never consensus science, nor is it taught in the Bible.

"Consensus science" is actually a means of furthering political agendas, and its adherents are often tyrannical. They have particular antipathy toward biblical creationists, pro-lifers, and climate change skeptics. Evidence and rational arguments they dislike are suppressed, and those who disagree tend to be quirted until they get in line with the majority. This is not the spirit of scientific inquiry, old son, but a means of maintaining the status quo of those with the money, power, and majority. The article featured below is from 2009 but is just as relevant today — if not more so.
In battle, one clever military tactic is to focus enemy troops' attention on a spectacular frontal assault so they will overlook a deadly side attack. This approach works in other arenas, as well.

On March 9 [2009], President Barack Obama ordered that federal tax money be used to promote medical research through harvesting the stem cells of, and thus destroying, human embryos. There has been much discussion about the medical ethics of this order and the government's increased power to destroy human life for "scientific" progress, but in reality these debates, while important, drew attention away from a serious analysis of the words of the president's speech. His order was actually a directive for "restoring scientific integrity," and stem cells served as the needed pretext.

. . . preserving "scientific integrity" would not mean keeping the scientific process from going awry, but keeping scientific outcomes in line with policy.

How? By empowering an atheist scientific elite who will decree--without debate and by consensus opinion only--the scientific validity of all bioethical issues, not just the killing of embryos for research. In doing this, Mr. Obama has capitalized on two trends in the scientific community: the rise of "consensus science," and the dominance of atheism among the scientific elite.
To read the entire article, click on "Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite". Also worth your time is "Why consensus science is anti-science".

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

Monday, August 19, 2019

Psychology, Morality, and the Bible

Warning: The post and some of the links contain mature content. Discretion advised.

Know why there are so many schools (systems) of psychology? Because none of them completely work. Years ago, I had a therapist that used the REBT approach developed by Albert Ellis. That had some benefit, but he also had me doing "power animals" and other things from Native American mythologies. No good. While it can be helpful to talk to someone with knowledge, the root problems are not addressed in secular systems.

Psychology is rooted in evolutionary thinking and seeks to provide morality and mental health without our Creator. There are many problems in the so-called mental health professions.
Adapted from an image by Gerd Altmann at Pixabay
Sigmund Freud got the ball rolling for psychology. He and other secularists have rooted it in evolutionary thinking, so they take naturalistic approaches to morality and mental health, denying our Creator in the process. (Sometimes people have better results through time and discussion instead of spending mucho dinero for numerous sessions with a therapist. The best approach would be to use biblical counseling.) Evolutionary psychology gave us the lobotomy holocaust. Like so many other areas, leftist agendas have hijacked psychology and psychiatry — and these are not actually sciences.

Sure, practitioners and advocates refer to them as sciences, but they do not actually fit the definition. Some scientific approaches are utilized, giving them a veneer of science. Psychiatry and psychology are having credibility problems, even though they can be beneficial to some people. We have two articles for you to examine. The first one contains the mature content.
  • There are critics of psychiatry who realize that the field is "in crisis" and things need to be fixed. Misdiagnosing patients is an old problem, and psychiatrists pretend to be scientists.
  • Since they figure that humans are just evolved animals, biological psychology defines "normal" by what is seen in the natural world. 
  • False views of sexual orientation and assorted perversions are forced on Christians and the public in general under the guise of "science". Those of us who reject trends are considered the ones that need therapy, even though those who engage in aberrant behavior are a microcosm of the population, and have been so for millennia. 
Brace yourself, and read the details at "Psychology Co-Ops ‘Science’ to Fight Biblical Morality". Don't forget to come back for the second installment, which is less alarming but still has shocking implications.

Howdy! Glad you could come back. There are some practices in the mind "sciences" that should trouble people who are concerned with ethics and morality.
  • Clinical reports are exaggerated in abstracts, and professionals often read those instead of the full reports. (I have seen similar things where someone "refutes" creationist material by citing an abstract, but that is really just promises and intentions of the authors, not actual evidence for something.) Do you want your disorder medication "cocktail" recommended by someone who has not done serious study?
  • There seems to be a conflict of interest where people make big money on the psych celebrity lecture circuit.
  • Cases of misconduct going back many years.
To read the article, click on "More Criticisms Raised Against Psycho-Science". By the way, I stopped seeing therapists and taking antidepressants years ago.

