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, November 13, 2019

The Fading Magnetic Field is Important

One of the numerous facts used by biblical creationists that indicates a young earth is the decay of the magnetic field. Secular owlhoots know that this has been happening, but they try to salvage their deep time beliefs with assorted and unprovable concepts. They also try to wave it off as unimportant.

Secularists cannot escape the fact that the fading magnetic field is evidence for a young earth. Some even claim that it does not matter. Wrong!
Image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
After all, it's been there for billions of years, they think, and are apparatchiks for the Darwin Party. If the Bearded Buddha needs huge amounts of time, they'll find it for him, you betcha! Some are implying that it will be somewhat inconvenient, but ignore other important facts. Also, they have their uniformitarian paradigm (slow and gradual processes), assuming that the decay rate will not increase later. Our Creator put that magnetic field up there to take care of this here planet that we call home.
Earth’s magnetic field is vital for life, but it is decaying. To keep it going billions of years, evolutionists gloss over facts.
On Live Science, Stephanie Pappas asks, “What if Earth’s magnetic field disappeared?” Our planetary shield is “important for life,” she admits, and it is decaying in strength, she confesses. But she downplays its protective function. One reason is that evolutionists need their billions of years for the Stuff Happens Law to have time to mold humans out of bacteria. But they can’t have their precious billions of years, because the magnetic field is measurably decaying by 5% per century. It could not have lasted billions of years, and will be long gone before a billion more years could transpire.
To read the rest of this attractive article, click on "Why Magnetic Field Decay Matters".



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

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

The Amazing Gift of Vision

In the early days of printers and the internet, ASCII code was tediously used to draw pictures, such as these cats. Our brains take the visual stimulation and recognize what pictures mean. This is called skeletal recognition, probably because of the "bare bones" approach. It is different from shape recognition.

Human vision is extremely fast and intricate. These processes testify of the skill of the Master Engineer, not evolutionary random processes.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Renjith Krishnan
We see a shape or have a glimpse of something and often recognize it, just as with the examples mentioned previously. It helps if we have reference points, such as having seen animals or objects so we can make the association. (Mayhaps that is why people are afraid when they see something completely alien to them.) We also make these connections exceptionally fast. Researchers praise Darwin, blessed be! But the intricacies of human vision testify of the work of the Master Engineer, not foolish faith in random chance processes.
Human vision is incredible. The human eye and brain are adept at recognizing objects, often even when they are not fully visible or oriented at different angles than usual. For example, by seeing just a silhouette of a cat, even small children can identify what the animal is. Making out the faintest trace of a streetlamp in fog, our eyes instantly relay to our brains the identity of the object. Seeing a bird in the sky with wings on the downstroke or upstroke does not confuse us; we can clearly recognize the shape as a bird. On average, the time it takes for this process of perception and recognition is within 70 milliseconds, or about half the time of an eye blink. Although we often think of our eyes as what we see with, we really “see” with our brains. Except for the lens and cornea, the rest of the eye is really part of the brain.
To read the rest, click on "Human Vision: Amazing Uniqueness of Human Eyesight".

 For the lyrics to this 1984 song by Prodigal, click on "Electric Eye".


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

Monday, November 11, 2019

The Beginning of Dogs

It may be interesting to know that there are certain things that microbes-to-mutt evolutionists and biblical creationists are in agreement. Then we diverge. Dogs originally came from a wolf-like ancestor, and humans managed to domesticate them. The when, where, and how of this has no agreement. But that is to be expected.


While evolutionists and creationists agree that dogs originated from a wolf-like ancestor, creationists have a plausible model for the origin and domestication of dogs.
Credit: PIXNIO / bicanski
Materialists fallaciously assert that the varieties of dogs are examples of evolution, even though most arrived on the scene in the last 200 years or so through artificial selection. Such changes have definite limitations. No, breeds are not separate species; they are all in the same subspecies. The evolutionary model for dog origins is ineffective and evolutionists are in disagreement — they should be in disagreement, since they have no transitional forms to support their speculations. They are also in disagreement on the origin of the domestication of the critters, basically evosplained with doggerel.

