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, December 31, 2020

Amazingly Silly Evolution Research

The year 2020 has been dreadful for many people. Changing the calendar will not make the evils of the previous year magically go away, nor will the good things disappear. We will end the year with appallingly fatuous "research" conducted to glorify the Bearded Buddha.

While 2020 was dreadful for many people, it was a good year in fake science news made up to promote evolutionism. Many people think those are science.

If creationists get lost in the woods, all they need to do is say something refuting minerals-to-machinist evolution, and a misotheist will show up to argue. The creationist will probably be told, "You don't know anything about evolution!" Interestingly, we encounter that false accusation on teh interwebs quite often, and then the complainants will frequently demonstrate lack of knowledge of evolution themselves — indeed, they often exhibit ignorance of science itself.

We have an article to examine that has three examples of foolishness (and even some arrogance) that still manages to garner praise from secularists. One tinhorn is even attempting to rewrite Darwin's sacred tomes by saying we watch cute cat videos because of evolution. Never mind empirical research or even historical research, he'll get patted on the head and be told he's a good boy for affirming evolution. Another segment is about how beards affect sales and service "from an evolutionary perspective". The final part is about how drum rhythms related to cultural evolution.

Those jaspers who tell us that we don't understand evolution are also the kind of people who believe fake science news that proclaims evolution. Meanwhile, creationists are pushing on into 2021, trying to get people to get their think bones working. We also present material that glorifies God our Creator, refutes evolution, and affirms recent creation. We don't need absurd fake science to do it, either.

Let's take a gander at the cute (as in stupid) stories contained at "On the Evolution of Cuteness". The following video is included strictly for research purposes:

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Eating at the Table of Another

We all probably know someone who is a taker but not a giver. They rely on the efforts of others, but are actually harmful to others. There is a word for someone or something that takes from another, essentially eating from the table of another.

What do you call a person or a creature that takes the energy of another? We consider the once-perfect creation and the origin of parasitism.
Credit: Flickr / NIH-NIAID (CC BY 2.0)
You probably figured out that the subject under discussion is parasites. They come in many forms. Emotional vampires drain your essence (psychologically, not supernaturally); atheists claim to believe in science and reason, draw from foundational work of creationist scientists, then malign Christians and God; Democrats and socialists — but never mind about that now. Actually, we're here to discuss the much smaller kinds of parasites.

While it is common knowledge that malaria is a disease caused by mosquitoes, but those parasites often carry a single-celled parasite themselves — and that is the thing that causes the disease. Biblical creationists believe what the Bible says, that in the beginning, everything was very good. There was no death, predation, or disease at first. How did they get that way? Ask evolutionists where parasites came from, and they'll evosplain it with vague weasel words and affirmations that something evolved but it's a mystery.

We have seen many times that when scientists and medical doctors presuppose Darwinism, things get truly bizarre. Useful organs are removed because they are "vestigial" (useless leftovers from our alleged evolutionary history), taking a Darwin-only approach to dealing with the China COVID-19 problem, and other things we have discussed right here. We cannot expect materialists to believe the truth of the Bible, but they would be closer to solving problems like the Wuhan virus and malaria if they took a biblical worldview.
We have all been exposed to parasites at one time or another. Perhaps your dog or cat has come home with hookworms or roundworms—or even you’ve been told you were the unwilling host of lice or fleas! They’re everywhere. In fact, far more parasites inhabit our planet than nonparasites, and three out of every five people are host to at least one. What a miserable thought!

How is this possible? Such nasty things really bother those who think God’s creation is one big “bright and beautiful” banquet of bounty. Surely the Lord didn’t include such icky things in His original creation.

And yet they seem too sophisticated to have arisen by accident. Their existence has caused stomachs to turn and hands to wring for centuries, but it doesn’t have to be so.

You can finish reading by visiting "Parasites—Unwelcome Guests". Bonus: Just hours before this was scheduled to post, a new article was published that is helpful. Let's look.

In 1993, two evolutionists stated, “Parasites are still an enigma.” Not much has changed for the naturalist since then. “Hence, tempo and mode of host-parasite co-evolution at the macro-evolutionary scale remain a major challenge to understand.” Evolutionary biologists Eric Loker and Bruce Hofkin stated, “Macroevolutionary patterns among parasites are not yet very clear.” The origin of these fascinating creatures is still a puzzle for secular zoologists. 
What is the origin of parasites? Were Adam and Eve infected with them at creation?

You can read the rest of this short article at "Did God Make Harmful Parasites in the Beginning?

Also, you may want to see a recent post on a very similar subject, "Insect Parasites, Disease, and Creation". For related information, see this feedback article (the second on the page), look for the falcon picture. Better yet, use your browser's search function and type "Andrew".

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

The Webb Telescope and Extraterrestrial Life

If you study on it, the insistence of naturalists that life must exist elsewhere in the universe is irrational. They deny evidence for the Creator that is all around them (Rom. 1:18-23), but believe in their invisible friends when no evidence exists.

Secularists continue hoping to find evidence of their imaginary invisible friends. They pin hopes on the Webb telescope. Impressive work but no ETs.
Artist conception of the James Webb Space Telescope in action
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Over the years, people have tried to determine the possibility of extraterrestrial life out yonder. The moon? No sign of it, not even microbial life in the rocks brought back by astronauts. Venus? Conditions there make life out of the question, despite a hysterical claim that there might be a stinky indication. Mars? Secularists keep trying and coming up empty.

