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, August 12, 2020

Evolutionists Misrepresenting Biblical Creationists — Part 2

In Part 1 of this three-part series, we saw that theistic evolutionists took Nathaniel T. Jeanson, author of Replacing Darwin, to task. These TEs are clearly more devoted to their promotion of minerals-to-mooncalf evolution. Instead of admitting their folly, one doubles down on his dishonesty.

After misrepresenting Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson and being caught, an evolutionist doubled down with blatant falsehoods and acting like an atheist.
Weasels illustration by John W. Audubon, ca. 1846
To be intellectually honest in a debate or when attempting to refute the position that someone else has taken, it is necessary to have an accurate working knowledge of an opponent's position. This helps to prevent unintentional misrepresentation. Unfortunately, people misrepresent others deliberately when they want to promote a certain worldview — especially among evolutionists and atheists. As I keep saying, ignoring the subject under discussion to attack the person or address something else does not exactly make you look good, you savvy that?

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
The screenshot above is from someone who consistently misrepresents God, the Bible, Christians, biblical creationists, and anyone else she dislikes. This tinhorn was blocked from The Question Evolution Project for arbitrary assertions, blatant misrepresentation, abusive ad hominem attacks, lying, and being incoherent. (When caught lying, she doubles down by lying more and attacking the person who caught her.) In fact, I have never seen anyone on that Page accurately represent people, arguments, evidence, etc.

It gets mighty difficult to tell theistic evolutionists and others who ride for the Old Earth brand apart from atheists. Dr. Jeanson had responses to the TEs, and one in particular has doubled down (which is typical of many atheists) with denying, misrepresenting, omitting important facts — and then accusing Nathaniel of not only misrepresenting the TE side, but spinning some falsehoods to denigrate Nathaniel. Atheists and evolutionists frequently change the subject and attack, but the attacker here has put the spurs to his incoherent (yes, that word means what I think it means) argument and is proceeding toward the cliff at full gallop.
Why do so many professional scientists (i.e., around 98% of PhDs) accept evolution and reject young-earth creation (YEC)? I have observed that most scientists are not exposed to YEC science due to the legal restrictions in the US educational system. Therefore, their rejection of YEC becomes almost meaningless. How can someone deny an idea that they’ve never engaged?
I also showed, with examples, that when a small minority of mainstream scientists are exposed to technical YEC claims, “they appear to prefer ignorance of the key scientific details.”
In extreme cases, a far more troubling explanation applies.
You can read the rest by clicking on "When Evolutionists Help Creationists Make Their Case, Part 2". For some related material on theistic evolutionists (useful whether or not you have read his books), see "Denis Alexander’s hermeneutics: heretical, horrible, and harmful".

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Random Mutations and the Big Secret of Evolutionism

One of the tenets of particles-to-pathologist evolution is that it has no purpose, despite the way its adherents treat Evolution and Natural Selection as if they were entities that could make decisions. Some treat them as intangible forces. Then random mutations are added.

To promote the mythology of evolutionism, its adherents are being deceptive. They say random mutations but do not really mean it.
It appears that this was mostly made at Atom Smasher
However, it appears that mutations are not quite as random as we've been led to believe. Oh, sure, Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ are uninformed about the mythology they promote, but there are evolutionists who are actually spreading misinformation — random doesn't exactly mean random.

Digging deeper, most mutations are harmful or neutral. Neutral mutations are so small that the gibbering god of Natural Selection overlooks them. Also the accumulation of mutations on a small level cannot lead to upward evolution. Lateral changes, yeah, that happens. Darwinoids are deceptive and dealing from the bottom of the deck. Anything to deny the Creator, you know.
For nearly a hundred years, evolutionists have been operating under the paradigm that is known as the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis”, also known as the “Modern Synthesis”. This view has repeatedly been summarized as ‘natural selection working upon random mutations’. I have taken the liberty of adding emphasis in the quotes below to show you how common this language is.
. . .
There we have it! The use of the word “random” is (at least for some) a deliberate ploy to deceive people about the theory of evolution. Is that not what our science writer above has just admitted in writing? They don’t want us evil creationists to take the opportunity to point out all the problems that are inherent with this idea of non-random mutations. Well, too late, because now the cat is out of the bag. I’m going to sound the alarm about this major fundamental problem in evolution.
To read the rest of this startling and informative article, click on "Evolution’s well-kept secret: Mutations are not random!"

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

Monday, August 10, 2020

The Created Sea Cow

Sailors reported seeing mermaids, but those were written off as not only having been at sea too long, but they may very well have seen manatees, also called sea cows. If you think about them a mite, you can see that they are actually intricately designed by the Master Engineer.