Creationists are working on their own models. We believe that dogs are all a part of the same created kind, and when secular presuppositions are stripped from the science, dog diversification and domestication are compatible with the post-Flood biblical timeline. A creation science perspective with biblical history cannot be dogmatic —

"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"

Okay. Creationists admit that the model for the dog timeline is speculative, it also makes a great deal of sense.
Much work has been done by evolutionary scientists attempting to trace the origins of Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dogs). While many insights from this research are helpful, there are good scientific reasons to reject the proposed timeframe for the domestication of wolves (Canis lupus), the proposed phylogenetic relatedness of the Canidae family to other families in the evolutionary tree, and the use of variation within domestic dogs as evidence for the evolution of canids from the same common ancestor as all other living things. In contrast, inferences from the historical biblical texts provide a better model for the biological variation observed within domestic dogs and other canids, as well as for potential timeframes and geographical locales of initial (post-Flood) domestication of wolves into dogs. In light of biblical chronogenealogies used in dating the Flood and Babel events, initial post-Flood domestication would have taken place c. 2521–2200 BC. Possible narrower date ranges as well as geographical locales of initial domestication are given in light of different sets of assumptions concerning the chronology of biblical events and interpretations of the current scientific data.
To read the article, click on "Creationist modelling of the origins of Canis lupus familiaris—ancestry, timing, and biogeography". They have several related articles ad the end of that one. While I'm at it, you may also like some of their relatives: "Coyotes Have Gone to the Dogs" and "Post-Flood Dispersion and the Red Fox".




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

Saturday, November 9, 2019

Monkeys, Neuroscience, and Music

While searching for a video, I came across several blocks of music that were assembled to relax various animals as well as one for pets in general. I reckon that this is based on assumption and wishful thinking (and marketing, since music for critters CDs are being sold by pet suppliers). They may not be sophisticated music connoisseurs. Monkeys seem to consider music nothing but noise.


Researchers wanted to find out how monkeys react to music — because evolution. We are wired differently because we were created differently.
The Monkey who had Seen the World by Edwin Henry Landseer
Some assets of the Darwin Party worked from the presupposition that since monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor, our brains must work alike. Therefore, why not find out what music appeals to macaques and humans, because evolution. The monkeys were not interested. We're wired differently.

Evolutionists began to marvel again about the mysteries of the human brain, stroked their beards, and fired of some sciencey-sounding nonsense. Well, of course they should marvel! After all, they are the creation, and we have a Master Engineer who designed our brains. However, they choose to suppress the truth that we were created in God's image, so no wonder they seem surprised that we are different from animals.
Experiments show that monkeys prefer noise over music, even though they have brain similarities with humans.
A neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health wondered if monkeys could relate to music like humans do. After all, their eyes probably see like ours; do their ears hear like ours? Katarina Zimmer at The Scientist tells the story of experiments that Bevil Conway undertook to try to answer the question. In short, as the title of the article states, “When Humans Hear Music, Monkeys May Hear Noise.”
Using functional MRI machines (fMRI), Conway and colleagues watched what brain areas lit up when humans and macaques listened to musical tones and then to noise.
To go bananas and read the rest, click on "Music Is Noise to Monkeys".




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

Friday, November 8, 2019

The Athletic White-Tailed Deer

Many years ago, my mother told of an encounter with a deer when she was driving on a highway one evening (we lived in Michigan). Instead of  waiting, the fool beast ran alongside her car and then jumped over it. My mother saw the hind legs as it went onward. This adds to what many people know, that deer are fast runners and strong jumpers.


White-tailed deer are common in North America and then some. They show the Creator's design for their eat-and-run lifestyles.
Cropped from a nice scene on Freeimages / Juha Soininen
Then there's the story of the woman who called the radio station to complain about the deer crossing signs. She was upset that the deer didn't obey the signs. If that call happened (and there are several versions of the story), I think it was probably done as a prank.

On a more serious note from TQEP's Public Service department, a good guideline for motorists is to never assume that there is just one. If you stop for one in the road, keep an eye out for others. I can verify this from more than one experience.

Let's move on.