Looking further, exoplanets (extrasolar planets) were found. With better equipment, scientists have been able to determine the sizes and atmospheres of many. They even selected a "Goldilocks Zone" where if a planet orbited a star, the conditions would be just right for life. That's nice, but that habitable zone idea is rather complex.

Our sun behaves so well, you want to pat it on its belly, give it treats, and tell it what a good star it is. Yes it is! Yes it is! Other stars are almost as unstable as my ex-wife but more dangerous. They throw out bursts of radiation, massive flares, getting brighter and then dimmer — they would be killers.

Presuming that the universe evolved as well as life in it, people spend astronomical (heh!) amounts of money. Atheists and others deny that God made Earth special, and the Bible strongly indicates that there is no intelligent life elsewhere. This child believes the search is rooted in rebellion against God.

Don't be disunderstanding me on three things: I like a good science fiction story, am fascinated with interesting research, and realize that people have worked very hard on the Webb telescope, the Hubble, and other research projects. But that sure is a lot of tax money that could be spent on things that have tangible results. Still, Webb gets their spider-senses a-tingling.

High expectations come with the long-awaited James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), 10 billion dollars and 25 years in the making. Set to launch from Earth on 31 October 2021, NASA has dubbed it as the successor to the famous Hubble space telescope.

Hubble launched in 1990 was the first major optical telescope to be put into space. Considered to be one of the greatest scientific projects, it has revolutionised modern astronomy and awed people worldwide with its incredible deep field images.

The JWST primary mission objective is to examine the first light in the Universe (Evolutionist speak for examining the galaxies which are furthest away.) But another aim is to study the properties of exoplanets, specifically to detect and analyse their atmospheres. It is hoped that this will further establish whether a known exoplanet could be habitable to potential alien life.

To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, blast off for "Will the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) find extra-terrestrial life?" In addition, the short video below is interesting despite the secular propaganda parts:

Monday, December 28, 2020

Firing the Foxy Evolution Story

Regular readers should have noticed that creationists not only encourage people to use critical thinking, but to ask questions as well. Not just superficial questions, either. Add to that a bit of skill at spotting logical fallacies, and people are much less easily deceived by Darwinian just-so stories.

When Darwin's disciples make outlandish claims, thinking people should be asking hard questions. Try the claim linking foxes with human evolution.
Credit: US National Park Service / Jessica Weinberg McClosky
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

A few years back, the hands at the Darwin Ranch (go past Stinking Lake toward Deception Pass) got all het up about "Hobbits" (H. florensis) diminutive humans that apparently suffered from microcephaly. In a recent bit of malarkey, it has been suggested that studying the island fox is a key to human evolution. Was the author's reasoning influenced by peyote buttons? Asking for a friend. They eat those things like taco chips at the Darwin Ranch, you know.

There is one redeeming feature in this otherwise non-rigorous Darwin story: a lesson about avoiding assumptions.

The fallacy starts right in the headline. A press release from the University of Missouri, affectionately known as Mizzou, begins, “A new evolutionary clue: University of Missouri researcher adds to timeline of human evolution by studying an island fox.”

She’s serious. She thinks she found a “new evolutionary clue” about humans by studying a completely different mammal on the other side of the world. This only could make sense to a Darwin-indoctrinated grad student like Colleen B. Young working in a Darwin echo chamber in academia. She launches into her illogical story by thinking about how Homo floresiensis, the “Hobbit” from an Indonesian cave that confused the academic world in 2003, became so small. And so she went to California. California? Sure; why not? The whole world is Darwin’s playground. Some people are foxy, aren’t they?

To read the rest, fire up your Firefox and jump over to "Evolutionary Clues and Evolutionist Cluelessness".

Sunday, December 27, 2020

Age of the Earth and Salvation

Here we go again. The strange auto-censors at Facebook claimed that an intended post violates their so-called community standards, and they blocked it from the URL. We post on The Question Evolution Project links to Answers in Genesis many times, but occasionally a link is instantly blocked whether from them or someone else.

Another post instantly blocked by Facebook. Follow the link and see if you can find a problem in the linked article on salvation and the age of Earth.
Click for larger
Used under Fair Use law for educational purposes

In fact, I will also include the introductory paragraphs, but merged with the usual link format.

Opponents of biblical creation are known to spread the lie that we claim that one must believe in the young earth teachings to be saved. Obviously not, but the issue is important, including a proper understanding of Scripture and of hermeneutics.
Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.

Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions of years age for the earth and universe.

Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences. Let me summarize some of these.
 To read the entire chapter, see "Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?"

Saturday, December 26, 2020

Molecular Darwinism and Fake Medical Science

Darwin's acolytes have been conjuring up more pseudoscience based on guesswork, and these tinhorns suggest it can be helpful for medical science. Drawing on thermodynamics, they decided that DNA has an energy code because, so they commenced to working with their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings®.

Evolutionists cannot face the fact that DNA points to the Creator, so they conjured up molecular Darwinism. This uses bad science and bad logic.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
The human genome is very complex, but materialists are unwilling to give credit to the Creator. Instead, they want to take ideas from Papa Darwin and apply it to the problem of how DNA became the shuttle train for genetic information. With fundamentally flawed presuppositions and bad reasoning, it is not going well.
In an attempt to bring DNA under Darwin’s mechanism and thermodynamics, this theory ignores the elephant in the room.