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

Saturday, August 17, 2019

Book Review — Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism

Recommending a book that shows how atheism, evolutionism, and materialism are illogical. It gives both Christians and unbelievers many things to ponder.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

My obtaining Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism by Paul Ross was a bit unusual. A link was provided to a download, and had it converted for my Kindle device. After I had gone through it (the book was rather short), I contacted the author for a bit of information.

His reply included the Australian equivalent of, "Whoa there, pilgrim! Where did you get that? It's not the final product!" So I ponied up the money and got my own copy all nice and legal-like. This means that there is no disclaimer, Mr. Ross didn't give me a copy for reviewing or anything.

The real version of this book is much substantial than the preliminary copy, and is far better. However, I thought a Table of Contents would have been mighty helpful like the other version had — especially now when I'm working on this here review. Ross also provided 36 references. If someone was thinking that Paul was simply making things up as he went along (a notion that could come from someone who did not pay any attention to the material), the references should give lie to that notion.

This is the first book of a planned series. It is not a huge volume, and he intended to make it short enough to read in one sitting. That would be a good thing to do, but it's not exactly a pamphlet, so you might want to get comfortable. I think your time will be invested quite well. I was able to spot his presuppositional apologetics approach, and he also uses evidence. (Contrary to the claims of detractors, presuppositional apologists do use evidence, and evidentialists do have presuppositions.) The reasoning is straightforward and sometimes rather blunt, but he gives the necessary unvarnished truth.*

As usual, some of my own thoughts are mixed in with the review; the book sparked my thinking many times.

In the introduction, Paul Ross makes his intentions clear and gives the reader some thing to think about:
This book was primarily written to address the materialism of our times. What I mean by that is the emotional, psychological and intellectual rejection of God in favor of rampant self-determination. This rejection may manifest in the form of indifference, or it may surface in the form of open and defiant hostility—as in the case of contempt for all things divine—but, at the end of the day, both expressions are just two sides of the same coin. I also wrote this book to reveal the fundamental weaknesses of the materialistic position and to expose its unrelenting failure to answer any of the questions that ultimately matter.
Let the reader understand that materialism is not used in the sense of "accumulating a passel of possessions", but instead, it is the philosophy that the material world is all that exists. It is used to underpin evolution as the secular mythology of origins and a lifestyle for atheists. We are given some history on how materialistic thinking has been detrimental to civilization, including the sexual "revolutions" where promiscuity and various perversions have been not only accepted, but promoted.

Materialistic dogmatism is discussed with an emphasis on atoms-to-author evolution. Antony Flew was an ardent atheist, but he changed his mind near the end of his life because he was forced to admit that the universe was designed. (Sadly, he apparently died a Deist, therefore would be just as lost as any other unrepentant sinner.) Most materialists insist on ignoring the evidence for creation all around them (Rom. 18:18-23). They cannot justify their rebellion scientifically or philosophically.
Materialistic explanations do not adequately make sense of the most common phenomena of human experience, such as the phenomenon of consciousness. In fact, it has never been shown—or demonstrated—how biochemical processes can transform into conscious subjective experiences. It’s simply claimed that they do, somehow, someway. Neither do materialistic explanations explain the existence of a conscience, moral intuitions or the propensity towards spirituality. Nor can the materialist show how impersonal, mindless matter and energy can write its own informational software code, as manifested in every molecule, atom and elementary particle.
Paul goes on to discuss a subject that I have presented on several occasions: consciousness. No naturalistic philosophies can explain it. For that matter, mathematics, logic, and even science itself cannot be explained without God! (This is my statement, not his.) "There simply is no materialistic model that can explain the phenomenon of consciousness in matter. It’s a complete mystery and enigma for the materialistic paradigm, and the reason why the materialistic model has been unsuccessful in explaining this gigantic enigma is because materialism is false." He is correct here, too.

