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

Friday, January 17, 2020

Whale of a Miracle or Miracles of Whales?

Naturalists reject the biblical account of Jonah and the great fish out of hand. After all, that is a miracle and there are no miracles because naturalism. Such a view is arbitrary, not logical, and only justifies rebellion against the Creator instead of digging deeper.


While Jonah and the great fish, possibly a whale, is a miraculous event, whales themselves are miracles of creation.
Humpback whale image credit: NOAA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you stop and think about it, there are many "miracles" that apply to whales. (Of course, miracle is used loosely in this context, except for the many miracles involved in the creation itself.) Whales are not the product of evolution, but instead show the intricate work of the Master Engineer.
A skeptic once opined about the so-called problem of miracles, saying that “enlightened” thinkers doubt the Bible’s supernatural events such as “the whale miracle.” But which whale miracle did he reject? Was he thinking of Jonah being swallowed at sea yet living to tell the tale of the “great fish”?1 Some assumptions need examination because there’s more than one whale miracle to consider.
To read the rest, click on "Jonah's Whale Adventure and Everyday Miracles".






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

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Using Evolution to Excuse Promiscuity

While this post and the article linked below have nothing explicit or prurient, they contain adult concepts. Sensitive and younger readers may want to skip this one. Since Darwinism has given us many wicked social views and rejects the Creator, it is no surprise that evolution can be used to justify sexual promiscuity.


Evolutionary morality descends even further, justifying uninhibited sexuality for men. To do this, they deny the Creator and his written Word.
Lovers, Konstantin Somov, 1920
Atheists may feel free to indulge in sexual abuse because they suppress the truth that God exists and is the final Judge of everyone, but they still must deal with laws and societies. Many claim that morality comes from evolution, which is foolish even on the surface. We have seen in previous posts how evolutionists struggle with ethics and morality.

While atheists and evolutionists scoff at biblical Christianity and creationists, the ultimate truth is found in the unchanging Word of God. Humans may be classified by scientists as animals, but we are created in God's image. He has not only given us the Book to guide us, he lives within his people. Unfortunately, those who believe that we are simply another type of animal tend to justify acting like animals.

Using the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™, a couple of scientists presupposed evolution and interpreted their observations of animals accordingly. From there, they added copious amounts of speculation and personal opinions. Men should be able to have sex with whomever they please, individually or in groups. To be blunt, I reckon that this is simply a "scientific" excuse for debauchery. The evoporn from the researchers does not indicate how women feel about all this — but they may think that they can play that game as well. But then, maybe they are playing their own game with abortion "rights" to justify the murder of the unborn.

Apparently, love has nothing to do with it. Nor respect. The Owner's Manual tells us our Creator's ideal: one man, one woman, one marriage. Obviously, we don't keep to the ideals and there is sin in our lives; those who have long marriages are the exception, not the rule. But this utilitarian use of sex has no place for love and respect — concepts that cannot be accounted for in materialism.
Women, are you listening? Darwinists justify unleashing unrestricted male passions on you with no responsibility.
In these days of the #MeToo movement, and strict rules against sexual harassment in the workplace, are you surprised that evolutionary biology justifies unrestricted, irresponsible male sexual indulgence, with anyone at any time, as perfectly natural? The ground for this view comes from fundamental assumptions Darwinians make before they even look at evidence:
To finish reading, visit "On the Origin of Lechery by Natural Selection".







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

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

The Problem of Defining Information

People talk about information a great deal, but if you study on it, that word is a bit context-based. We can gain information from websites, cyberstalking, watching television, from Number Six, and many other areas. When it comes to genetics, information is tricky to conclusively define.

Information surrounds us, but it becomes difficult to define information in genetics. Evolutionists cannot explain where it came from in the first place.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
Creationists point out that many changes in the genome result in a loss of or change in information, then arguments ensue. Some even use viperine tactics to clam that, since we cannot define information to their satisfaction, it does not even exist. Oh, please! Evolutionists may use rescuing devices that information is added through gene duplication or other ways, but it is not useful information. It's there, and they have a huge mountain to climb in explaining where it came from in the first place. After all, they reject the Creator who made it all happen.
As biblical creationists, we often like to point out that ‘information’ is a notoriously hard-to-define term. Several authors have tried to grapple with this. As far back as 1993, Walter ReMine wrote a book called The Biotic Message that explained what type of information we would expect to see if a Designer had created life. Since then, Werner Gitt has given us the Scientific Laws of Information, and Royal Truman has written extensively on Information Theory. Hence, creationists talk about information, a lot.
To read the rest, click on "What would count as ‘new information’ in genetics?"





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

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Assuming the Rocks Look Old

"How much more riding do we have, Luke?"

"About two more days. Nice scenery, though."