Genetic Code Evolution and Darwin’s Evolution Theory Should Consider DNA an ‘Energy Code’ (Rutgers University). They call it “molecular Darwinism.” Evolutionists at Rutgers University tackle the steep hurdle at the heart of the origin of life: how did DNA become the carrier of a genetic code? The idea is that Darwinism needs a linkage to thermodynamics: “‘Survival of the fittest’ phenomenon is only part of the evolution equation.”

To finish reading, see "Molecular Darwinism Ignores Information". Meanwhile, in Bethlehem after Christmas:

Friday, December 25, 2020

The REAL Mother of Jesus

No, the title is not an attempt to put forward some Gnostic idea that the Mary we know about in the Bible is not actually the mother of Jesus. Unfortunately, many traditions and false teachings have been presented for a couple of millennia. We should examine who she is according to the source documents.

There are many traditions and false teachings about Mary. With a close look at Scripture, we can see who she really was.
Credit: Free Christian Illustrations
Mary seemed to be just another Hebrew girl. The Bible shows us that she was obedient to God, knowledgeable of the Scriptures, had faith, willing to face the hardships of being unmarried and pregnant in that culture — and she was not perfect. She said herself that she needed a Savior. It must have been almost overwhelming to give birth to God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity that became flesh and is the Creator of the universe! Let's find out more.
We can see in church history that unbiblical traditions started to accrue about Mary, the mother of Jesus, as early as the second century. This means that some of our thoughts about her today might be more influenced by legends than by what Scripture teaches. This woman was given a unique role: to be the mother of the Messiah. But is there anything more? She only appears in a few places in the New Testament, but when we examine what the Bible says about her, we can glean some important facts that reveal a lot about her character, her relationship to Jesus, her need to be saved from her sins, and her status in the early church.

The biblical information challenges many traditions about Mary, and some may feel uncomfortable drawing out the full implications of the biblical statements about an individual who Scripture declares is “blessed among women” (Luke 1:42). However, as Christians, we need to be willing to allow Scripture to shape our thinking in all areas, including regarding well-beloved biblical figures.
To finish reading, click on "Mary: the biblical woman behind the cultural legend". I hope you have a blessed Christmas! Oh, and as for the song below...yes, she did know. It seems to me that the writer is gradually realizing the momentous events.

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Life Itself is a Great Mystery

In the comedy Short Circuit, robot Number Five was struck by lightning and became alive. He had a personality and was able to think. When he accidentally killed a bug, he had trouble understanding that the bug could not be made alive again.

Materialists contradict their worldviews by searching for the soul in the brain. They cannot explain life itself, but we know the Source of life.
The Nativity by Jacques Stella, 1639

If you study on it, life is actually difficult to define. Naturalists define it in a chemical manner with cells processing, physiological activity happening, and all those rather mechanical procedures. All the ingredients of Number Five's dead bug were still there, but life had ceased. For that matter, Number Five was not alive (despite his protestations) according to naturalistic definitions.

Materialists cannot explain the origin of consciousness, but they still search for the physical location of the soul and free will. When misotheists complain that something is evil or wrong (such as claiming that by refuting Darwinism, creationists are "lying" about evolution), they are inconsistent. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, since we are just dancing to our chemical impulses; there is no absolute standard of morality for them. To complain about evil is to stand on the biblical worldview!

Morality, logic, love, and other intangible things cannot be defined or understood by materialism. They are not material. Life itself is not material. The reality is that life only comes from God our Creator. He wants us to have life — real, eternal life — so God the Son became a man. Most Christians celebrate his birth on Christmas, but he was born to give up his life on a cross. But he was bodily resurrected, defeating death.

No matter how much scientists learn about the complexities of organisms, they have not touched the more difficult questions—what is life itself, and where did it come from?

Have you ever thought about what life actually is? What mysterious quality makes a creature alive at one moment but is absent the instant the creature dies?

. . .

An entry in Wikipedia admits, “There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists.” The latest Encyclopedia Britannica agrees that there is no “Although the scientists, technicians, and others who participate in studies of life easily distinguish living matter from inert or dead matter, none can give a completely inclusive, concise definition of life itself.” Nevertheless, the encyclopedia’s online version attempts a clunky definition with lots of complex scientific terms:

To read the article in its entirety, see "The Mystery of Life".

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Lying for Darwin in the Secular Science Industry

Atheists and evolutionists hate creationists, and especially those of us who use presuppositional apologetics. We get that. After all, creation scientists point out the flaws in secular science assumptions, and apologists show that their worldviews are incoherent; only biblical Christianity makes sense.

We expect such reactions and misrepresentation from sidewinders with Atheism Spectrum Disorder and fundamentalist evolutionists, but not so much in the hallowed walls of secularism. The whole lot of them become incensed when their faith is shaken, and this child fully believes some want revenge. After all, scientific integrity and the pursuit of knowledge are not nearly as important as maintaining the naturalism narrative.

The Cambrian explosion has been a serious problem for Darwin's disciples for many years. Evolutionists have tried to find ways around it, but it is still strong evidence for recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Now some sidewinders are twisting the facts and actually trying to use it to lie about biblical creationists.

Of all the nerve; Chinese scientist twists Darwin’s dilemma into an argument against creationism.

Chengjian fauna: Evolution of animals and birth of basic human organs (Earth Science Frontiers, via Phys.org). Ever since Darwin’s Origin was written, the Cambrian Explosion has been a major unsolved problem for evolutionists. . . .  arguments that the abrupt appearance of nearly 20 animal phyla with hierarchical body plans in a geologically brief time period (according to evolutionary dating) not only defies a Darwinian explanation, but provides positive evidence for intelligent design. How, then, can a Chinese scientist in this article just sweep the problem away as if it doesn’t exist?

