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, September 19, 2019

Another Alleged Earth-Like Planet Discovered

Astrobiologists are promoting their pseudoscience like chariot racers in the Circus Maximus, hoping to find evidence of habitable planets in deep space. Although they fail every time and their hopes are dimming because the habitable zone has multiple caveats, bio-astrologers keep on a-trying.

Secular astronomers are cheering yet another exoplanet discovery. They keep searching for signs of life despite evidence against it.
Credits: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center / Chris Smith
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The desire is to find evidence of life out there, even though nobody can even see the planets, let alone, conditions on them. (Also, exoplanets are young, created recently like our own solar system. No time for Darwin to work his magic.) I maintain that it would be illogical to claim that even if life was found and evolution was proven, it would not justify that all life evolved; it would be the hasty generalization fallacy. Materialists don't seem to care.

Exoplanet GJ 357 d is supposedly in the habitable zone, yee haw boy howdy. There are many unknown factors as well as the little detail that it orbits a red dwarf star. The planet is also very large, but its composition is unknown. If it is rocky, the gravity would be lethal, and if it is something like Neptune, that would be another reason to saddle up and ride on to another telescope. These owlhoots keep on making empty proclamations; you'd think they would learn to rein in their hubris a spell until more information is gathered.
The headlines seem like science fiction, conjuring up images from the movie “Another Earth”. Is there possibly life on another planet like ours? Researchers at the Carl Sagan Institute at Cornell University discovered what may be an Earth-like planet, 31 light years away from our solar system.
. . .

Red dwarf stars are by far the most common type of star but are all too faint to be seen with the naked eye. The star GJ 357 is no exception: it is only about a third of the sun’s mass and diameter, but its temperature is quite cool, 3505 ± 51 K, and is only 1.6% as bright as the sun. There are huge problems with planets around red dwarf stars that make them unsuitable for life, as discussed in the our article about the ‘ultracool’ star Trappist-1 and its seven planets.
. . .

GJ 357 d is claimed to be in the habitable zone and has a rotation period between 70 and 120 Earth days. Such a slow rotation suggests at least partial tidal locking. Evolutionists think that this way the temperature on the planet is neither too hot nor too cold and is just right for life to evolve. . . . 

Should we really be so excited? What did the researchers really find?
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Have astrobiologists really found a super-Earth?"

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

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Two Oceanic Critters and Evolution

This child thinks that our Creator like variety and has designed some things for our wonder and maybe even our amusement. It could be that he knew how professors of fish-to-fool evolution would get mighty uncomfortable explaining how some things came to be. For example, the predation skills of the slapping shark and the pistol shrimp.

Thresher sharks and pistol shrimp have predation skills that evolutionists cannot explain, but show the skill of the Master Engineer.
Original image before modification: NOAA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When a pistol (snapping) shrimp takes a notion to have a critter for lunch, it slaps leather (so to speak) by firing off a shot. The cavitation bubble is lethal, and when it pops, the sound reaches of 200 decibels! It's also great pals with the goby fish. In a similar manner, the pelagic thresher shark smacks little fish with its powerful tail. If it sees you, it won't bite, but would rather get out of Dodge quick-like.

Evolutionists resort to the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ to evosplain why their deity deigned to deliver these unique characteristics. "It likely evolved to..." and similar weasel words can be found as expected. No, they are doing what they were designed to do by the Master Engineer.
The super-fast and powerful movements of sharks and shrimps are among “the works of the LORD” and “His wonders in the deep.” Consider how their body parts and physiologies providentially empower sharks to slap and shrimps to snap.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Deep Wonders of Slapping Sharks and Snapping Shrimps". I also have an earlier post that may be of interest, "Armed and Dangerous Shrimp".



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

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Mica in Sand Thwarts Secular Geologists

Saddle up and ride over to the gorge-ous Grand Canyon, then take special notice of the rock layers and the various colors. There's a whitish-yellowish part known as the Coconino sandstone that uniformitarian (deep time) geologists think is a problem to creationists. Not happening, pilgrim.