"Lotsa rocks in nice layers. They sure do look old."

"How do you know that they're old? You need something to compare them with, you know, and there are no tags giving their ages. Now let's get these horses some water."

People say that the rock layers look very old, but this is based on deep time assumptions. They do not really know the ages of rocks.
Credits: Grand Canyon from PIXNIO, run through PhotoFunia
We are told that rocks, layers, and so on look old because people assume that they are old based on deep time presuppositions, but there needs to be a reference point. Rocks are rocks. Radiometric dating? More assumptions, and different methods yield wildly differing ages.

There are people in my experience that look old because I also know people who are young. Here in the Kingston, New York area we have buildings from the Revolutionary War that look old near buildings that were constructed much more recently. (In Europe, you can see structures that are much older and then look at newer ones for a greater contrast.) Do we have any young rocks?

Actually, yes. But when you look at them, they look like the "old" rocks. When looking at geological formations, the appearance of age is not based on objective facts.
Some might argue that Earth’s rocks are obviously ancient even apart from radioisotope dating results. In response to creationist claims, they might ask, “If the earth was created just 6,000 years ago, then why does it look so old?” But does Earth really look old?
To read the rest of this short and not very old article, click on "Do Earth's Rocks Look Old?"





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

Monday, January 13, 2020

Naturalists Hiding the Truth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Although Western civilization claims to value free speech, that commodity is being trampled like sawdust on a saloon floor nowadays. The secular science industry is heavily biased and increasingly involved in leftist causes. To have the freedom to present evidence supporting recent creation and refuting evolution presented in the secular science industry? Fuggedaboudit. They want to control the narrative and the information.


Atheists and evolutionists try to silence Christians and creationists through various means. They are promoting groupthink and suppressing free speech.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
For example, much of the information presented by climate alarmists is tainted, and they reject not only contrary information, but logic itself. If you offer scientific information that is suppressed by climate cultists and leftist science, expect to have those tinhorns shout you down. You may hear something like, "I don't care if there is documentation! Ignore the false predictions! I can tell you that deniers are all liars, even though I don't read or understand their material! Listen to me!" So much for honestly evaluating the data in the spirit of scientific inquiry. Leftists causes must be promoted at all costs — including resisting freedoms of speech and thought. I kinda doubt that they would support Question Evolution Day, don't you?

Creationists have been horsewhipped (figuratively, since doing the real thing is still illegal — for now) and ridiculed by atheists and evolutionists for many years. When Clinton Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists, it's supposedly because he doesn't want to give us attention and credibility. Good thing for him, because in the article linked just above, he displays loaded terminology ("real" scientists), his fundamentally flawed presuppositions, and blatant bigotry. "Real" scientists are equated with those who embrace naturalism or materialism, so creationists are excluded by arbitrary, self-serving definitions.

I saw a complaint about a creation science post from a jackanapes who tries to drive a wedge of religion between creationists. He indicated that "real" science supports an old earth and evolution, and that "honest" Christians accept such views (if you're honest, you agree with him — that's the fallacy of bifurcation). He cited a pseudo-christian organization and linked to material that you have to pay to see. Also, to join and pay, you are required to agree to their "statement of faith" and be approved. Unbiased science, you betcha, Sweetcakes. 


Indeed, atheists and evolutionists are known to dodge debate challenges more often than not, such as the challenge by Creation Ministries International at an atheists convention. Remember the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate? Nye ignored a challenge to debate Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis. He eventually settled for Ken Ham, but atheists were frantic about that.

Do not think that naturalists are guilty of moving the goalposts. When things are not going their way, they hire four Germans (all named Hermann, coincidentally) to remove the goalposts entirely. It is thought that they are hidden somewhere in Surbiton.

Many village atheists try to silence Christians and creationists through ridicule, which only shows how they beclown themselves through their lack of integrity, lack of knowledge of science, and lack of civility. For that matter, we often have to educate them on their own mythology. If things are this bad among the commoners, perhaps the aversion to debates among the self-proclaimed intelligentsia is rooted in similar apprehensions. Consider this: if creationists had nothing to say, then someone like Dawkins could stop dodging and take a formal debate with a creation scientist and shut us down.

No, ridicule, hiding, misrepresentation, and ignoring inconvenient truths will not silence us or make us go away, old son. Evidence for recent creation and the global Genesis Flood is plentiful; truth is on our side. Leftist science is non-science, dumbing down the public through groupthink.
Big Science assumes you will be assimilated. Don’t even think about disagreeing. You have no voice. You don’t exist.
Study the following renewal ad from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It’s not really surprising to anyone familiar with Big Science these days, but perhaps it should be:
To read the rest of the excerpted article, click on "Ignoring the Opposition: How Big Science Descends into Groupthink". You may also want to peruse "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism".