Some materialists claim that the universe is better without God, more beautiful and with more grandeur. The sense of awe is something else that is immaterial and for which materialists cannot account. Atheists are being inconsistent (as usual) with such statements. "...the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe basically boils down to an assertion that ‘stuff happens’." (Has he been reading David Coppedge about the "Stuff Happens Law"?) It's a lot of stuff that happened, and by chance arranged itself into all the specified complexity and beauty we see around us.

I think I have given you enough information to help you realize that Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism will prompt you to think and provides important information about how materialism causes damage to rational thought and to society.

Ross goes on with additional examples of the infestation of naturalism in society, including universities (which were started by Christians) and so forth. I recommend Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism.

You may want to get to know Paul Ross a bit better. I happened across a link to an interview with him, and it discusses the book, atheism, and Paul's missionary work. Try to ignore the comment about the US Postal Service "motto" that the interviewer made which is wrong on several levels. Other than that, give a listen at this link.

*Although Mr. Ross is unashamedly a creationist, he told me that he avoids discussions of the age of the earth because he considers it divisive. However, truth is divisive. The Virgin Birth, substitutionary atonement, even the Trinity are important doctrines that can be divisive. Recent creation supports biblical doctrines. I suggest three articles on this: "Who Is Jesus and What Did He Believe About Creation?, "‘But it’s divisive!’", and "Genesis: Real, Reliable, Historical".

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

Friday, August 16, 2019

Coyotes Have Gone to the Dogs

Out riding a forest trail at night, it is common to hear a coyote howl. This can give a greenhorn a bit of a start, but not as bad as hearing a cougar. Is the word pronounced KY-ote or ky-O-tee? Depends on where you are. My text-to-speech reader gets a mite confused and uses both in the same paragraph. They have a bad reputation. Is it deserved?

Many people consider coyotes pests. That is often true, but they are also being troublesome to evolutionists as well.
Credit: Flickr / AdititheStargazer (CC by-NC-SA 2.0)
While coyotes frequently make guest appearances in Western shows, they are found in most of these here United States, including New York and Alaska. These critters are crafty, stealing and eating all sorts of things. Sometimes they hunt in packs or even team up with other animals. By the way, the one in the cartoons should have caught the roadrunner because coyotes are faster.

Like their jackal and dingo cousins, they are considered pests. Some folks try killing them off which actually causes them to increase their population! They breed well, and the Eastern coyote has been found to have domestic dog DNA. Those in the wild have been known to breed with wolves as well. Darwin's disciples mistakenly call this "evolution", but that is not the case. Scientists are uncertain about the definition of species (Wikipedia, that bastion of objective science notwithstanding), but this activity illustrates the created kind of Genesis.
In many American Indian tales and traditions, the coyote is renowned as the Trickster—greedy, vain, cunning, and a liar. When European settlers arriving at the Great Plains first encountered it, aside from “heralding it as an icon of the expansive West”, the coyote’s reputation fared little better. Raids on livestock soon saw the colonists “vilifying it as the ultimate varmint, the bloodthirsty bane of sheep and cattle ranchers.”3 No doubt remembering Europe’s wolves, which it resembles, the settlers’ names for the coyote included brush wolf, prairie wolf, little wolf, and cased wolf. (Sometimes also the American jackal; though larger, the coyote is similar to the golden jackal of Eurasia.)
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "The wily coyote—dogged by reputation, this coy ‘wolf’ continues to surprise".

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

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Icefish, Creation, and Evolution

A few years ago, we read about how the Antarctic icefish were equipped by their creator to survive in those extremely cold temperatures down yonder. That article was brief and simple, but now we are going to get into more detail and raise some questions for both Darwinists and creationists.