Secular geologists think that the Coconino sandstone at the Grand Canyon is a problem for Flood geology. In fact, the opposite is true.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Diego Delso, delso.photo, License CC-by-SA 4.0
Secular geologists say that the Coconino sandstone was made in a desert and could not possibly have been formed by the global Genesis Flood and allows millions of years for evolution to happen. From superficial examination, it does appear to be a problem. Further examination, however, shows that there is mica in the sand, which should not be there under the conditions secularists expect. Instead, this mica supports the Genesis Flood.
My graduate school professor, Dr. Steve Austin, was a serious field geologist. But periodically, his childlike delight in exploring God’s creation shone through. He taught us to let the rocks and the earth “speak to us,” as Job 12:8 (NKJV) said several millennia ago. 
. . .

For some time now, I have been studying a famous layer of yellow rock known as the Coconino Sandstone found in the walls of Grand Canyon. Other creationists and I have devoted many years to this sandstone because most other geologists interpret the sandstone as sand dunes that formed in an ancient desert some 275 million years ago and later fossilized (hardened into rock). How different from the view that Noah’s watery flood laid down these layers quickly around 4,300 years ago!
To read the entire article or download the MP3 with my favorite reader, click on "Mica, Mica in the Sand, Tell Us Something Really Grand!" For additional information, see also, "Coconino Sandstone Myths Debunked".

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

Monday, September 16, 2019

Astrobiology, a Pseudoscience Without Evidence

Supposedly, a science requires research, investigation, and especially evidence. People can get degrees in bio-astrology — I mean, astrobiology — even though it is based almost entirely on guesswork. Worse, astrobiology has no evidence to back up the numerous claims and expectations.

People can get degrees in the pseudoscience of astrobiology, which has no evidence to support it. Here are some more outlandish reports.
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of the truth contained on this site)
It is ironic that materialists demand evidence for God and miracles, yet they believe all sorts of things based on ipse dixit — because someone said so.  Long ago, people were discovering how to get away from reliance on the claims of others. They wanted evidence. Bioastrologers — I mean, astrobiologists — and other secularists are locking themselves into consensus and disinterest in evidence. The following article has several items showing how astrobiology shenanigans are a waste of our tax money. They're probably laughing over their firewater at how we have to pay them to deny the Creator.
  • Cyanide in a meteorite gives "understanding" to the origin of life
  • Search for extraterrestrials that are not like life on Earth
  • Instead of a materialist admitting defeat in the search for extraterrestrials, more materialism is added
You can read about these and others by clicking on "Astrobiologists Whip Up False Hopes".
 

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

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Engineered Nanobot Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A few months back, I took some inspiration from a 1989 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that tied in with a previous post on gene editing ethics (see "Science Fiction and Genetic Engineering"). While taking a break from serious stuff on my Roku device, it happened again.

Once again, inspiration from science fiction. A Star Trek TNG episode provided some illustration for engineered adaptability, but the characters erroneously called it evolution.
Fun fact: the Angry Picard "meme" is from a segment where he was quoting Shakespeare
I had to turn the dial on my suspension of disbelief gadget up to eleven because the show was saturated with evolutionary propaganda that ran contrary to what I have learned about both creation and evolution. Speaking of which, the episode is simply titled "Evolution" and it involved nanotechnology. Although it does not actually exist yet in any practical sense, research is happening. Nanites (nanobots, nanomachines, and other names) are supposedly one billionth of a meter in size. If they are developed, nanomachines could be extremely important in medical science. Anyone who watches or reads science fiction has probably encountered stories involving nanobots.

In the story, two nanites escaped and somehow found their way into the warp core of the Enterprise. They began to replicate and adapt to their environment, and their feeding for further development and replication endangered the ship. Some folks didn't take too kindly to the disruptions and wanted them eliminated. But whoa there, Hoss! These critters are evolving. Yup, evolution. Isn't evolution wonderful? (Our television franchise loves promoting evolution, don'tcha know.) They have evolved into a new, intelligent life form in just a few hours. Isn't evolution wonderful? So, we can't kill them off since they're a newly-evolved life form. Evolution.

Except that it wasn't evolution.