Manatees are large peaceful creatures that have many features showing their design by the Master Engineer.
Credit: Unsplash / Maegan Luckiesh
Although they are gray, sometimes you'll see green algae growing on them. Seems a bit odd that sailors would mistake manatees for humans since they are rather large and spend most of their time submerged. Being mammals, they need to surface for air every few minutes. They are solitary for the most part. They eat plants, and were created to have a copious number of extremely sensitive whiskers for this task. Since they are sensitive to conditions, when algae go red tide, manatees are quick to get out of Dodge. Because the naturalism narrative is more important then reason, Darwin's acolytes tell us they evolved despite being considered related to the hyrax and elephants. Got evidence to go with those stories, Clarabelle?
Manatees are usually associated with Florida, yet these seafaring sirenians are known to migrate along the Atlantic seacoast, as far north as New York or Massachusetts, as well as along the Gulf of Mexico as far as Galveston Bay.

. . .

They frequently inhabit warm, oxygen-depleted, slow-moving coastal waters that contain parasites (including trematodes, coccidians, and nematodes), contagious viruses, plus opportunities for flesh injuries. For these reasons, the manatee’s immune system is impressively robust.
In fact, the manatee’s immune system has been studied to discover how it is generally so strong and efficient, yet has exceptional vulnerabilities.
To learn more about the sea cow, click on "Manatees Visit Warm Waters of North Carolina". Sound is optional on the video below, it's only music.

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

Saturday, August 8, 2020

The Wandering Albatross is a Stool Pigeon

We have a pair of articles to ponder today. First, we can take another look at how the Master Engineer designed the wandering albatross (who is reluctant to ask for directions). Expect to see an adult weighing in the neighborhood of 18 pounds (8.16 kg), with a wing span of 10 feet (305 cm.) That's a big birdie.

We see how the Master Engineer designed the wandering albatross for its unique flying requirements, and also how it is being used for law enforcement.
Credit: Flickr / dfaulder (CC BY 2.0)
The albatross was designed to ride the air currents and travel huge distances over its lifetime, but becoming airborne requires far more energy than flying. They also need to make decisions and adjustments for weather patterns and deal with high-speed winds. There was a recent study about how the albatross uses the wind more than experts previously realized.
Wandering albatrosses have the largest wingspan of any living bird, so they live much of life soaring above the oceans. With their wings—and a lot of winds—it is no wonder that their use of wind-power would be studied by scientists, as a recent report illustrates. And, because albatross males are bigger, they need more wind.
To finish reading, glide over to "Wandering Albatross: Wide Wings on the Winds". (A similar article can be found at "The Energy-Efficient Albatross".) I'd be much obliged if you'd come back for the next article.

The term "stool pigeon" is not used much nowadays, but it usually refers to an information. This was often a criminal who would make a deal with law enforcement about activities of a criminal gang and such. This same wandering albatross has been collateral damage from illegal fishing activities in international waters. You'd think that there is no law beyond a country's limits, but there are treaties in place regarding overfishing, which threatens the populations of fish.

In a bit of serendipity, special tracking units were placed on birds to signal their locations. Although they didn't respond to "One-Adam-Bird, One-Adam-Bird, check for furtive behavior...", the signals also helped track down illegal activities.
Recently, albatrosses were used for a surprising and unintended purpose: catching criminals.
On behalf of BBC News, Samantha Patrick reported on her tagged and satellite-tracked albatrosses. . .  
These albatrosses help Patrick gather information on fish-poaching pirates who are routinely guilty of harming albatrosses as by-catch casualties. (“By-catch” means that one species is accidentally caught while fishing for another species.)
. . . 
The spy-like surveillance program began, Patrick says, as an attempt to track the albatrosses who were vulnerable to fishing by-catch risks in the open ocean.
You can observe the full article by clicking on "Albatrosses Aid Law Enforcement". Albatross lives matter.

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

Friday, August 7, 2020

No Evolution Needed for Plagues

My prospector friend Stormie Waters was heading out Folly Road, but she was woolgathering and not paying attention so she missed her turn-off. Out past Stinking Lake, near Deception Pass, almost to the Darwin Ranch when she met up with Jacqueline Hyde. For some reason, they commenced to jawing about evolution and plagues.