Antarctic icefish are uniquely built do survive extremely cold temperatures. Evolutionists cannot explain this, but creationist speculations seem reasonable.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Marrabbio2
Some icefish have been referred to as "bloodless", which is somewhat misleading. Adults do not have hemoglobin and red blood cells, but there is something working like blood — or antifreeze. Instead of appearing to be a simple adaptation or variation, they seem to have undergone a full rebuild. Evolutionists are stymied and cannot give a plausible explanation for their existence. Creationists have some speculations that include genetic drift and adaptations (supported by family variations), and are more reasonable that what evolutionists offer.
Icefish are the only vertebrates that lack red blood cells and hemoglobin as adults. In vertebrates, these are essential for binding oxygen and then transporting oxygen throughout the body. But rather than this being a “simple adaptation,” the icefish of the Channichthyidae family appear to have several major anatomical and chemical alterations compared to other similar fish (even other Antarctic species within the same order, from the Nototheniidae family). The icefish has extremely large gills for its body size, no scales (which may help it to absorb oxygen from the surrounding water), a flexible (and less dense) bony skeleton. It also has a heart four times the size of similar fish, larger blood vessels than other similar-sized fish, has accumulated a lipid layer in its bloodstream that makes it more buoyant, and makes more antifreeze-like proteins than other cold-water fish. Oxygen exists solely in physical solution in icefish blood, which has an oxygen-carrying capacity of less than 10% compared with that of their relatives with hemoglobin.
 To read the entire article, click on "Clear as Blood: How Did Antarctic Icefish Survive Their 'Evolution'?"

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

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Further Dark Matter Weaseling

When materialism and evolutionary thinking bushwhack science, observed facts are lassoed, tied, and branded for the secularism brand. That is, the narrative drives the evidence instead of the other way around. We see this in stories about human evolution, our wonderful brains, and other areas. Of course, the deep time story must control cosmology. Dark matter is a rescuing device.

Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / ESA /
Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, University of Basque Country/ J HU
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site content by any of those organizations)
The Big Bang is the current secular myth of origins and it is infested with rescuing devices. We recently saw how inflation and the multiverse are efforts to save the Big Bang, and another is dark matter. (Dark energy is occasionally invoked as well.) This stuff has never been observed, only inferred, and that because Big Bang speculations need it to keep their conjecture together and the money coming in.

Watch for the weasel words from secularists.

The linked article shows some of the more recent buckets of desperate flapdoodle that pass as "science". When you go there, note the frequent use of weasel words.
  • Dark matter and the strange dimming of supernovas
  • The cosmic speed discrepancy is bringing the existence of dark matter into question
  • Early dark energy and an appeal to string theory
  • Scientists cannot find dark matter, but they know it exists
  • Bullets of dark matter are zipping through us right this minute
You can read about these and other bits of fiction that pass as science by clicking on "Belief in Dark Matter Propelled by Theory, Not Evidence".

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

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Dinosaurs and Whopper Sands

Imagine if you will that you are an evolutionary paleontologist. You have your ideological ponies put into your worldview corral and go about doing Darwinist business. Then your beliefs are threatened by discoveries that just should not be. Perhaps you fall back on the Stuff Happens Law to explain those dinosaur and other fossils.

Several instances of fossils and geological anomalies do not fit secular geology and paleontology, but are best explained by the power of the Genesis Flood.
Phytosaur art at Kings Park Perth image credit: Wikimedia / Moondyne (CC by-SA 3.0)
Uniformitarian geologists and paleontologists are frequently confronted by evidence they cannot explain. Bone fragments attributed to a land-dwelling dinosaur were found way, way out in the North Sea. Well, that's a puzzler! Sand and mud is expected to be found near rivers, but the Whopper Sand in deep-sea sediments of the Gulf of Mexico further complicates the puzzle. Those crocodile-like phytosaurs managed to be found in marine sediments.

The pieces of the puzzle are put in place with a proper understanding of Genesis Flood models. Tremendous amounts of water with astonishing force were at work. Yet again, the biblical record is confirmed by unwilling secular scientists who reject the Creator and the Flood, preferring the vacuous philosophy of evolutionism.
Oil and gas explorations have found sedimentary deposits so massive and so far offshore that secular science has no satisfactory explanation for their occurrence. Marine rock exposures have also revealed numerous land fossils washed great distances out to sea. Drilling off the coast of Norway has even pulled up a core containing dinosaur bone. Although these discoveries baffle uniformitarian scientists, they are not an issue for Flood geologists.
To read the entire article, click on "Deep-Sea Dinosaur Fossil Buries Evolution".