It occurred to me that this 1989 story was indirectly illustrating some of the points of the engineered adaptability concept proposed by the Institute for Creation Research in 2013-2014. This creation model is contrary to how Darwin and his acolytes hijacked natural selection and other concepts. They insist on outside "environmental pressures" to cause evolution, but the opposite is true. Specifically, the Master Engineer designed living things to adapt and even anticipate changes, whether on an individual basis or even entire populations.

That's what happened in the story. There was no blind, purposeless molecules-to-machine evolution going on. These nanites were following their programming, adapting and changing. This television show illustrates something that we see so frequently riding the Creation Trail: owlhoots are so enthusiastic in their adoration of Darwin that they "see" evolution where none exists. The adaptation through design was misnamed in the show, and it is misnamed in science today. A huge amount of effort is involved in denying the creator in evolutionary thinking.

Excuse me now. I have to replace my suspension of disbelief gadget. That silly program burned it out.

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

Friday, September 13, 2019

Damage Response Machine for DNA

When everything was perfect in the beginning, the Master Engineer knew that things would run down after the Fall of Man. He put systems into place The exceptionally important and extremely complex molecule for life known as DNA is quite fragile. However, the MRN complex helps fix things up.

The Master Engineer knew that things in living things would deteriorate, so he designed ways to repair the extremely important DNA molecule. This is another refutation of evolution.
Credit: Unsplash / Blaz Erzetic
This molecular machine is comprised of three proteins, and repairs several kinds of damage. Proponents of molecules-to-molecular biologist evolution really have no explanation or model for how they came into being. It is amazing that the more we learn about the world even on the molecular level, the more we learn about the brilliance of God.
You have been designed with many trillions of cells. Within the nucleus of each cell (except for red blood cells) is the “molecule of life” called DNA. It’s organized into chromosomes (humans have 46) upon which many thousands of genes are found. Genes are hereditary units, comprised of nucleotide bases called T, G, C, and A. Each cell undergoes complex metabolic processes, or metabolism. Because we live in a fallen world, sometimes these processes (such as oxygen metabolism) can produce reactive chemicals that can produce harmful DNA lesions. Our DNA can also be damaged by environmental toxins and ionizing radiation.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "DNA Repair Research Reveals Astounding Complexity".



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

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Neglected Abundance of Food

It gets a mite difficult for people like me who can place an order for food on the telephone or on a website for delivery —

"You do that quite a bit, don't you, Cowboy Bob?"

They told me my weight is genetic. Or something. Moving on...

Many of us have little worries about getting victuals (correctly pronounced "vittles") at our convenience, so we may have problems understanding or empathizing with those who are desperate for decent food. In other places, people eat and thrive on things that make those of us in the Western world cringe. Then there are various things that people have not considered for sustenance and could theoretically alleviate starvation.

Some of the starvation problems are not simply drought, but bad government. Back in 1985 and following, there were rock concerts and such with the noble intention of alleviating starvation in Ethiopia caused by famine. It was not a good idea because distribution and other factors were not considered. Even worse, the government let much of the food that was delivered rot on the docks and money was used to buy weapons. Atheist Soviet ruler Josef Stalin killed millions of people through famine. The Great Chinese famine was caused largely by atheist ruler Mao's incompetence. The list could easily go on.

Our Creator has provided his creation with an abundance of food. We need to learn how to find and use it. We can even eat duckweed.
Duckweed in a marina image credit: James Fischer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (public domain)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Our Creator has given us many things to be used for food. I disremember when, but I saw a movie where a boy was stranded in a remote place and tried to make algae soup. It was too nasty for him to eat. Maybe it needed hot sauce. Some suggested foods have been ridiculed partly because of what I refer to as "the eww factor": No thanks, don't want maggots, worms, or bugs for lunch, but you go ahead. However, some of those things do not have to be consumed per se, but can be put to good use. Some strains of duckweed (ducks love the stuff) are high in protein and are better for you than a typical salad. Or you can have the alternative vegetarian diet by feeding duckweed to livestock and then eating them.
People don’t starve because of a lack of resources. They suffer because of bad ideas and wicked rulers.