Once again, evolutionists are tainting medical science with their self-refuting views. The observed evidence supports recent creation.
Original image: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Modified with oil painting effect from FotoSketcher
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone anywhere)

As I heard about it, Jacqueline was saying that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are trying again to make everything about evolution, like they are doing with the COVID-19. Those sidewinders should learn that evolution corrupts science. There were two studies released in the week of July 20, 2020 regarding plagues and diseases. One involved mosquitoes that involved speculations that were self-refuting, the other was about smallpox and the activities of viruses. Instead of applying evolution, the studies would have made sense if the researchers weren't locked into their old-earth naturalism and used recent creation for their framework.
Smallpox and mosquitoes illustrate how diseases can arise quickly and spread through human populations.
This year, or late in 2019, a virus jumped from an animal host (probably a bat) to humans, and within months, the world is suffering the consequences of SARS-CoV-2. Is this an example of “evolution”? We can see from two other plagues reported in science news this week that pathogenicity can arise quickly by gene inactivation or opportunism – not evolution.
To read the rest, click on "Plagues Can Arise Quickly Without Evolution".

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

Thursday, August 6, 2020

The Puzzle of Flightless Birds

Both biblical creationists and the disciples of Darwin need to explain the source of flightlessness in some birds. Some evolutionists have the paralogical remark that birds "acquired" flightlessness. Sure, pard, and millions of people acquired unemployment because of COVID-19 shutdowns.

Evolutionists tell stories that some birds lost the ability to fly due to the secular miracle of convergent evolution. They even claim that loss of traits is evidence for their beliefs.
Tinamou art by Joseph Smit, 1895, then modified at Big Huge Labs
Many of us are aware of the ostrich, kiwi, greater rhea, and other birds that don't seem to care that they are not airborne. There are many of them in diverse places. Darwinists evosplain this through the secular miracle of convergent evolution — which means they don't have a clue. Interesting that evolution is supposed to go from simple to complex, but they claim loss of traits is evolution as well. Strange.

It's acknowledged that losing the ability to fly is not too difficult, but evolutionists are not only confounded by the origin of flight itself, but going down Mexico way, the tinamou reminds them that they have to explain how it regained the ability to fly. The evidence from genetic switches supports the work of the Master Engineer, who apparently front-loaded critters with abilities to be turned off and on when their environments needed them — or not.
Some organisms in nature have lost an organ or the ability to use an organ. This is commonly observed in insects that have lost their wings on islands and blind cave fish.

. . .
The origin of flightless birds, especially those found on islands, is also a challenge because evolutionists believe it is a form of evolution. Flightless birds are known from Madagascar, Australia, New Zealand, islands of the south-west Pacific, South America, and elsewhere. Many of these birds went extinct during the past 2,000 years, likely because of human hunting. . . . Moreover, Feduccia, an evolutionary ornithologist, notes that there are or were flightless birds on numerous islands across the South Pacific—at least one flightless species on almost every large island, including the remote Hawaiian Islands.
To read the entire article, fly on over to "The origin of flightless birds".

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

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Evolutionists Misrepresenting Biblical Creationists — Part 1

Naturalists execrate what biblical creationists believe and teach. We get that. They misrepresent and even lie about us, often appealing to "legitimate scientific sources" (meaning atheistic naturalism) and inefficient peer review. It is worse when professing Christians ride for the Darwin brand.

Those riding for the Darwin brand often act like weasels by misrepresenting biblical creationists.
Least weasel image by FreeDigitalImages.net / Phil_Bird
As we have seen in other posts, peer review has numerous problems, including the reproducibility crisis, bad papers being passed, citing of citing of poor documentation, and more. Peer review is by no means a guarantee of truth and accuracy. Add misrepresentation to the mix and things get worse.

Some theistic evolutionists decided to slap leather with Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, author of Replacing Darwin, and not only put words in his mouth (and other creationists), but blatantly misrepresented what he teaches. Despite inaccuracies and glaring omissions, it passed peer review. Dr. Jeanson indicates that these evolutionists are inadvertently supporting his point.
When mainstream reporters ask me to explain these survey results, they like to ask whether I believe in conspiracies. Do I think there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth about human origins? Do young-earth creationists like myself reject science altogether—as if science itself was a conspiratorial illusion?
. . .
In the US public educational system, the courts have effectively forbidden the teaching of [specific creationist claims]. Not surprisingly, since the vast majority of scientists are trained in this public education system, they are completely unaware of the existence of my conclusions.” How can people reject methods, data, and conclusions when they’ve been shielded from them their whole life?
I’ve found this to be especially true for non-Christian evolutionists—even when explicitly invited to engage with creationists. 
But what about evolutionists who do wrestle with creationist views—and then reject them? What if those people also happen to be professing Christians?
To read the full article, visit "When Evolutionists Help Creationists Make Their Case: A Shocking New Case of Professional Criticism Gone Bad". You may be interested in this video discussion with Dr. Jeanson, and my article, "Peer-Reviewed Hoaxes and Postmodernism".