. . . 

His work tries to spread out the explosion into three episodes. The problem is that each of the episodes are explosive, with no ancestors.

Read the entire article at "Twisting Abrupt Appearance into Anti-Creationism".

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Of Fossil Spider Eyes and the Genesis Flood

Rewriting this post*. My wife will not read this because she doesn’t like spiders, and they give a lot of people the heebie jeebies. Time to put feelings on the shelf so we can examine some important facts about spider fossils and the Flood.

Soft tissues in fossils are very problematic for secularists. Spiders do not fossilize well, but soft tissues and reflective eyes indicate the Flood.
Credit: Flickr / Chandan Singh (CC BY 2.0)

I prolly gave some of y'all the heebie jeebies all over again. Ignore it. Besides, I don't get to use that expression very often.

"When spiderish eyes are shining, sure, 'tis like the morning spring —"

Do you take requests? How about if you sing "Down by the River" and "Fall In"?

While soft tissues and fossils have been known for a long time, the situation was amplified by famous work by Mary Schweitzer in 2005, as well as by Kevin Anderson and Mark Armitage. (One furious atheopath recently claimed that young-age creationists “hijacked” her work, affirmed the dubious iron preservation rescuing device, then ignored all the rest of the soft tissue news.) In fact, there are so many findings related to all sorts of soft tissues, secularists have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

Many votaries in the Darwin Death Cult® preach that fossilization takes a passel of years after something dies and sinks to the bottom of a body of water. (This ignores decomposition, scavengers, and so on.) Spiders are delicate things, so fossilization is comparatively rare. Those that exist reveal that spiders have always been spiders; there is no evidence of evolution. Even more startling is the fact that reflective eyes were discovered in the fossils. These are strong evidences for recent creation and the Genesis Flood!
Have you ever shone a flashlight into grassland at night, and seen pin-pricks of light like tiny bright jewels twinkle back at you? There’s a good chance they were spider’s eyes. Scientists recently discovered several rare spider fossils entombed in a geological formation in South Korea. The rock formation is allegedly 110 million years old, yet two of the fossil spiders have “quite remarkable” eyes that still reflect light—as brightly as today’s living spiders. This is the first time an eye still able to reflect light has been found in the fossil record.

To reflect on the rest of the article, see “Spider eyes shining in the rocks”.

*Since this Google-owned Blogger platform destroyed my previous effort, I am starting again. Although it is supposed to automatically back up the work every few seconds, that did not happen, so I have to do it manually.

Monday, December 21, 2020

Viking DNA Dispersal Points to Babel

It is easy to assume that the stereotypical Scandinavian today indicates how the Vikings of centuries past appeared. While it is known that the Vikings were explorers and reached North America long ago, there is other evidence of how much they got around.

Like other ancient people groups, the Vikings traveled a great deal. New DNA research indicates this can be traced to the dispersal at Babel.
Credit: Flickr / Katherine (take a look at the caption for background) (CC BY-ND 2.0)
It seems to be human nature to move around, as we have seen with the Neanderthals, Denisovans, Celts, and other ancient people groups. Modern researchers raided Viking burial grounds and conductive intensive research, and saw that like other folks, they managed to spread their DNA around. However, they also discovered that DNA was shared into Scandinavia. Trace genetics, culture, history, and so on back far enough and you'll find support for the biblical narrative of the dispersal at Babel.
The activities of the Viking Age (793–1066 AD) radically shaped the demographic landscape of Europe—along with its politics, culture, and demographics—in ways that are still playing a major role to this day. Viking explorers developed trading partners and established colonies that stretched across the Atlantic to North America and even to locations in the Asian steppe.

In this new study, researchers sequenced the DNA of 442 different individuals from a diversity of Viking archaeological sites spanning Europe and Greenland. The new genetic data was then analyzed together with published data from 3,855 modern individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

To read the entire article (I think you'll take a Viking to it...see what I did there?), sail over to "Viking DNA Highlights Post-Babel Genetic Diversity".

Saturday, December 19, 2020

Effects of Evolutionary Thinking on Law and History

Regular readers have seen how the distraction of, "Evolution is just biology" is completely false. We recently saw how evolutionism can be a religion in its own right, and how it is a worldview through which people interpret data and make choices.

Evolution is not just a discussion of biology. It is a worldview with consequences. These have even had an effect on law and how we understand history.
Christopher Langdell portrait by Frederick Porter Vinton, modified
Secular geologists "know" that the world is billions of years old. That's what the Bearded Buddha wants, that's what he gets — evidence for the young earth is suppressed or ignored. Social Darwinism was the application of his biological ideas to produce eugenics and a drastic increase in abortions, scientific racism, women as inferior, and much more.

William Blackstone wrote his commentaries on the law, and those were foundational for a long time. Christopher Langell was influenced by Darwin, and decided that since evolution was true, then everything evolves. The US Constitution is something that needs to evolve as well; judges are more important than our founding documents as law evolves. We can also see how evolutionary thinking affects the teaching and understanding of history. Ideas have consequences, especially when followed with the ardor of people who deny the Creator.

I recommend that "How a belief in evolution affects law and history" will help you understand many things, including the condition of our society today. It also helps us understand the trampling of the US Constitution.

Friday, December 18, 2020

Genetic Entropy and You

There are some creationists who advise against using the Laws of Thermodynamics, entropy, and that sort of thing in discussions about evolution. We tend to misuse these things. It is a fact, though, that everything winds down. This applies to you and me.