Solomon, the wisest king of all, had a lot to say about poverty. One of his proverbs says, “The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice” (Proverbs 13:23). Here are some of his other proverbs about poverty. Hunger is not the result of a lack of resources, but a lack of character (slothfulness), a lack of truth (mythology and bad beliefs), and a lack of justice (wicked leaders). Recent news articles from scientific discoveries reinforce his maxims, but sometimes you have to think outside the box of natural inclinations.
To consume the rest of the article, click on "Food Abounds for the Poor".



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

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

How Humans are also Animals

In "Animals Do Not, But We Do", we saw that critters can do all sorts of things, but they cannot develop languages, create civilizations, build colleges and hospitals, and all sorts of things. However, biologists will tell you that humans are animals. Is that correct? Well, yes and no.


Humans were specially created, but we are also considered animals. According to biological classifications and common design elements, this is true.
The Cowboy by Frederic Remington, 1902
According to biological classifications and physiological traits, we are considered animals. (Using the same kinds of system, we certainly are not plants or minerals.) Going further, we are more specifically classified as mammals, which have certain characteristics in common beyond those of animals. Some humans can be considered animals because of their actions like those who crashed planes into buildings on September 11, 2001. Darwinists use cladistics and homology to argue for evolution, but their systems can work the other way, arguing for a common Designer. Even though we are biologically animals and mammals, we are still very different, having been created in God's image.
Are you an animal? If a man eats with deplorable table manners, his wife might ask him if he had been raised in a barn. If the guy down the street behaves wildly, you might call him an animal, though not to his face. If you hear on the news of a couple like Bonnie and Clyde going on a murder spree, you might remark that they are behaving like animals.

What is it about these behaviors that prompts us to call a fellow human an animal, whether in jest or seriously? It is any behavior that we deem less than civilized, behavior that we associate with animals more than with humans. But do those behaviors mean those individuals are actually animals? Of course not. The very fact that we might derisively call someone an animal based on “animal-like” behavior illustrates the fact that we humans generally consider ourselves different from animals.
To read the rest, click on "What Are Humans? Animals, Mammals, or Neither?"

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

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Animals Do Not, But We Do

Advocates of fish-to-philosopher evolution often point out the similarities between humans and animals, such as having DNA, blood cells, limbs, eyes, and such. We have so much in common, we must have evolved from a common ancestor, so we are just another type of animal, right? Not hardly! 


Evolutionists assume evolution and point to some biological similarities between animals and us. They ignore the stark differences, especially when it comes to accomplishments.
Credit: CSIRO / North Sullivan Photography (CC by 3.0)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
We have a great deal in common with animals, I'll allow, but there are vast differences. Not just physically, either. Consider what we do and what animals cannot begin to accomplish. Imagine if you will:

"Cap'n! Number One Chimp has been hit by a pulsar blast!"

"Get him into sickbay immediately and call the medical supervisor."

Not happening, not ever. Nor will animals learn to write and ignore the rules of capitalization in titles like I chose to do.

Materialists cannot accept the fact that we were made in God's image, and critters have not evolved, nor will they develop anything complex. Leave that to fantasy writers.
If we humans are not evolved animals, then we should possess abilities and features that animals lack. We will here consider six of these, which are also features of God. They are language, literacy, music, mathematics, creativity, and dominion.

These features not only make us special, they also make us accountable. We can use these features to glorify God or to rebel against His will—even to practise “the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
To finish reading, click on "What humans do but animals don’t".

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

Monday, September 9, 2019

The Tower of Babel and Evolutionary Thinking

Many sciences are infested with the bedbugs of evolutionary thinking, including anthropology and archaeology. People who work in these fields assume deep time and evolution for the interpretation of data. Those of use who presuppose the truth of the biblical timeline watch as they are frequently surprised by their discoveries. 


Secular researchers are continually surprised by their discoveries, especially since they validate the biblical timeline back to Babel and beyond.
De "Weinig" Toren van Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563
When discoveries are made that conflict with the current dogma, they send a telegram to the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass and have them get to work on the problem. (In fact, they are having a retreat at Biden's Eye, famous for its red color at this time of year, to discuss the problems.) Darwin's disciples fudge the data by redating this, that, and the other thing to accommodate new findings. Or they let the ancient aliens folks with their evolutionary thinking saddle it up and gallop away with the facts.