There are many of the deer kind around the world, and the white-tailed deer that are common in Canada, the United States, and even parts down further south exhibit our Creator's design. They can hide and run from predators. If you invite them over to a social function, expect them to eat and run because they were designed for that. For that matter, they survive on things that other critters would not find digestible.
I’ve loved these fleet-footed beauties since childhood, and my wonder has only grown deeper as I’ve studied them as a veterinarian.
These are the most common large wild mammals in the Americas. They can be found from southern Canada, throughout most of the United States, down to Central America, and even into parts of South America. Their extensive range is a direct result of their amazing adaptability. They are able to live in a variety of habitats, from the forests of the northeastern U.S. to the swamps of Florida, from farmlands to desolate desert.
To read the entire article, click on "White-Tailed Deer—All-American Athletes".




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

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Dinosaur Eggs and Challenges to the Genesis Flood

There are millions of fossilized dinosaur eggs around the world, but they may not stand out to someone who is not trained to notice them. After all, they are fossilized. These eggs are more concentrated in some areas than others, and secularists fixing to lynch biblical creationists present some challenges.

Dinosaur eggs have been used by secular geologists against biblical creation science. Creationists have a model to answer these objections.
Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / S. Ballal (CC by-SA 3.0)
Secularists have raised some challenges for Genesis Flood geology that are interesting at first glance. However, observed evidence regarding dinosaur eggs is also difficult for those geologists to answer as well. Creation scientists have the Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments model that provides satisfactory answers to objections of secular geologists.
Other features, such as mud cracks, raindrop imprints, bird tracks, channels, and burrows, have been reported at some egg sites. In addition, some dinosaur remains seem to have been scavenged. Skeptics argue that these features together with dinosaur eggs and nests represent normal activity over a long period of time and would need far more time than Noah’s Flood provides. However, as with all challenges against the Genesis Flood, a careful examination of the evidence reveals that there is no problem.
To read the entire article, click on "Dinosaur eggs point to the global Genesis Flood".

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Green Beans and Bioengineering

My mother insisted that I eat the green beans on my plate, but they were not all that thrilling. She would say that they have vitamins and we know much more now than we did back then about the health benefits of green beans. Interestingly, they have an internal mechanism that loosely resembles one of our own.


The common green bean was designed by the Master Engineer to respond to injury.
Credit: Pixabay / Sonja Langford
 When we have a wound, the blood will clot and the flow will stop (unless someone has a health condition). The Master Engineer also devised something similar for the beans. They need the sap to flow, but if a part is broken, that's where callose plugs come into play. Try to get a disciple of Darwin to evosplain that to you and come away with a satisfactory answer.
When bean plants are bruised or bitten by a caterpillar, what if the valuable sap in the plant’s vascular tubing kept flowing to the injury site, leading to an unrestrained loss of sap? That’s comparable to an injured human or animal losing blood. In humans and animals, injuries are often mitigated by blood clots (coagulation) and/or scab formation. But what about bean plants? Is there no hope against losing sap when internodes or tendrils are broken off or otherwise damaged?
 To read the entire article, click on "Green Bean Bioengineering Shows Creator's Care".




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

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

An Elephant is now a Person?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

I never thought that by the time I turned sixty, I would be writing about the foolishness of people who want personhood status for animals. It happened. It made a bit of sense when some activists failed in their attempt to obtain legal status for a chimpanzee since they resemble humans somewhat. But an elephant?


Animal rights extremists want to give personhood status to an elephant. There are several reasons why this is a foolish idea.
Credit: RGBStock / Stella Bogdanic
Just over an hour south of me at the Bronx Zoo is an elephant named Happy. Animal rights extremists are unhappy and want the elephant to have personhood status. Let's ride this short side trail a spell. A woman was a vegetarian for many years, but ate a hamburger and was converted. Now she's a butcher and a pig farmer. She did the vegetarian thing because she was converted by reading a book by "bioethicist" Peter Singer. That name should get the attention of some people, as he is known for animal rights, but also abortion and infanticide. Don't eat meat because animals have rights, but kill your unborn child who is not a person. Yeah, makes perfect sense. Okay, back to the original trail we were riding.

We should talk about the elephant in the room (heh!), namely, where rights come from in the first place.