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

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Informed Creationists Affirm Natural Selection

This title may be alarming to some creationists and startling to believers in scum-to-skeptic evolution, but things should be clarified if you stay with me. Like any other science, creation science has had some errors and had to deal with misconceptions from opponents.


Some creationists reject natural selection because of Darwin, but his hijacked and redefined version is not true natural selection - which we do accept.
Credit: Good Free Photos
When creationist Carl Linnaeus developed his classification system, may creationists believed in what is sometimes called the "fixity of species". There are evolutionists who think that's what creationists believe, but they obviously are using extremely outdated material. Modern creationists know that natural selection, speciation, and variations are a part of God's design.

I have encountered uninformed creationists who hold to that view. Perhaps they believe that admitting natural selection exists is a compromise in favor of evolution. That is understandable to some extent because Papa Darwin hijacked a legitimate concept and redefined it for his own ends.

Unfortunately, there is also confusion about natural selection and the created kinds of Genesis. Add to this that there are evolutionists that disagree about the definition of species, and the waters are muddied further. No, creationists, you have no reason to deny that natural selection exists. God designed it, after all.
“Do you believe in natural selection? Do you believe that animals and plants change at all?” If you say you believe in creation and a young earth, you’re likely to get questions like this. The young-earth creationist view has been so maligned in popular culture that many people think creationists deny basic facts of life.
Do they? Is natural selection fact, or is it a fantasy invented by Charles Darwin? Should Bible-believing Christians reject change in nature as a lie?
Unfortunately, many non-creationists base their answers to these questions on outdated views of creationist thinking. Consult modern biology textbooks or popular books on evolution, and you’ll likely find a description of creationism that is more than 150 years old. Contemporary attitudes toward creation are anything but modern.
To read the rest or get the audio version, click on "Is Natural Selection at Odds with Creation?"






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

Friday, January 10, 2020

Microbes, Methane, and the Young Earth

If your wagon train ends up near Siljan, Sweden, that you made a heap of wrong turns. But you might want to check out that lake. It's part of the Siljan Ring, which is part of a crater area. Scientists found microbes feasting on the oil and giving off methane.

Researchers investigating the Siljan impact area found microbes eating oil and releasing methane. Results fit with what creationists have said for a long time about the age of the earth.
Credits: Wikimedia Commons / Vesta / NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone listed above)
Avoid telling climate change cultists though, they would probably try to regulate and tax microbes and get Greta (who seeks to give her life meaning in activism, which will ultimately fail) to yell at us some more. While research and new discoveries are often interesting in and of themselves, in other ways they are not all that exciting. In this case, microbial communities have been discovered at far deeper levels than those near Siljan. In addition, this find also supports creation science evidence for a young earth.
Scientists have reported the presence of methane-producing microbes living deep beneath the Siljan impact crater in Sweden. Although the researchers stopped short of claiming the impact somehow brought the microbes to Earth, they do assert that impacts can create favorable habitats for colonization.
The 30-mile wide Siljan impact site is ringed by Ordovician and Silurian sediments, including black shales that appear to be source rocks for oil. In fact, oil seeps have been known around the crater for hundreds of years, dating back to reports by the great Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus in 1734.
To finish reading, click on "Microbes at Siljan Crater Are No Surprise". 



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

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Designed to Walk Upright

Consider the apes. They are more comfortable walking on all fours (quadrupedal) while humans are more comfortable walking on two legs (bipedal). When people with deformities or mental aberrations that walk on all fours, it is off-putting for us because it is clearly unnatural.

Evolutionists cannot present a convincing account of how humans went from walking on all fours to walking on two legs. Recent fossils do not help.
Credit: Freeimages / skarlyt
Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution insist that we originally walked on all fours and then evolved so that we are upright. There are many changes that would need to be made, but there is a prairie schooner-full of speculations, but not much in the way of actual evidence.

Evolutionists think they may have something that could be an example of a bipedal ape. Despite the hysterical shrieking of the secular science industry press that the bones illustrate evolution, that's not quite the case. Actual evidence is still missing, and some scientists are not convinced that the finds are significant. In fact, they may be a mix of human and orangutan bones, since they were scattered. Humans and apes walk differently because each was created separately by God, and Darwin was not consulted.
The evolution from quadrupedal to bipedal walking requires many major anatomical changes. Some of the many morphological alterations to the human skeleton that are required include major changes to both the arrangement and size of the bones of the foot, changes in the hip size and shape, the knee size, the leg length, and both the shape and orientation of the vertebral column. Even the ribcage must be altered. Specifically, the Chimpanzee ribcage is cone-shaped to house the gut and yet provide a great range of motion around the shoulder to allow them to walk on all fours. In contrast, the human ribcage is barrel-shaped, allowing arms to swing freely from side to side which is required to effortlessly maintain balance when walking. A few other alterations required to walk upright include the following:
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Bipedal Ape Fossil Falls on Its Face".