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

Monday, August 12, 2019

Ear Bones and Deficient Evolutionary Ideas

Sometimes I use a silly euphemism for giving serious thought to something by saying people may need to use their think bones. Did you know that we have bones in our ears? Of course you did, but most of us do not ponder them very often unless there is a medical issue. Some purveyors of atoms-to-audiologist evolution have the notion that the middle ear bones of mammals evolved from reptiles.

Some evolutionists think there is a relationship between inner bones in mammals and those in reptile jaws. This notion cannot withstand scrutiny or genetics.
Credit: National Science Foundation / Zina Deretsky
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
This concept of a relationship between mammal ear bones and some bones in reptile jaws is disputed by other evolutionists. It is actually quite old, long before the science of genetics was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). Not only does this notion have problems when confronted with genetics, but there are many questions of logistics that evolutionists cannot answer. That is because mammals and reptiles were created separately.
Some evolutionists claim that mammals evolved from reptiles through a group of animals known as ‘mammal-like reptiles’. This is a big step in the evolutionary model. They believe that certain jaw and skull bones in reptiles evolve into the middle ear bones of mammals. Two bones, the articular bone on the very back tip of the jawbone and the quadrate bone at the base of the skull form the jaw joint in reptiles, birds, amphibians, and mammal-like reptiles (see figure 1). In mammalian embryology, these two bones migrate into the middle ear and become the malleus and the incus. These two bones, together with the stapes form the three bones of the middle ear. However, in reptiles, there is only one single bone in the middle ear, namely the columella, which corresponds to the stapes bone in the mammalian ear.
Evolutionists list several “mammal-like” species where these bones are supposedly in between those of reptiles and mammals. However, is this picture true? Is there evidence that the reptilian skull and jaw bones middle ear evolved into the mammalian ear?
You can read the rest by clicking on "Did the ear bones of mammals really evolve from the jawbones of reptiles?

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

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Those Ever-Changing Evolutionary Whims

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A few weeks back, I escorted my prospector friend Stormie Waters into town for supplies. I forgot it was payday at the Darwin Ranch. All the hitching posts were taken outside the saloon, so they hired themselves an effete horse-holder for the evening.

Some tinhorns take exception to the observation that secular science keeps changing. It happens frequently and is easily documented, but the narrative is more important than facts to them.
Original Image: Man Interrupted at His Writing / Gerrit Dou, 1635
This snide tinhorn (Darwin's equivalent of Comical Ali) had taken exception to my oft-used remarks about "the ever-changing whims of secular science interpretations", and he told me so. He claimed that I was misrepresenting "reality" and science is secular, not "religious" or "creationist", and it got Americans to the moon fifty years ago. Someone is exhibiting his lack of logic.*

The attempt to exclude Christians from science is a bigoted lie (I am blunt because he stalks creationist sites and knows our material). The foundations of modern science were established mostly by Bible-believing Christians, and many of them were creationists. It is not "their" science against "our" science. Indeed, logic and science are impossible without God, but people like this have a fundamentally flawed epistemology. They pretend they can find smoking guns to shoot down creation science, but that does not happen.

Second, unbelievers have a nasty habit of using arbitrary assertions. In this case, defining "reality" to mean "atheistic interpretations of evidence to support deep time, evolution, or both". Then they set up straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks based on their self-serving definitions. (Also, scientific facts are often redefined or ignored completely to support gender confusion.) Don't forget the circular arguments (assuming something to prove it). It's who they are and what they do.

Third, he is conflating operational science with historical science. It was operational science (which is observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, and so forth) that made the Apollo missions and other space exploration projects possible. Atoms-to-astronaut evolution (including cosmology and uniformitarianism) is constantly changing. A big reason for this because of the naturalistic presuppositions of evolutionists: evidence is ignored or tweaked to fit their incoherent worldview. The portions of the narrative are in a constant state of flux because they have to be rewritten. Here are some of my posts. If you follow the links, they will take you to other sites with additional content:
There are more where these came from, especially if you go to the sites linked and search them. I did not include other problems where evolutionists say "this changes everything" or similar words. You can do that your ownselves.

Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ insist that evolution is a fact and there are "mountains of evidence" supporting it. Those alleged facts keep getting rewritten, and we frequently read expressions about how a discovery "changes everything". But the narrative continues unabated. Secular scientists often ignore contrary evidence and make adjustments so they can pretend that they have demonstrated deep time and evolution. I'll allow that biblical creationists have to make modifications, but our foundation is the written Word of God, not the whims of fallible humans.