Rights are not the product of simple assertions or declarations, or even wishing very, very hard. While governments may grant some people certain rights, those rights ultimately come from God our Creator — a fact that America's founding fathers recognized from the get-go. We are created in God's image, not the product of particles-to-pachyderm evolution. If evolution were true and we were all biologically related, would granting rights make sense then? That'll be the day! To be consistent, evolutionists should say that we crawled up to the top of the food chain, so we're in charge now and we do what we see fit in order to improve our survivability and pleasure.

The story that inspired this short article came from Dr. Mohler. He has some very important insights to offer, and I'd be much obliged if you would give it a listen or read the transcript. To do that, just click on "Happy the Elephant Goes to Court: Lawyers Argue that a Bronx Zoo Elephant Is a Person Just Like You and Me".

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

Monday, November 4, 2019

Climate Change and Ignored Truth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems like a swell notion to save the planet, and it helps people feel like they are accomplishing something. People like to feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, the depredations of two-bit tinhorns promoting anthropogenic climate change have unduly distressed many people.


Climate change alarmists are increasingly hysterical. From their worldview, they have no hope for the future, and their outlook is based on fundamentally flawed models.
Modified from an image at Clker clipart
"But climate change is settled science, Cowboy Bob!"

You might want to study on it a while. People making a claim like that are falling into the traps of climate change cultists, and if someone tries to disabuse them of that falsehood, they become hysterical like the guy that incorrectly glued himself to an airplane 1 or the woman glued her, uh,  sweater kittens outside Goldman Sachs 2. What's with leftists and glue, anyway? (One tinhorn says they are not extremists, but simply people concerned for the welfare of the planet. Uh, sure.) Climate "consensus" is ridiculous 3, and it shows the hubris of secularists and globalists pretending to fully understand the workings of the planet God gave us — and that they contrive data for their own ends.

Many "predictions" of the past have come to nothing for many years and thinking people are having serious doubts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Nowadays, climate change has become a religion, a part of the culture of death 11. Since it is primarily a politically leftist power grab, some people think that it is being used to establish a new world order 12! Indeed, the Ministry of Truth 13 has stated that those opposed to global climate change must be punished 14, which makes it rather difficult to have the conversation in the first place.

The extremely mouthy child that is parodied, Greta Funberg 15 — I mean, Greta Thunberg — is a pawn that is being used to manipulate the emotions of people 16. There have been accusations that criticism of Greta are misogynistic and we should ignore her Asperger syndrome. This is special pleading to let her escape responsibility for her own actions and those of her handlers; she was "well" enough to lecture the world on several occasions, after all. Misogynistic? She is not being criticized for being female, but for her demeanor and what she says — as well as hypocrisy involving her yacht. Leftists slap leather with anyone who disagrees with people who are protected under identity politics.



It has been a frequent contention of mine that people "think" with their emotions and are unskilled in the use of reason. Since antisemitism is increasing again, we see the spectre of Joseph Goebbels when people blame the Jews for global warming 17, 18. Again, lack of rational thought but a prairie schooner-load of emotional appeal and manipulation. 


The pearl-clutching fear mongers are wrong, hurricanes are not increasing from climate change 19, 20, 21, nor are they becoming more severe 22This whole panic is based on evolutionary thinking and the presupposition that Earth is old 23. Scientists have become useful idiots 24 for political and atheistic agendas 25. The truth is that we have a Creator who sustains the world, but materialists must believe that everything came from nothing 26, so by extension, they have no hope for the future. Don't be disunderstanding me now, those of us who doubt the global warming consensus and offer evidence that the climate cult rejects are not saying that we should run roughshod and trash the planet. In fact, Christians (especially biblical creationists) believe that we are stewards of God's creation, and are accountable to him 27.

With irrefutably feckless logic, someone claimed that Christians have no business objecting to the prevailing climate change views because the Bible is silent on climate change. This "logic" is irrefutable because it has no rational foundation. One of the flaws involved is the argument from silence. Well, the Bible is silent on genetics and the moons of Saturn, but we study those things anyway. Moving on.