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

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

New Discoveries in Sequencing Human DNA

No need to get excited, this post is not going to saddle you with technical details. The science of genetics that was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) has been growing in recent years, and recent developments are unfriendly to universal common ancestor evolution.

The human genome has not been fully sequenced. Advances in science and technology have forced evolutionists to be a bit more honest, but research is unfriendly to evolution.
Credit: CSIRO/Garry Brown (CC by 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In their determination to establish that humans are related to apes, the chimpanzee genome was sequenced. Only, not really. It was very incomplete so it was stitched together. (Some atheists have lied outright to protect their faith, one even claiming that every creature has had its genome sequenced!) With better and more honest science and technology, the gap between human and chimp DNA is widening. New areas of the human genome can be more accurately sequenced now, and creationists expect more bad news for evolutionists.
Most people might be surprised to learn that the human genome has not been fully sequenced. Gaps still remain that have not yet been bridged because of the nature of the DNA sequence coupled with past limitations on DNA sequencing technology. Nevertheless, a study has just been published using new and improved technologies that have allowed for the first complete sequence of a human chromosome.
. . .
Because the older style DNA sequencing produced very short snippets of sequence and certain regions of chromosomes had groups of DNA letters (words) that were repeated over and over, it was difficult to computationally reconstruct long contiguous repetitive DNA stretches. New, long-read technologies that produce extremely long snippets of DNA are now allowing these difficult regions to be traversed.
To read the article, click on "First Human Chromosome Fully Sequenced".

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

Monday, August 3, 2020

Lunacy from the Moon for Secular Scientists

It seems that our moon is trolling materialists. Secular astronomers and cosmologists have no verisimilar explanations regarding its origin, but they cling to faulty stories rather than admit that it was created recently along with the rest of the solar system.

Secularists want the moon to seem billions of years old. It is trolling them by showing signs of recent creation that they cannot explain away.
Credit: NASA / ISS / Col. Jeff Williams (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents)
Some resort to the poorly-considered method of counting craters so they can provide Darwinists the deep time that they demand. Our moon, like others in the solar system, show that they are far younger than materialists expect — or desire. It is cooling and shrinking, which contributes to tectonic activity. Then there are the many paradigm problems caused by lunar volcanoes...

We have a couple of recent items about how the moon is putting burrs under the saddles of secular scientists and defying cosmic evolution.
The neat theories for the origin of the moon and its subsequent evolution unravel when you try to stuff long ages into a young body.
Forget what the textbooks and documentaries on TV say about how our moon became what it is today. The theories don’t work. Scientists are confused. The moon was supposed to have formed from a giant impact billions of years ago, then after some hot lava eruptions, it should have settled down into a cold, dead ball. Peter Schultz of Brown University summarizes the current feeling when he says, “There’s this assumption that the moon is long dead, but we keep finding that that’s not the case.”
Here are some recent articles about the moon, with “surprise effects” quoted.
To read the rest of this moon-shaking article, click on "Our Moon Refuses to Obey Scientists". Be sure to come back for the next startling article.

Rockfalls, landslides, and such tend to decrease over time because things are leveling out. There have been rockfalls on the moon, but should not have been happening comparatively recently. But this should be happening billions of Darwin years after the impacts that set them in motion. What kind of rescuing device will be generated to keep their faith in deep time?
A team of researchers used more than two million images obtained by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to construct the first near-global map of rockfalls on the moon. The map shows more than 136,000 rockfalls between 80° northern and southern latitudes on the lunar surface. Interestingly, the scientists—who were from ETH Zurich and the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research—were surprised to find that even parts of the lunar surface thought to be 3.8 billion years old had experienced relatively recent rockfall events.
You can learn the rest of the hard truth by clicking on "Billions of Years of Lunar Rockfalls?"

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

Saturday, August 1, 2020

China Sea Coal Beds and the Genesis Flood

Once again, drilling for oil has been a problem for uniformitarian geologists. This time some mighty thick coal beds way out yonder in the sea. Excuses were needed in a big hurry to protect the narrative, but fail as usual. They should be embarrassed by the speculation-as-science stories. 