*In a similar manner, an unfriendly atheist wrote that Gallup reports that a certain number of Americans accept creation, but another number accept "reality". Arbitrary assertions used to compose a straw man argument. In addition, he is lying by indicating that Gallup used the false dichotomy. The aforementioned anti-creationist supports this and other atheists.

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

Friday, August 9, 2019

Birds Making their Songs

In Greek mythology, Syrinx the nymph was escaping Pan and ran to the edge of the river. She asked the river nymphs to help her escape, and they changed her into water reeds. When Pan blew across them, they made a melodic sound so he cut them and made a panpipe (pan flute). Interestingly, the apparatus in birds that makes their song is called a syrinx.

People have wondered about bird songs and how they can make more than one sound at the same time. Evolutionary ideas failed, since the answer supports special creation.
Clamorous Reed-Warbler image credit: CSIRO / John Manger (CC by 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Researchers wanted to know how things work when birds to their songs — especially how they can do more than one sound at the same time. Evolutionary explanations failed, and there is no sign of a syrinx in dinosaurs or other critters. That's not difficult to understand if you drop the universal common ancestor evolution idea and admit that they are the product of special creation by the Master Engineer.
What makes the unique sounds of birds is a structure called the syrinx, found at a point where the trachea, or windpipe, splits into the bronchi, the passageways to the lungs. The syrinx is typically designed with a resonating chamber and elastic vibrating connective tissues called tympaniform membranes. Sound is produced when the membranes are pushed inward via muscular contraction and partially block the bronchi.
You can read this short article in its entirety by clicking on "The  Syrinx Song".

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

Thursday, August 8, 2019

Further Difficulties in Human Evolution

We have seen many instances of fake news and bad science in minerals-to-monkey evolution. I reckon that such alleged evidences of evolution among various critters is to help folks accept the current versions of Papa Darwin's evolution of man speculations. Evolutionists keep having problems with that, however.

More bones and such have been found to use in the human evolution parade, but the creation-denying efforts of secularists are causing them many problems.
Le Moustier Neanderthals, AMNH / Charles R. Knight, 1920
For a long time, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and others were considered slightly more than animals that were in the process of evolving into modern humans. The fact that they interbred with undisputed humans and other factors show that they were indeed fully human. There are many bones and such used by anthropologists and paleontologists in their efforts to construct the evolutionary parade and deny the truth of their creation. However, evolutionists continue to have serious problems with what they find.
The problem is, the more fossils that are unearthed, the more problems that arise against the consensus theory of human evolution. I will review just two recent examples. One is an “analysis of a 160,000-year-old archaic human molar fossil discovered in China [which] offers the first morphological evidence of interbreeding between archaic humans and Homo sapiens in Asia.” Evidence of interbreeding between archaic humans and Homo sapiens indicates the so-called archaic humans are fully human, given the common definition of species: namely, if two creatures can interbreed, they are by definition the same species or ‘kind’ of creature. The best example is the once-assumed evolutionary link between our primate ancestors and modern humans, the so-called Neanderthals, are now regarded as fully modern humans – just a different ethnic group.
To read the entire article, click on "More Big Problems with Human Evolution". You may also be interested in "More Laetoli Footprints Found — Print characteristics support the conclusion they were made by modern humans".

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

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Mole-Rats, Evolution, and Pain Sensitivity

This is something you are unlikely to see in a typical news collection. Scientists conducted a study on mole-rats to see how they responded to pain. This was in no wise a thrown-together experiment, but involved serious research that included examination of RNA. What prompted such research, I have no idea.