Humans were not stupid creatures who hadn't yet shaken off their simian ancestry. Instead, they were created fully human, and fully intelligent. The discovery of a civilization with advanced building techniques, a semblance of religion, languages, commerce, and more would not startle and threaten biblical creationists. However, archaeology and anthropology, when correctly interpreted without Darwinian shackles, support the biblical timeline all the way back to Babel — and beyond.
The story begins in the southern region of ancient Mesopotamia where 30 massive structures have been discovered that archeologists describe as towers of worship. These huge structures resemble flat top pyramids and were masterfully constructed of bricks made of clay. These buildings had stairs and ramps leading to the highest elevation where a platform was built for the worship of idols.

These temples have been identified as ziggurats. They were designed with equal sides representing the shape of a square. They ranged from 20 meters (65 ft.) to over 90 meters (295 ft.) high, and they were tiered with the roof being a place for the gods to dwell and receive man’s adoration. These towering edifices, dating from the 3rd millennium BC, demonstrate an amazingly high degree of masonry craftsmanship. These structures have never been found before this time and, more importantly, they demonstrate the sudden emergence of human civilization. The advanced level of engineering, architecture and community discovered around these ziggurats is contrary to what evolutionists believe with regard to the development of man.
To read the rest of  the article, click on "Evolution and the Tower of Babel". It's best to ignore the special offer at the beginning, that is no longer valid.





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

Saturday, September 7, 2019

Limits of the Intelligent Design Movement

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more.


The Intelligent Design people do a good job in refuting Darwinism, but their work is incomplete. Some in the ID community may be realizing its limitations.
An ornithopter design by Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1489
The Intelligent Design movement is not something that has membership and issue identification cards. There are individual organizations like the Discovery Center that are specifically designed to refute various forms unguided evolution, as well as individuals who also promote ID. Darwin's dishonest gadflies, in their febrile efforts to reject God, say that the ID Movement is creation science in disguise. That is clearly false, as any schoolchild who can read their material might tell you. They have theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, some young-earth creationists, Mohammedans, agnostics, and others involved.

Don't be getting me wrong. Biblical creationists use intelligent design arguments frequently, but we do not divorce them from creation. When the two are properly married up, they address not only the intellect, but the spiritual aspect — which materialists deny and ID proponents mostly ignore. They do a fine job in refuting evolution, but that is incomplete.

In "Unsafe to Question Evolution?", I linked to material on how people in academic and secular science occupations who dare to question evolution risk their careers and reputations. A few who have tenure or status can do so a little bit, but most have to remain undercover. That post focused on Yale professor Dr. David Gelernter's "coming out" because he saw that the evidence did not support Darwinism. He is not too enthused with Intelligent Design because it does not go far enough. He realizes that neither evolution nor ID address the deeper issues of life. We can hope and pray that he will learn that biblical creation science can guide him in the right direction. For a short article on this subject, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".

In a related article, there may be some agreement in the ID community about how they do not address important issues. Questions are raised that need answers, and there seem to be stirrings where some members (I use "members" loosely) are wanting more. An article on African chicklets — I mean, cichlids — which are popular among tropical fish enthusiasts devastates the idea that cichlid variation supports evolution. That is false, as regular readers have seen here many times. Some of the material on the cichlids could have been written by creationists. To read this article, click on "I.D. Catching up with Creation".

While presenting evidence supporting recent special creation and refuting evolution, we cannot essentially leave people hanging. Some folks seem to have the same foolish idea that I had: essentially, if we provide evidence for design, people will renounce evolution and fall on their knees asking Jesus Christ to be Lord of the lives. Such a view is contrary to Scripture, as I discussed in "Evidential or Presuppositional Apologetics?" Antony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence, but apparently he was a Deist at best, and as lost as any other person who is unredeemed. We know where the answers can be found, and should not be ashamed of presenting the truth.




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

Friday, September 6, 2019

The Perplexing System of Pluto

People who like space exploration, and even those who are uninterested, are likely to have heard about the New Horizons spacecraft and its visit way out yonder. Arguably the biggest news came from the flyby of Pluto. The results were surprising to both creationists and secular scientists. Things keep getting worse for proponents of cosmic evolution.