There are serious flaws in climate change models 28 which are similar to the kind of reasoning used in deep time geology and cosmology, as well as in evolutionary biology. Specifically, relevant information is ignored or suppressed, and the narrative du jour dominates the fundamentally flawed predictions and proclamations. Again, secularists reject the sustaining work and power of our loving Creator.
All-time record temperatures in Paris, fires in the Amazon, Mississippi River flooding, the Maldives underwater . . .
Everywhere we turn, we hear warnings about serious threats to life on earth. With each report, extremists demand immediate, drastic government measures to slow down climate change before it is too late.
Most stories lay the blame squarely on us humans, particularly on carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas produced by our burning coal, oil, or natural gas. In their zeal to protect the environment, however, few activists stop to question the data that supposedly links human activity to a rise in global temperature or to a rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Even fewer have taken the time to consider how proposed restrictions on fossil fuels could make life more difficult, especially for the poor.
To read the rest of this enlightening article or download the audio from my favorite reader, click on "What Scientists Ignore About Climate Change". 



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

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Unnaturally Selecting Gene Editing

When Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) pioneered the science of genetics, little did he dream that the field would develop so dramatically. With the advances came questions of ethics regarding genetic tampering including the outrage caused by Dr. He Jiankui forumulating designer babies. The science can cause a passel of problems as well as substantial benefits.


Gene editing technology is rapidly increasing and so are ethical concerns. A series on Netflix is analyzed.
CRISPR genome editing / Image credit: National Institutes of Health
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents.)
Lives may be improved with the repair of congenital defects, but there is one very large problem: some of these owlhoots do not know what they are doing. They can use CRISPR-Cas9 and do some gene editing to some extent, but some seem to be the equivalent of people selling pharmaceutical products in dark alleys. To make the ethics questions worse

Remember, using bad science techniques, lack of knowledge, and microbes-to-microbiologist evolutionary presuppositions, scientists came up with the seriously flawed "junk" DNA concept. They believe that the puny god Evolution is involved in genetics. No, old son, evolution is not an entity, and it certainly cannot make selections. We were created by the Master Engineer, and he knows far more than we do.
The possibility of altering human genetics to create designer babies or to improve the human species has been in the realm of science fiction for decades. Well, the ‘future is here’.
In October of 2019, Netflix released the first season of a new miniseries called Unnatural Selection. It focuses on recent advances in genome editing and the many moral and ethical dilemmas associated with it. As Christians, we need to be aware of this new and growing field, for it is no longer ‘science fiction’. Instead, human cloning, designer babies, and the potential for the genetic enhancement of humans is staring us in the face. We cannot simply claim a few scientists are ‘playing God’, because the ability to do such things is more widespread than most are aware and because the field is advancing quickly. We need to develop an informed view that is based on what is possible and what is actually being done today.
To read the rest of this article by Dr. Robert Carter and Scott Ellis, click on "Unnatural selection — CRISPR on Netflix".




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

Friday, November 1, 2019

St. Davids Dragon

If you happen to venture into Wales and want to see some ancient cathedrals, head west over to the county of Pembrokeshire. Before you ride into the sea, look for a small city (the population is just under 2,000) named St. David's. There is a cathedral that has something of interest to biblical creationists.

St Davids Cathedral is on the western edge of Wales. It has an interesting bit of carving that looks like a dinosaur in some ways, but with fantasy elements.
Credit: Freeimages / John Noble
St. Davids Cathedral has been existence since the 6th century, but like other cathedrals, it had repairs and upgrades over the years. In the late Medieval upgrade, folding seats were installed that feature a critter that looks quite a bit like a sauropod dinosaur. Regular readers know that there are historical accounts of dinosaurs (previously called dragons), indicating that despite the claims of Darwinists, they lived at the same time as humans. But this one has a mix of fantasy with reality, so we commence to doing some reasoning. This starts with the fact that the artist could not have seen fossils or reconstructions in museums.
Its overall anatomy resembles the sauropod dinosaurs known from fossils, with longer hind legs than front legs. These long-necked, extinct reptiles typify Jurassic rock layers. This one’s neck is not nearly as long in proportion to its main body as the more familiar sauropods like Diplodocus. Lest someone say its neck looks too short for the carving to represent any real sauropod, its neck length closely matches that of a dinosaur fossil found in Argentina in 2005 named Brachytrachelopan mesai.
To read the full article, click on "St. Davids Dragon — Fantasy or Reality?"

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

Labels