Research on several genera of mole-rats and their insensitivity to pain did not help evolutionists, but creationists have some ideas about the results.
Engraving of East African mole rat by Eduard Rüppell, 1835
Experiments involved several types of critters and controls, with some showing resistance to pain and others would eventually resist pain later. Evolutionary explanations were severely lacking, especially since the results were inconsistent across genera and different genetic responses were seen. A creationist perspective could include how they were designed to adapt because of their diverse genome.
Researchers studying mole-rats and the East African root rat discovered that several had pain insensitivity to several different irritants (called “algogens” throughout the journal paper). Some had multiple pain insensitivities, while others had none. The varying types of pain resistance seemed to correlate with their specific diet, habitat, and shared ecosystems with other organisms. Those without pain insensitivity lived in areas without those environmental pressures. This perfectly fits a creation worldview, where originally perfect created kinds front-loaded with vast genetic diversity have had to adapt to a post-fall world.
To read the rest, you can squeak over to "Evolved to Feel No Pain?

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

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Inflation and the Multiverse Failure

Believers in evolution, whether cosmic or biological, essentially depend on luck. The owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch do not like to play the hand they are dealt, so they reshuffle and cheat until they think they are winning. Attempts to rescue speculations on the origin of the universe may look good on paper, but they still fail.

One way evolutionists try to escape the Creator is to believe in the multiverse, which relies on bad logic and luck. It still fails.
Made at Atom Smasher
We had the Big Bang, but that bronco bucked them off for lack of evidence. Now we have the inflationary universe, and then the multiverse concept. That is, there are many other universes (some folks think the universe is still inflating way out yonder), so despite the odds, here we are through a series of lucky accidents against all odds.

That is called "science" in their eyes, old son, but it is blind faith and circular reasoning. Quite a bit of work to disavow the Creator, don't you think?
Creation scientists have long pointed out the enormous difficulties with ‘goo-to-you’ evolution, and even evolutionists have acknowledged these problems. Furthermore, the fundamental constants of the universe are finely tuned to permit life. Yet many evolutionists claim, despite these difficulties, that a multiverse can explain our existence without the need for a Creator.
These evolutionists claim that our universe is not the only universe. They argue that it is just one of infinitely many universes, each having possibly different physical constants (and perhaps even different laws of physics).
To finish reading, click on "Multiverse no help for evolution". 

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

Monday, August 5, 2019

More Censorship in the Secular Science Industry

A spell back, I wrote about how politics can imprison science because in many cases, secularists hijack science for their own ends, such as gender confusion. Now we see an example of the secular science industry refusing to correct a paper because it did not fit the agenda.

Secular science has a problem with reproducibility. When it fits their agenda, studies falsifying can be censored.
Mostly made at Add Letters, plus clip art and additional text
The science establishment adores Papa Darwin and strives to protect him from scrutiny, even if bad science needs to be lassoed and brought into the corral. There is a reproducibility crisis where paper are submitted relying on other papers, but the original findings are not replicated and can be spurious. Peer review? That has a passel of problems, even though many people adore it. Anti-creationist tinhorns often demand to be shown a peer-reviewed paper (as if they could understand it in the first place). When they are shown such papers from creationist organizations, they utilize the genetic fallacy and light a shuck out of there.

Naturalists are none too keen on Conservatives, Christians, and especially biblical creationists. Recently, a study of the Shroud of Turin was under-reported and new information questioning the techniques used in previous research was questioned. At least this has a semblance of being corrected.

However, a paper purported to show why people hold certain political beliefs (which disparaged Conservatives). This was challenged and the findings did not match the established narrative. It was ignored, and the journal even refused peer review. This was a case of blatant censorship and deficient morality in science.
A study originally published 2008 in Science, by John Hibbing et al., titled “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits” has now been replicated with opposite results. What happened next reveals a lot about censorship in science.
An attempt to replicate a claim, particularly a controversial claim, should be the normal procedure in science. Repeatability, indeed, is supposed to be a hallmark of the scientific method. In this case, though, the original study, called the Oxley study, was convincingly falsified. . . .
The authors and others are concerned that the reason it was rejected was due to bias against conservatives and creationists. The original study showed conservatives [and creationists] in a very poor light, and liberals [and evolutionists] in a far better light. At the least, the new study should have been peer reviewed and, if valid concerns were determined to exist, the study could have been rejected for valid reasons. This did not happen.
To read the entire article, click on "Liberal Journal and Media Disparage Conservatives, but Censor Falsification".