Pluto and its moons have caused problems for secular scientists for quite a while. New speculations about its origin leave us cold.
Credits: NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you think back on your basic solar system knowledge, you might rightly recollect that the first four planets are called terrestrial, skip the asteroid belt, then we find the gas giants like Jupiter and the next three. After that comes a lot of rubble, Barney, called trans-Neptunian (or Kuiper belt) objects. Pluto and its system are way out there.



While secularists have a whole heap of problems dealing with evidence that the solar system is young, they are also struggling with various speculations on how it formed. (My own guess is that our Creator was playing a prank on secular scientists who wanted to believe in deep time rather than recent creation.) Planets and moons fly retrograde at times, the composition of the inner planets, then the outer planets, and then Pluto and company have evolution-defying composition. Their orbits are recalcitrant as well. Secular scientists are even speculating that Neptune and Uranus migrated out there. Probably illegally. Both secular and creation scientists have gained a great deal of information, but there is more to learn and everyone has their work cut out for them.
In recent issues of Journal of Creation, John Hartnett and Danny Faulkner have both commented on discoveries regarding the satellites of Pluto from the July 2015 New Horizons mission. There are many mysteries about the Pluto system that are sure to be the subject of much research and discussion for years to come. Hartnett and Faulkner addressed some difficulties for evolutionary naturalistic theories to explain the origin of Pluto’s natural satellites. I would like to comment on the new theories being explored by planetary scientists regarding the Pluto system.
To read the rest, click on "The satellites of Pluto". 

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

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Facing Up To Faces

Faces are useful and, at times, fun. We can communicate with them in subtle ways, especially people who have been together for a long time. If you stop and study on it, animals do not have much variety in expressions; that squirrel I chased off the patio had the same expression he had before, but I know he was both alarmed and angry.

Darwinists assume evolution, and researchers wanted to see how we evolved faces. They did not have any success.
Original image credit: Unsplash / Francesco Ungaro
Frame enhancement: PhotoFunia
As expected, some Darwinists started with the assumption of evolution, then tried to reckon how we evolved faces from those of our alleged ancestors. There are many factors involved, what with muscles, functions, and all that make the matter difficult. Researchers made assertions but only paid lip service to evidence. Seems to me that this is along the lines of the absurd believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since there are numerous changes that must be in place, but evolutionists have no mechanisms. Let's face it, we are not related to apes, but were separately created.
A team based at Arizona State University (ASU) Institute of Human Origins recently speculated on how the distinct features of human faces evolved from ape-like faces.  Their science-sounding terms masked a failure to face certain facts that should have framed their conclusion.
To read this short article in its entirety, click on "Where Did Faces Come From?"


via GIPHY


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

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Evolution, the Disreputable Girlfriend of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although science is a tool for interpreting observable evidence, people treat it like an entity, such as in the expression "science says". Scientists say, not science, but we can work with this later. Science is used by fallible humans who have biases and make mistakes, sometimes clinging to bad ideas despite evidence.


Science has a girlfriend known as Evolution. She has caused many problems for Science, but he will not send her packing.
Made with PhotoFunia
For example, the phlogiston theory of combustion was disproved but it took a while before it was put out to pasture. Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that medical people needed to wash their hands before touching patients, but his evidence was rejected for many years. The views of Charles Darwin gained acceptance despite contrary evidence, which includes deep time in geology and also cosmic evolution.

Evolution is the girlfriend of ill-repute of Science. They go to parties together, and Science uses Evolution to impress people. However, Evolution is unfaithful and even invites her brother Scientism over for long visits, drinking all the fire water, stealing the rent money, and trashing the place. Bad company corrupts good morals, and even brings down mediocre morals. Science need to tell Evolution to pack her grip and get out, but he's too infatuated with the pleasures she brings. Which is weird, because Science and Evolution fight quite a bit, but neither of them notice.