Genetic entropy is powerful evidence for recent creation, but purveyors of evoporn misrepresent its importance. In fact, it has relevance to COVID-19.
Background image: Pixabay / PixxlTeufel,
modified with COVID-19 image, then FotoSketcher
In a way, it should be obvious. Your vehicle will not become less rusty or repair itself. Machines wear out and break down. Foundations in buildings settle and cracks appear in various places. People grow old and die, and then have to stand before their Creator.

Before we continue, I suggest reading "Mendel's Accountant Continues to Fluster Evolutionists". It's not essential, but helpful.

Genetic entropy is extremely strong for affirming recent creation,  and for refuting deep-time minerals-to-misotheist evolution. Although our Creator built in processes to repair our DNA and mitigate damages, mutations do occur and accumulate. Darwin's acolytes are angry about the hand they've been dealt, so they try to re-deal from the bottom of the deck by making arbitrary excuses.

Genetic entropy exists in humans and higher animals, but it is more pronounced; it happens on lower levels of complexity as well.

The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful — a fact that evolutionists acknowledge. Some think their ace in the hole is a claim that there are neutral mutations, and if they build up, then their deity of Natural Selection will deign to remove the unfit. Doesn't work that way, old son. Try to understand the concept before making excuses.

We have mentioned genetic entropy a few times, but what follows is the best article for us reg'lar folks to understand.
People die for many reasons, but if you are fortunate enough to escape death through war, crime, random accidents or illness, entropy will always be there to ensure you meet your Maker. Generally speaking, entropy is the universal tendency for things to run down and fall apart.

Not surprisingly, the same tendency is at work in entire populations, generation after generation. We now know, thanks largely to the work of Dr John Sanford (renowned plant geneticist and genetic engineering pioneer from Cornell University), that the same gradual process of ‘running down’ is also operating in the human gene pool.

Called genetic entropy, it is driving humanity—and all higher organisms—to the point of extinction (barring divine intervention, of course). In fact, this process, which operates more rapidly in ‘higher’ organisms, means that the human species could only be several thousand years old; certainly not hundreds of thousands of years, or we would have already become extinct.

You can read the rest over at "Genetic entropy: The silent killer — A devastatingly powerful argument against evolution". The next article is a bit more technical, but we can see how some owlhoots will try to dismiss real science in favor of evoporn.

Evoporn definition

A popular way of discrediting science from biblical creationists (aside from ignoring the truth) is to discredit it through misrepresentation. Sometimes this is done through deliberate deception, but less malevolent ways simply come down to hand-waving dismissals, refusal to do their homework, irrelevant material, prejudicial conjecture, and the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™.

It is indeed unfortunate that by disregarding the most important creationist paper on this subject, evolutionary thinking once again hinders medical science. It has relevance to the Wuhan COVID-19 virus.

We expect such things from those with Atheist Spectrum Disorder on socialist media, but is is disgraceful when actual scientists use these tactics in order to light prayer candles to the Bearded Buddha and protect the narrative of naturalism. What follows are refutations of louche claims made by credentialed scientists by creation scientists. It is easy to tell that the Darwinists had not bothered to learn what they were attempting to refute. Perhaps they were appealing to their "authority" as scientists who were swatting away the st00pid dumb creationists. Take a look.
There are several ways in which evolutionists attempt to evade the effects of genetic entropy. Objections have included appeals to truncation selection, synergistic epistasis, mutation counts, and debates over the ‘true’ mutation spectrum. These have been analyzed separately and in combination and found to be wanting.

The evolutionary community has not given in. Several attempts have been made to discredit GE, but these efforts have not been strong. Basic misunderstandings of what GE claims, what evolution claims, and the power of the respective alternatives abound. For example, see Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy. The debate has continued on Dr. Joshua Swamidass’ Peaceful Science blog. He is an evolutionist and the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE), which received a scathing review on Creation.com. We find his science to be not at all ‘peaceful’, but openly hostile to the views of biblical creationists. In fact, he openly admits that his GAE hypothesis represents a sort of Hegelian synthesis between creationism and evolutionism. Readers be cautioned! Tricky rhetorical flourishes are not good arguments, but they abound in those pages.

To read this interesting article, see "Responding to supposed refutations of genetic entropy from the ‘experts’". To really dig in, you may wish to watch this video discussion on genetic entropy between Drs. James Tour and John Sanford. If you're short on time, here's a 1-minute video:

Thursday, December 17, 2020

A Glowing Report on the Platypus

Creationists are fond of the platypus, and some of think that it could possibly be one of our Creator's pranks on secularists. Not only does it have design characteristics of different critters, but is frustrating to Darwin's disciples. Then there's that new report.

The platypus has always been troubling to evolutionists. Things became much worse for them because it is biofluorescent, which raises more questions.
Modified from a public domain image

The platypus is billed (see what I did there?) as being able to glow in the dark. Probably not useful as a reading light, though. This was detected by shining ultraviolet light on museum specimens. Then things get truly bizarre.

Other living things are also biofluorescent, but they are disparate, such as fungi, a few mammals, fish, and others. (Expect the non-explanation of "convergent evolution" to be invoked.) Mammals that have this trait are active in twilight hours, including wombats and other natives of 'Straya. However, not all of these animals that are active in twilight are biofluorescent. The more we think about it, the less ducky it gets for evolutionists.