Secular scientists are confronted by coal beds far offshore. They should be embarrassed by the speculation-as-science stories. Genesis Flood models provide superior explanations.
Credits: original image from RGBStock / Michal Zacharzewski, modified at Big Huge Labs
The naturalistic stories for coal formation are unrealistic at best — uniformitarian scientists should be embarrassed by the rising and falling coal formation tales. The excuse given by this tinhorn is that the material washed out to sea. Let's see if he can wave off the problem of C-14 in coal while he's at it. Since secularists have an a priori commitment to naturalism, they will not consider the fact that creation science models of the Genesis Flood have the best explanations for observed evidence.
Recent geological discoveries are defying standard uniformitarian explanations. First, there was the massive Whopper Sand found in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. And then there was the dinosaur bone washed 70 miles offshore and buried 1.5 miles deep. And now, researchers have come across another startling discovery— coal beds hidden far beneath the South China Sea.

Peter Lunt reviewed recent oil well drilling data in an area in the South China Sea known as North Luconia, about 175 miles off the coast of Borneo.  The oil wells were drilled in over 3,000 feet of water and yet penetrated a thick section of bedded coals at the bottom. Coal deposits form when land plants are buried between sedimentary layers, but no land is near these particular deposits. So, how did these coals form in such deep water so far offshore?
You can read the rest at "Deep Water CoalsDiscoverySupports Flood".

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

Friday, July 31, 2020

An Underwater Earth in the Archean Period?

Secular geologists were making waves by saying that the earth was entirely covered by water a few billion years ago, and some people wondered if they were affirming the Genesis Flood. That'll be the day! This is about worldviews and definitions.

Secular scientists are again saying that Earth was completely covered with water billions of years ago. No, this does not support the Genesis Flood.
Credit: StockSnap / Travel Photographer
Because secularists are committed to naturalism and deep time, their narrative requires tendentious interpretations of what has been observed. The old news about submerged Earth in the Archean Period (which followed the Hadean Period, named because the newly-formed Earth was as hot as Hades) is part of their shipbuilding. Various "events" in our history had to have eras that support Darwinism, and history is constructed on that. However, their history is not supported by the evidence.

The world was indeed covered in water, but not in the way materialists say. In the far more rational worldview of biblical creation science, these eons are only useful as reference points. The true history of the earth is found in the Bible, and the evidence in geology supports creation science Genesis Flood models.
In early March 2020, scientists Benjamin Johnson and Boswell Wing claimed in Nature Geoscience that some 3,200 million years ago the ancient earth was completely covered in water, and that there was not a single continent standing above sea level. A few people sent us media reports of this claim and others posted it on Facebook asking if it is scientific confirmation of Noah’s Flood, which the Bible says covered the whole earth. The short answer is “No”. We explain the reason here in some detail.
To find out what's happening, click on "Was earth covered in water '3200 million years ago'?"

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

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Looking for Narwhals in all the Noisy Places

Narwhals are medium-sized whales, sometimes called "unicorns of the sea". That is because of the long tusk (not a horn) that protrudes. They are found in Arctic areas including Canada and Greenland, but are a mite difficult to study. A new research technique produced some interesting results.

The narwhal has been difficult to study, but impressive research reveals more about how our Creator made them able to adapt to their sea lives.
Since I have been unable to find an image that is not
copyrighted, here is an illustration from 1809 by George Shaw.
Those Arctic waters are noisy in the first place because of ice cracking and other things. Interesting that narwhals are skittish around the noise of boats with motors. With the assistance of some Inuit people, researchers were able to do some underwater recording anyway. They make a racket all their own.

Not only are they communicating with each other, they have echolocation. Narwhals have baffled evolutionists with their ability to hybridize with beluga whales, and they were clearly designed by our Creator to be able to adapt for life in their unique areas.
Recently, after audio-recording underwater in Greenland’s fjords, two geoscientists published research on vocalizations made by narwhals. The sounds included shrill whistle tones, repetitive clicks, knocking sounds, buzzing noises, and even some tonal pulses inaudible to human ears. Complicating the situation, narwhals routinely summer near calving icebergs, so their natural surroundings are often noisy.

. . .

Narwhals (also spelled “narwhales”) habitually summer underwater in the frigid glacial fjords of Northwest Greenland’s coastal ocean-waters, and other waters blend into the Arctic Ocean. But because these marine mammals shy away from motor-driven boats, they have not been well studied by modern Arctic Ocean ecologists.

. . .

However, this narwhal shyness has been circumvented by two geophysicists, Dr. Evgeny Podolskiy and Dr. Shin Sugiyama, whose research focus in cold climates. Their most recent research on narwhal noises is unprecedented. It provides a starting point for documenting different noises narwhals make as social communications. The research also investigates how narwhals use sound to echolocate underwater to find prey, such as fish, squid, and shrimp, and physical structures such as icebergs.
The article linked here did not indicate if the researchers did homage to Darwin, which would have detracted from their impressive work. To read this article in its entirety, click on "Noisy Narwhals in Greenland’s Frigid Fjords". For related material, see "The Mysterious Narwhal".