Yes, I know, the above paragraph is a sardonic example of reification, but I used it to make a point. People believe in deep time, biological and chemical evolution, and adhere to Scientism despite contrary (or absent) evidence, not because of it. Things are presented as science that are risible, but Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ spread speculations as if they were actual scientific evidence of something. Sorry, old son, but there are many things unknown to science despite the posturing and guesswork of scientists. Savvy that?

Begging the question (using evolution to prove evolution) and materialistic presuppositions give rise to some stories that should give the public the giggles. Unfortunately, critical thinking is not taught enough in the public indoctrination centers, so people fall for what scientists say. Someone with healthy skepticism should ask questions (even to themselves) and spot the materialistic presuppositions involved — extra credit for knowing the science that is being ignored.

Here are a few examples:

  • We can see extraterrestrials because they will have evolved the ability to glow special colors for their protection.
  • Climate change is making populations of angry spiders.
  • Because microbes attach themselves to sand and disperse, that's how live is spread on Mars.
You can read about these and more examples of bad science by clicking on "Unrestrained Speculation in Darwin Fantasyland". In addition, I suggest "What Science Doesn't Know" and "Evolution vs Science". Science needs to get rid of that Evolution girlfriend, and scientists should humble themselves before the Creator, who is the source of true wisdom.




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

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

The Beginning of Multicellular Organisms

The standard story told by adherents of universal common ancestor evolution about the rise of multicellular organisms is that sponges clumped together and took a notion to evolve. We may wonder how such knowledge was obtained. Don't you know who they are? They're evolutionists, so they're right.

The standard textbook explanation for the evolution of multi-celled organisms has been challenged. However, the new idea raises many unanswered questions.
Credit: NOAA / G.P. Schmahl (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Darwinists are mighty fond of passing along speculations that fit the evolutionary narrative as if they were actual science, now they want to move it up a notch. Some researchers disagreed with the whole clumpy sponge idea, so they had some guesswork of their own: stem cells. That's right, multicellular organisms came from stem cells. However, stem cells are very complex and evolutionists cannot account for their origins. Of course not. The most logical explanation is what biblical creationists have been telling us all along.
One of the problems inherent in the evolutionary dogma is going from a single-celled organism, once such a thing exists, to a multi-celled organism. Evolutionists have proposed all sorts of outlandish ideas to solve this predicament, but none of them have been workable. However, because their worldview requires this evolution to occur, they continuously search for a mechanism to go from single-celled to multi-celled.
To read the full article, click on "Origins of Multicellular Organisms". 

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

Monday, September 2, 2019

Loss of Flight Claimed as Evidence for Evolution

Like cattle rustlers who refuse to admit that they got lost riding the wrong trail in the dark, Darwin's disciples keep claiming that they have evidence for evolution where none exists. It is both pathetic and amusing when they deny their own belief system and claim that loss of traits shows onward and upward evolution.

Evolutionists claim that loss of traits is evidence of their beliefs. A bird called the white-throated rail lost its ability to fly, but they actually show evidence for creation.
Cropped from Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Veronesi (CC by-SA 2.0)
One of the most giggle-worthy examples of this is the use of troglomorphism, the loss of sight and pigmentation in cave animals (see this article, Part 1 and Part 2). Another example is a flightless bird called the white-throated rail.

"Are these people for rail, Cowboy Bob?"

Don't do that.

Supposedly, flight evolved several times in different ways, even though evolutionists really have no idea how it happened. Stuff happens — it's a law, you know. Instead of the hallucinations of the Darwinian elite, observations actually work against evolution and support special creation.
A recent paper in an esteemed zoology journal caused a stir in the science media. Its authors claim that fossils of a species of bird called the white-throated rail . . . show evidence for the repeated loss of flight in this bird in several islands in the southwest Indian Ocean near the island of Madagascar.  . . . 
What is special about these species of birds is that the loss of flight capabilities has occurred several times rapidly, under specific conditions. These include the lack of land predators and other animals which could compete with the birds, principally for food. The authors of this paper claim that flightlessness has “evolved” several times. The online journal Science Daily reports these findings as birds coming back from the dead. But is this really a demonstration of de-evolution followed by re-evolution actually happening? What is really going on here?
To read the entire article, click on "Rails derail evolution — The loss of flight is not evolution!"



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

Labels