When ultraviolet (UV) light shines on the platypus pelt (which is brown in visible light) it absorbs UV wavelengths between 200 and 400 nanometers. It then gives off visible light between 500 and 600 nanometers (green or cyan to us); an optical process called fluorescence. . . . The researchers assumed that the fluorescence observed is not a property of museum specimens due to preservation techniques, a possibility that was not ruled out.

The proposed function of the trait was to help them see other platypuses in low-light environments. This is important because platypuses, and biofluorescent flying squirrels and opossums, are all active during the dim hours of dawn, dusk, and night. Furthermore, platypuses have UV-sensitive vision, so they can see and interact with each other at night. Conversely, they are less visible to animals that do not have UV vision, as is true of many of their predators. Thus, the researchers explain platypus biofluorescence as likely an evolutionary adaptation to low-light conditions where UV fluorescence may be particularly important to nocturnal mammals. If so, why haven’t most or all other mammals evolved this trait? Why is the platypus part of a very exclusive club: one of only three known biofluorescent mammals?

You can read the rest of this extremely interesting article at "Platypus Glows in the Dark". A much shorter article has an interesting photo, "Glow-in-the-Dark Platypuses Illuminate the Creator".

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

That "Living in a Computer Simulation" Thing Again

Just over a year ago, we discussed the notion that some people have that we are living in a computer simulation ("Evolutionary Thinking and Fake Reality"). A recent article made some interesting points about this, so I reckon it is worth saddling this pony up again.

There are people who seriously consider the idea that we may live in a computer simulation. This idea has serious difficulties rooted in materialism.
Credit: FreeDigitalImages / thesomeday1234
"Hey, gang! Pet the neighbors and wake the cat, we're going to do a computer simulation of an entire universe!"

That would require substantial knowledge of the workings of every aspect of the universe, but there is a great deal more to learn. I reckon the idea is self-defeating right from the start. Also note that those who believe in such things are materialists. That is, they reject God, the soul, and that sort of thing. Ironically, secular scientists search for the locations of the soul and free will in the brain.

There are people who want to develop the simulation technology for the "betterment of humanity" or somesuch (that should be a red flag right there, old son). But they have an incoherent and inconsistent worldview, so it would be a classic case of GIGO.

Interestingly, the song "Computer God" by Black Sabbath had some rather science fiction-ish lyrics, but there were many aspects that fit this subject quite well. No, I'm not endorsing the band, just showing you the song. Savvy that?

Mr. Gordons refers to humans as "meat machines", which is rather fitting from a materialistic viewpoint. I have seen and read several science fiction stories where a person's consciousness was transferred into another body, a machine, or whatever. That leaves out the reality that we are created in God's image, not the products of particles-to-programmer evolution — and we have souls. Ironically, the view of the materialist is dehumanizing. 
“The odds that we are in base reality is one in billions,” says famed inventor Elon Musk. He reasons that if humans continue the current trend of technological advancement, we’ll develop the ability to simulate a universe inside a computer, and perhaps we are all inside one today. A recent NBC News poll reported that 56% of respondents believed it was likely we’re in a simulated universe.

You can finish reading by going to "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?"

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Mendel's Accountant Continues to Fluster Evolutionists

Scientists really like computer simulations and models. (If you tell a scientist that you have a new one, well, there's goes your evening of binge-watching CSI.) Proponents of particles-to-programmer evolution have them for mutations, natural selection and the like. The Mendel's Accountant program is superior.

A computer simulation  not infested with false evolution-supporting parameters called Mendel's Accountant refutes evolution and supports creation.
Thanks to Why?Outreach for the graphic
Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) pioneered the science of genetics. Darwin's disciples added the fact of mutations to Darwin's version of natural selection, claiming neo-Darwinism was the answer to questions about origins — especially if they remove any possibility of the Creator. Of course, deep time is essential.

High priests of evolutionism like Clinton Richard Dawkins have used computer simulations to support evolution, but like I've said many times, the program depends on the data. It also is subject to the adjustments made by the programmers. Darwinists bragged about their successful scenarios (essentially dealing from the bottom of the deck and hiding cards in their sleeves), but those successes were fundamentally flawed.

Mendel's Accountant was released around 2008. It effectively turns evolutionary weapons against themselves. When using realistic data instead of corrupted Dawkinsized data, it reveals that humanity cannot be as old as evolutionists want to believe. In fact, the results are supportive of biblical creation science positions. It uses information about population genetics and natural selection.

It should not be surprising that there are no serious challenges to the program in scientific journal. Snarky remarks by desk jockeys in forums using silly fake names? You betcha! Mendel's Accountant was written by people who wanted to see if data produce results consistent with a biblical creation framework. It not only works, but the project was undertaken by "outsiders", not well-financed evolutionary scientists. If you want to try it yourself for free, you can find out here.

The article linked below was published in 2009, probably written in 2008, so that would explain to those who are curious why it mentions ten years.

A powerful computer program with far-reaching consequences has been developed by a group of biologists and computer scientists. Striking at the heart of neo-Darwinian theory, it tackles the subject of mutation/selection using a straightforward method called genetic accounting. Named Mendel’s Accountant, this software platform provides a comprehensive refutation of multiple aspects of evolutionary theory using nothing but standard evolutionary population genetics. The developers have used it to quantify the actual selection threshold for new mutations, to test alternate evolutionary ideas (e.g. unusual selection models, such as ‘synergistic epistasis’), to quantify the long-standing ‘waiting time problem’ for new beneficial mutations, to make predictions about the long-term effects of mutation accumulation in viruses (which were later confirmed), and to compare different historical population models to the modern human mutation frequency spectrum seen in the 1000 Genomes Project data. Their results represent a complete refutation of the ‘primary axiom’ of neo-Darwinian theory. Computationally, the mutation/selection model failed in multiple ways.