This short video is interesting, but sound is not needed.

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

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Brave Evolutionists try to Stomp on Bombardier Beetle

The bombardier beetle has been an icon for creation science for decades. Indeed, I used it myself in lectures back in the early 1990s. It has been an example of irreducible complexity even before the term existed. The hands at the Darwin Ranch tried to give this critter the hippo stomp.

The bombardier beetle has been an icon of creation science. Evolutionists tried to stomp on the concept but have no science, just propaganda efforts to confirm their biases.
Australian bombardier beetle image credit:
Wikimedia Commons / Peter Halasz (CC by-SA 3.0)
It was startling enough before, what with packing heat (literally!) inside and flustering attackers with a hot spray — with accuracy — but not blowing itself up. As time went on, it was learned that its tiny Gatling gun was operating in short bursts. This is convenient so it doesn't rocket itself into the next county. Also, Professor Andy McIntosh studied it intensively and developed practical applications.

This bug is a Maleus Malificarum to materialists, so they wanted to stomp on the concept that it is clear evidence of the Master Engineer at work. Occasional things were posted at various evolutionary and Darwinist propaganda clearing houses, but they didn't amount to much. There was a more serious effort recently that may have looked good to those wanting their naturalistic biases confirmed, but closer examination reveals that it is little more than something dropped along the dusty trail.
Evolutionists bravely take on a creation icon: the bombardier beetle. Does their explanation work?

Evolutionists are very cocky people. They feel it unnecessary to pay any notice to creationists at all. But when they do, it is only to show Darwin’s superiority, with a brief put-down to anyone who questions the omnipotence of his Stuff Happens Law. Once in awhile, it seems, they want to reassure the peasants that King Charles is still on the throne, and can take all comers, even those religious-fundamentalist creationist wackos. A case in point appeared in a press release from the Stevens Institute of Technology on June 16:
To see a refutation of a refutation of evolutionary propaganda, click on "Bombardier Beetle Answered by Evolutionists".

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

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Neanderthals and Bears have Something in Common

Although some believers in universal common ancestry deny reality and insist that modern humans and Neanderthals are only distantly related, a recent genetic study gives lie to their beliefs. What do bears have to do with it?

Some Darwinists deny reality and claim that Neanderthals interbreeding with modern humans was a fringe thing. A new DNA study settles that idea.
Image cropped and enhanced, original: Flickr / Clemens Vasters (CC BY 2.0)
Some owlhoots reluctantly admit that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans were able to interbreed, but they try to rescue Darwin by saying that this was essentially a fluke — on the edge of biological compatibility. (I reckon they're desperate to deny recent creation.) Come on, man, that's a bunch of malarkey!

Values for genetic distance were studied, including various bears and relatives of dogs. What do bears and Neanderthals have in common? This study. It affirms not only that they could interbreed and apparently were happy to do so (we all have some of their DNA), but we are more closely related genetically to Neanderthals than some bears are to each other. Biblical creationists are pleased by the recent creation-affirming results, naturally. Secularists should stop fighting the truth.
In this new study, the researchers developed a genetic distance metric to predict the fertility of the first generation of hybrid offspring between the mating of any two mammalian species. They did this by analyzing genetic sequence from different mammal species that were already known to produce viable hybrid offspring. By correlating genetic distance with offspring fertility, they showed that the greater the genetic distance, the less likely it would be that the offspring would be fertile. Then the researchers effectively used the genetic distance values to determine thresholds of fertility for various mammals.
You can read the full article by clicking on "Humans and Neanderthals More Similar Than Polar and Brown Bears". Also, other links to articles demonstrating that Neanderthals were fully human can be found at "Those Sophisticated Neanderthals".

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

Monday, July 27, 2020

The Gazelle and the Master Engineer

We have seen several times that creatures are not only designed, but they can be examined (indeed, appreciated) from an engineering perspective. Someone can design a motor, but successful engineering anticipates its performance under demanding conditions. Consider the gazelle.