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

Saturday, August 3, 2019

Video Recommendation: The Atheist Illusion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I receive a list of links from The Domain for Truth, I noticed something called The Atheist Illusion. There are several videos and books that have similar names, but I thought I would click on the link anyway. It went to a video and I expected a lecture. Instead, the video was very informative and well produced. It used graphics, excerpts from other videos, and narration that was easy to understand. I am going to discuss points in it and import some of my own thoughts that were sparked by The Atheist Illusion.

The Atheist Illusion is an informative and compelling video that deals with several subjects. It is well worth your time.
From the opening of the video
It is a fact that atheists have a high degree of degree of depression and suicide, and the video begins by pointing this out and the hopelessness inherent in atheism. It is difficult to live life without purpose, but atheists pretend that the belief that "when you die, that's it, you're worm food" is somehow liberating. No, the atheistic worldview leads to despair.

Those of us who have been around the web and social media for a spell know that atheists lie. A lot. Some even pretend to be Christians so they can sidle up to Christians and begin attempting to tear down our faith. The biggest lies are those they tell themselves, including their belief in science and logic — but few online village atheists demonstrate any skill in understanding either. 

Their appeal to science is based on delusional self-serving presuppositions (such as redefining "reality" as "naturalism"). Actually, science, logic, and reality itself are impossible without the God that they pretend does not exist; naturalism is actually self-refuting. We see that atheists believe what they want to believe, and their religion is one of blind faith, not based on reason; opinions and conjecture are of primary importance. However, they claim that Christians are deniers of science and reality, which is the opposite of the truth.

Many atheists (especially those that have been caught lying) resort to rage, mockery, and extensive use of logical fallacies. When presented with contrary views, misotheists often rail against and attempt to shame those who have the unmitigated gall to believe something different — especially when we provide evidence and logic that refute their positions. Such angry displays (plus the ubiquitous ad homienm and straw man fallacies) do not prove their positions and only make them look more foolish.

The video discussed evolution at some length. This is important because it supposedly make atheism intellectually feasible. Evolution is actually a pseudoscience that cannot be falsified. (It is interesting to me that if there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution, why the need for fraud and tampering with data?) Clinton Richard Dawkins was mentioned several times, including his nonsensical "Mount Improbable" speculation. Essentially, evolutionists believe in luck rather than admit that the evidence supports the work of the Creator.

From this discussion, the video went into the consequences of an evolutionary worldview. Eugenics was examined and how Adolf Hitler took it to its horrendous logical conclusion. Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, and Hitler, Stalin, and other anti-Christian Darwinists were discussed, as well as the atheistic Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.

Let's face it: atheism has no answers and only offers death. It has no real science, truth, or even tolerance. Atheists want to be admired and are essentially their own gods. The only truth and hope come from repentance and trust in the God of the Bible.

The Atheist Illusion is about an hour and a half long, so I do not want to embed it here (large videos slow down page loads on sites, as you have probably noticed elsewhere). Instead, here is the link. I hope that you will watch this compelling video and learn from it.

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

Friday, August 2, 2019

Planation Surfaces Beneath Antarctic Ice

We have seen that secular geologists are puzzled by planation surfaces and other landforms. Try as they might, they are unable to explain what is observed by their deep time presuppositions and assumptions. There is another chilling feature that causes consternation.

Planation surfaces are puzzling to secular geologists. Things become worse for them when they are below the Antarctic ice sheet, but these things fit creation science models.
Credit: NASA / National Science Foundation / James Yungel
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you recall, planation surfaces are basically the flattened tops of mountains that cover great distances. There are many of them around the world, so they are not simply occasional anomalies. They also exist under the Antarctic ice sheet. How did that happen? Secular scientists are infested with insufficient ideas, but what is observed fit creation science Flood and Ice Age models.
All continents display large, flat erosional surfaces called planation surfaces. Indeed, planation surfaces are especially widespread on the continents of Africa and Australia. The prevalence of the water-rounded rocks that commonly cap their surfaces suggest these surfaces were formed by a heavy sediment-filled flow of water. Antarctica is no exception to planation features. Nunataks are mountains that stick up above the ice and planation surfaces have been carved on some of these mountains.
To read the entire article, click on "Planation surfaces below the Antarctic Ice Sheet".

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