I hope you will see fit to read the rest of the article since it will help with an article publishing here in a few days. To keep reading, see "A successful decade for Mendel’s Accountant".

Monday, December 14, 2020

Fossil Spider Eyes and the Genesis Flood

 This post was destroyed by the incompetence of the Blogger interface. 45 minutes wasted. And why do they insist that I have a first-line 1-space indent? Wordpress is looking better and better every day.

Paws to Reflect on Biomimetics

Biomimetics (or biomimicry) is the scientific applications of using what has been found in nature and making them available for our use. We use the minds that our Creator gave us to make use of various things, but deny rightful credit ("it evolved"). Has biomimetics gone to the dogs?

Biomimetics, applying what is found in nature for our uses, can have unusual inspirations. One of these was inspired by examining paws on a dog.
Credits: Original from Freeimages / Lidija Macej, modified at PhotoFunia
Or more accurately, some of biomimetics is coming from the dogs. The right person was paying attention to burrs in a dog's fur, and eventually, Velcro was developed. Another invention inspired by observing a dog —

"A dog walked into a saloon with one arm in a sling. He tipped back his cowboy hat and announced to the bartender and everyone else, "'I'm lookin' for the man that shot my paw!'"

Many thanks for that humorous non-contribution. 

So anyway, why was the cocker spaniel getting along so well on the ice, but his pet human was having all sorts of troubles? This observant man had his mental pumped primed because he was working on problems of slipping on boats.
Paul Sperry (1894–1982) was an avid New England sailor and inventor. But he kept running into a problem common to yachtsmen of his day: the boat deck became slippery and dangerous when wet. After nearly drowning in a boating accident, Paul set out to solve the problem by applying various coatings to his boat deck and shoes. However, his success was limited and temporary.

One wintry day in 1935 Paul was walking his cocker spaniel, Prince, along an icy path. He found walking difficult, but Prince moved with ease across the ice and remained sure-footed. Arriving back home Paul examined the dog’s feet.

To read the rest, slide on over to "A Sailor’s Best Friend".

Saturday, December 12, 2020

Evolutionists are Working for Creation Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A common accusation against creationists is that we oversimplify science with, "GodDidIt". While be believe that God is the ultimate first cause and has a plan, creation scientists want to know how God did it. 

Creation scientists are nowhere near as well funded as secular scientists. They still do research, but also use materials provided to uphold creation.
Creation of the World / Ivan Aivazovsky, 1864 modified with graphic from Open Clipart

Biblical creationists presuppose the truth of Scripture and the majority of secular scientists presuppose atheistic naturalism. They are unable to give plausible scientific explanations and models for slime-to-slate-roofer evolution, so they draw upon circular reasoning based on other baseless explanations; these essentially come down to "EvolutionDidIt" and "It evolved". I reckon that's a bit of a logical fallacy (or a psychological defect, mayhaps) to say that creationists are not interested in explanations for what is observed, but secularists offer little of substance themselves.

The money and power in the secular science industry (our tax money) is controlled by people who are opposed to the authority and truth of God's Word. Obviously, there are more of them than us, and funding to "prove" evolution and deny credit to the Creator is substantial. This helps them intellectually justify their rebellion against God (Psalm 14:1, Prov. 1:7, Rom. 1:17-23). The pressure is on to find the Next Big Thing and get more grant money. Funding for creationist organizations most certainly does not get funneled through government agencies. Most of that comes from donations and the sale of merchandise.

Creation science maintains recent creation and design. There are many credentialed scientists who affirm creation, and they contribute to science. Indeed, they are published in secular as well as creationist peer-reviewed journals. Creation scientists affiliated with ministries also conduct research. They are blackballed from presenting material that promotes recent creation, the Genesis Flood, or refuting evolutionary ideas in secular journals however. If creation astronomers want to use the Hubble telescope, they even have to supply their own bags of quarters to run the thing.

Scientists who uphold creation have intelligence and training, but I'll allow that their opportunities are curtailed by the bigotry of secular owlhoots. They can, however, use the information in secular publications and analyze the data themselves. (We have seen many examples of that sort of thing in these posts.) Sort of like shooting them with their own Darwin Death-Ray Blaster®. One excellent example of a site that does this sort of thing on a regular basis (often including several items from secularists in one article) is Creation-Evolution Headlines.

The typical village atheist on social(ist) media is known to say, "You just don't understand evolution!" While that is usually directed at laypeople (typically by laypeople), creation scientists must understand evolutionary ideas and the thinking of its purveyors. Literature and videos from creation ministries show how creationists understand secular material; they do not want to misrepresent it — unlike some people we could mention. They present it to the rest of us. When we pay attention to creation science material, we are learning evolutionary thinking by default. We are also learning its flaws.

When creationists are not doing their own research, they use publications from the secular science industry. This is studied, and the scientific and logic errors of secularists are revealed. In addition, this information is used by creation scientists for their own studies. In an indirect fashion, evolutionists are working for creation science. Imagine the impact they could have with such major funding and secularists allowed discussion of inconvenient truths.

Friday, December 11, 2020

Vampire Moths: Repurposing Design

Have you ever "hacked" something for a purpose other than its original purpose? Sure you have, such as scrubbing with an old toothbrush. In medications, there are "off label" uses (antihistamine as a sleep aid, for instance). Life hacks seem to happen in nature.