We see clear evidences of how creatures are intelligently designed by our Creator, but go a step further and consider the gazelle from an engineering perspective.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / GY
Predators looking to add a gazelle to the menu can run very fast, but in short bursts. If the gazelle gets a head start, it can get out of Dodge and keep on going before the pursuer runs out of steam. That means heat is generated and needs to be dissipated. In addition, the vertebral columns of gazelles are designed for the long run as well as agility. Other critters are distinctly different in this area. Darwin's acolytes may say, "It evolved", but that is faith and louche non-science.
Gazelle is the common name for a number of small antelopes of the family Bovidae and subfamily Antilopinae. They are characterized by a sandy color, with a streak of white or red on the side of the face. Both male and female gazelles typically have horns that are curved forward and are ringed base to tip.

. . .

The subject of this article is “Engineering the Gazelle” and we will be looking at just two amazing aspects of the design of these animals that display the tremendous engineering involved:

A. Engineering Field: Heat Transfer – Application: Gazelle Cooling System.

B. Engineering Field: Biomechanics – Application: Gazelle Vertebral Column.
You can pronk on over to the full article at "Engineering the Gazelle".

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

Saturday, July 25, 2020

Fact Checkers for Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People familiar with softball and baseball probably know about how a catcher will frame a pitch. If it comes close to the strike zone, the catcher can make subtle movements to make it appear like a strike to the umpire, even if it is not there.

Self-proclaimed fact checkers frame their narratives similar to the way a catcher frames a pitch.
Credits: Original from FreeImages / Julie Elliott-Abshire, modified with PhotoFunia
See what I did there?
On one hand, it can be a form of cheating, but on the other, the catcher can make a good pitch look like it missed the strike zone. There is a similarity in this to people and organizations who are self-proclaimed fact checkers. Someone pointed out that the name is a bit misleading, as facts are facts. True, but how facts are presented or framed can inform or deceive people.

There are two areas of poor logic involved here. The first is an appeal to authority fallacy, which means that if a certain person, group, site, or organization made a proclamation, it must be true. However, many so-called fact checkers are simply people with computers doing things that the rest of us can accomplish as well. Also, there are times when someone is an authority on a subject but is also wrong if using faulty or nonexistent documentation.

We have to be careful when considering another area of poor logic: the genetic fallacy. In the briefest terms, it is rejecting information because of the source. I lost count of all the times that anti-creationists rejected information because it came from creation science sources —

"You were keeping count, Cowboy Bob?"

Well, if I had started, I would have lost count by now.

The truth of something should be evaluated on its own validity. However (this is the tricky part), there are times when claims can be treated with extreme skepticism when the source is demonstrated to have been misleading and outright dishonest. Also, if they have agendas.

For example, the political outfits Factcheck, Politifact, Snopes, and others are not only heavily biased to the left politically, they have bad reputations. If you head on over to atheist and anti-creationist sites, you are highly unlikely to find accurate representations of Christianity and biblical creation science, yet they claim to "fact check" by using other bigoted sources. It works in a circle.

If you've followed the links in the preceding paragraph, you will notice that I used sources that are not leftist. That's because the mainstream news media has been caught lying or framing claims to the left, and I simply don't trust them.

You have probably heard of quote mining, which is a frequent charge against creationists when we cite evolutionists. (I showed how viperine these people can be in "That Quote Mining Monkey Business".) Pay attention, Hoss. When accused of quote mining (assuming you're not being a weasel your ownself), the ones making accusations need to show that the quote was inaccurate, taken out of context, and the speaker or writer did not mean what was said. Savvy? When challenging accusers with these things, I've been greeted with silence, or else they change the subject and attack. That means they've lost.

In the spirit of, "Who watches the watchers?", we need to know who is checking the alleged fact checkers. Many times, they are framing their remarks by omitting important details, using inaccurate or incomplete quotes, edited or incomplete video footage, and so on.

In this postmodern culture, truth is relative or even nonexistent in the minds of some people. This view is self-refuting and unlivable, which makes it ironic when people complain about lies and injustices. "Do the right thing!" Really? Who makes the rules?

In reality, everyone has some sort of ultimate standard. Atheists tend to have shifting standards based on pragmatism and personal gain. When atheists accuse me of lying about evolution, for example, I have asked them that if I really was lying, why would that be wrong according to an evolutionary worldview? They cannot give a coherent reply.

Jesus told us that we would be hated. I believe that biblical creationists are more hated than typical church-goers because we uphold truth, logic, rational thinking, and the ultimate standard of the Bible. People hate scriptural authority. The truth is that God's Word is final. That's a fact, and you can check it yourself.

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

Friday, July 24, 2020

Slowly Loving the Venomous Loris

Found in jungles of Southeast Asia and thereabouts, these cute and cuddly-looking critters can be dangerous. No need to run screaming from the building, deaths to humans from their bite are rare. You can walk away. The moniker slow loris is appropriate.