In a strange kind of life hack, vampire moths are rogue in their genus. You may be shocked to learn what this moth was designed to feast on.
Calyptra thalictri (vampire moth) image credit: Flickr / Ilia Ustyantsev (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Before we get to the vampire moth (and no, if you're bitten, you won't turn into an undead one and seek the blood of the living), let's have a bit of fun.

Spy movies show the heroes using objects in ways other than intended as weapons or to get out of unpleasant situations. The original MacGyver television series became iconic because of how he jury-rigged devices, often for one quick purpose (bricolage). If y'all pay attention, you should come across the usage of "Macgyvered" as a substitute for improvising and jury-rigging.

I'm a fan of Stargate SG-1 and the original MacGyver (both starring Richard Dean Anderson), and Captain Carter (Amanda Tapping) made a remark to Anderson's character in the first Stargate SG-1 episode that they had to MacGyver a system. Naturally, I thought that subtle inside joke was downright hilarious.

Then there's this cut-up moment on the set:

Okay, just a few things extra before we get serious. 

Some life hacks seem very useful, but others strike me a stupid or even harmful. Use your discretion.

  • Pool noodles are those long, brightly-colored tubes used for playing in the water. People have used them to redirect water from a small sink into a bucket, or attack to garage walls so car doors are protected.
  • Plastic bread wrapper ties can be used if you use a fine-point marker, write a little identifier, and attach them to cords or cables.
  • Paper coffee filters have many uses, including a way to spread oil or butter in a dish, use two in a bowl to separate different snacks, spray windows with the usual cleaner, then wipe with a the filter.
  • Baking soda has been used for centuries, but people have used it for off-label purposes. It can be used as an iffy, temporary antacid, in dental hygiene, and a box of it in the 'fridge helps reduce odors. Putting some in a coffee filter and tying it together can be used to deodorize shoes and the dirty clothes section of your luggage.
  • Blue jeans are handy to wipe your hands on when nobody cares.
  • Eyeglass and pencil cases are useful for storing cables, adaptors, and such.
  • Here are some more for your consideration. You'll thank me later.
Biblical creationists believe that everything was originally created to be vegetarian (Gen 1:29-30). People may look at things and think, "Wow, look at those big, nasty, pointy teeth!", then assume carnivory. Consider the teeth on the giant panda or a fruit bat, for starters, since meat is not preferred for their dancing and dining pleasure.

Also, many living things were modified after the Fall of Man (a subject that was touched on in the ostrich post). Some critters forsook their first loves and decided that meat was mighty tasty, probably motivated by a lack of their normal food sources. This is what seemed to happen with some lorikeets.

Now we come to the vampire moth. Some in the genus Calyptra have gone off-label with their existing parts and became fond of blood. (Don't get me started on the somewhat misnamed blood pudding...) They were mainly found in the Ural Mountains of Russia, Malaysia, and southern Europe, but seem to be expanding their range. Call me when they reach Transylvania.

As mentioned before, not all in this moth's tribe are fond of blood. Under very close examination, the vampire version and its fruit-drinking cousins have the same parts. One repurposed those for something else.
Like a tiny flying Dracula, this moth creeps up on its sleeping prey and drills into its skin with a ferocious tooth- and claw-covered proboscis. Inflatable hooks on the tip of the feeding tube firmly anchor it to the skin while it feasts on the prey’s blood.

Was the vampire moth designed to be a blood-feeder? . . . The teeth rip away at blood vessels, causing a pool of blood to form under the skin for the moth to drink.

Vampire moths feed on humans, zebu, cattle, rhinoceros, and even elephants. These moths seem purposely built with all the tools they need to drink blood, right? Well, the truth may surprise you.

To bite into the full article (which is shorter than my wordy but fun introduction), fly over to "Rogue Moths Didn't Start Out That Way".

Thursday, December 10, 2020

Ostrich on the Run

Ever notice how there are many pictures of ostrich heads, or that full shots are from a distance? Several reasons for this. The ostrich is a hugely big bird, the head lends itself for humor, and they are dangerous in the wild. But ostriches are also fascinating.

Flightless birds are puzzing for both creationists and evolutionists, but both should agree that the ostrich has some fascinating characteristics.
Credit: Flickr / William Andrus (CC BY 2.0)

Flightless birds are a puzzle for both creationists and evolutionists, but both parties agree that they probably descended from an ancestor that could fly. When Adam sinned, there were repercussions throughout all of creation. The Master Engineer quite likely front-loaded abilities and genetic information in living things so they would be able to survive in the no-longer-very-good world.

Ostriches are extremely fast runners, and can outlast speedy predators in endurance running. They also have a lethal kick. Those wings may look silly, but they are actually very useful for maneuvering. Their parenting skills are lacking by human standards, and may also be the result of the Fall of humanity.

It’s actually very easy for creatures to lose complex abilities such as flight. In certain environments, being unable to fly aids survival. For instance, on small windy islands, a creature that can’t fly is at less risk of being ‘lost at sea’ in storms and thus no longer able to reproduce. So, when a genetic accident (mutation) cripples some part of the complex flight machinery, the flightless form, which would normally be eliminated as defective, is very likely to dominate the island population. Thus, islands are common places to find flightless birds (and insects). . . . 

Such devolution has nothing to do with how flight arose in the first place, which requires new, complex genetic information to arise. Even dedicated evolutionists don’t suggest that any flightless bird ever ‘re-evolved’ flight ability once lost.

You can read the full article at "The ostrich—a reminder of creation and the Fall".

Labels