A creature known as the slow loris is cute, but potentially lethal. Unlikely, but possible. The Master Engineer provided it with some unique and unusual qualities.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Aprisonsan (CC BY-SA 4.0)
There are a few venomous mammals (including several types of shrews), but they are not known to be fatal to humans. However, the slow loris can give a defensive bite that is potentially fatal. Ironic, because they are used in the exotic pet trade — don't even think about it! The slow loris uses its lack of speed to its advantage, and it also has the ability to mimic venomous snakes. It is another example of the provisions built in by the Master Engineer.
Slow lorises are small primates that dwell in the jungles of Southeast Asia. While other primates like monkeys swing and leap through the trees, slow lorises sneak across branches. Even the quicker members of the loris kind, the slender lorises and the pottos, climb at a cautious pace. But if you’re tempted to think slowness is a handicap, not so fast. The slow loris’ sluggishness contributes to a feature called crypsis—the use of stealth to avoid predators and to hunt.
To read the entire short article or download the audio, click on "Slow Loris: Fuzzy Can Be Fatal".

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

Thursday, July 23, 2020

Darwinists Want to Give a Fish a Hand

When proponents of universal common ancestry evolution insist that the fossils prove evolution, biblical creationists ask for the transitional forms. You know, where something is indisputably evolving into something else. They trot out variations and different sexes, but nothing convincing. 

Darwinists think they found a fish that was evolving a hand. They forgot humiliations by using bad science before in their efforts to deny the Creator.
Elpistostege watsoni fossil image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Placoderm2 (CC BY-SA 4.0)
There should be billions of actual transitional forms if evolution were true. Instead, we get evolutionists fighting tooth and nail for every possible candidate for a transitional form. What's this one fish hand thing? Yes, some are claiming to have definitive proof that the lobe-finned fish Elpistostege watsoni was evolving a hand. The evidence is dubious, and not everyone in the evolution camp wants to hop on that bandwagon.

Indeed, a few similarities in a fossil or two does not indicate evolution of limbs. Consider the amazing complexity of the hand that the Master Engineer designed. See "Hand Signals of Design".

Are there other possible explanations for what was found? No, because evolution! (And some balatrons accuse us of confirmation bias.) Never mind the coelacanth that made fools of evolutionists. They claimed it was extinct and evolving, but it was found alive and well — what was presumed by bias confirmers had a different function. There is also the embarrassment of the tiktaalik. Some people will not learn, because as well have seen so many times, the naturalistic narrative is more important than the facts. Denying the work of the Creator is paramount to these owlhoots.
In order for the bizarre theory of evolution to be validated, evolutionists must show how inorganic non-life organized itself into carbon-based (organic) life. They also must show how major transitions in animals occurred, including how fish became the first tetrapods. This means fish fins would need to slowly turn into feet and legs. As one secular journal said, “The evolution of fishes into tetrapods—four-legged vertebrates of which humans belong—was one of the most significant events in the history of life.”
You can read the rest by using your Creator-designed finger and clicking on "Was a Fossil 'Fish-Hand' Discovered?" A related article with additional insights is found at "Did Fish Evolve Hands?"

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Titan Rapidly Fleeing from Saturn

It has been discovered that Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, is receding from that nice planet much faster than cosmic evolutionists expect. Moons recede. They do that. However, the rate at which Titan lit a shuck out of there causes considerable consternation.

The rate at which Titan is receding from Saturn startles secularists and causes them many difficulties. Biblical creationists are not bothered in the least.
Titan with clouds image credit: NASA / JPL / University of Arizona
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Indeed, secular scientists are constantly denying evidence for a young solar system (see "Saturn Scientists Dodge Age Issues".) None of the secular ideas for the formation of the solar system are good, so the best of the worst is the nebular hypothesis. Essentially, everything formed at the same time (never mind that Venus and Uranus defy the edict had have retrograde rotations, as well as some moons). Earth's moon is receding, and using uniform assumptions against secularists, it would have been impossibly close to Earth in the past. Titan would have needed to form in a different place than was originally assumed, and this causes problems throughout secular cosmology. Recent creation does not have all these problems and the need for reworking bad theories.
A recent news release from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) announces that new examination of the data from the late Cassini spacecraft indicates that Saturn’s moon Titan is moving away from the planet at a higher rate than previously thought. What are the implications of the fact that the moon is moving away? A bit can be said about the time scale of the age of the Saturnian system.
To finish reading, click on "Titan Is Running Away from Saturn". For a similar article with additional information, see "Titan Receding from Saturn Faster than Expected".

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