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

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Forensic Science has Limitations

The two types of science used in discussions of origins are forensic and operational, the latter being used to describe science that is testable, repeatable, observable, and so on in the present. Forensic science attempts to explain the past by working backward from evidence in the present.

Forensic science is invaluable in researching historical matters. Unfortunately, it has flaws and can be trumped by eyewitness accounts.
Credit: RGBStock / wernerb
Suppose you came upon some rubble that included broken bricks, a shoe, and other things. Is there an interesting story or did someone just throw things there? Someone involved in forensics would attempt to piece together the details if there was a need to do so.

I recently saw an episode of CSI where there were no witnesses and no suspects in a murder investigation. The crime lab team members were attempting to reconstruct the sequence of events and getting nowhere. Then they realized they were doing things backward, and this led to finding a crucial piece of evidence. While only a story, it illustrated how people can make wrong assumptions and have to change when they have new ideas — and new evidence.

Of course, a reliable eyewitness can supplement the forensic work, or even trump it. Sometimes science regarding the past can be tainted by agendas (especially when secularists want to prove evolution) or have conflicting pieces of evidence. Historical records by eyewitnesses become increasingly important the further back in time that something is being investigated. The Bible is the eyewitness account of creation by God, who was there and did the creating. A great deal of forensic evidence supports this (as well as the global Genesis Flood), and faulty secular science goes in circles.
Yes, forensics is a useful tool and often “gets” the bad guy. But it has severe limitations, and overestimating its power can result in a tragic miscarriage of justice, especially when it is wrongly elevated over truthful eyewitness testimony. My mind went back to a former case, where I learned this lesson all too well. I like to call it “The Case of the Bloodless Bullet Wound.”
You can read the entire article (written by a forensic scientist) or download the audio by clicking on "The Case of the Bloodless Bullet Wound". You may also be interested in this video on fingerprint design presented by a forensic science educator.





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

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Rejecting the H. naledi Ancestor

Something that has caused a great deal of controversy among both creationists and believers in atom-to-anthropologist evolution is H. naledi. Although we have discussed this before (the last post is here), some of the dust has settled and a couple of more thorough articles are available.

Evolutionists tried to present H. naledi as an evolutionary link, which caused controversy among both evolutionists and creationists. Now we can tell it is unimportant.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lee Roger Berger research team (CC BY 4.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement by copyright holders of site contents)
Before we commence to digging, I want to say that there is a balance to be kept. My usual counsel to folks who get all het up about evolutionary news is to wait a spell until more information is presented. However, if stories are big enough, they need to be presented — but with a note of caution. Such was the case with Homo naledi.

There were many suspicious elements about the H. naledi stories, especially the part about remains that appeared to have been buried in a cave chamber with difficult access, implying that the creature was somewhat intelligent. Instead, the best explanation is that the remains of humans, apes, and animals (all jumbled together) were washed in by flood waters for the most part.

Another suspicious fact is that Berger, who was the purveyor of this excitement, failed to mention that he didn't bother with another part of the cave and its contents. It was much easier to access.

Also, the human bones in the mix probably suffered from the developmental pathology of cretinism. This would have had noticeable physical effects that are consistent with the remains.

No human evolution to see here, folks. Just another attempt to grab grant money and fame. The science was poor, and the ethics seem to be the moral equivalent of dealing from the bottom of the deck. Well, that's what they do, based on their naturalistic worldviews. Hopefully, we can leave this stuff buried.
One of the most confusing and enigmatic “ape-man” discoveries of the 21st century has been Homo naledi. Its discoverer was Lee Berger, a controversial American paleoanthropologist working at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa. The claims surrounding this discovery have been extolled, criticized, and debated by both evolutionists and creationists. In fact, a 2015 science news piece in The Guardian highlighted the raging controversy among secular academics over H. naledi. It was titled “Scientist who found new human species accused of playing fast and loose with the truth.”
To finish reading, click on "Homo naledi: Another Failed Evolutionary Ape-Man". But wait! If you act now, you can read another article that includes some additional material, "Making sense of ‘Homo naledi’.



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

Monday, January 6, 2020

Science Arose by Rejecting Faulty Views

It seems possible that the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ originated with the ancient Greek philosophers. Like scientists, those philosophers based their speculations on observations and their theological views. Biblical scientists managed to liberate science from the predominant Greek ideas.

Science was stifled by ancient Greek philosophies and theology. It took scientists who believed the Bible to liberate science and help it advance.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
They had a belief that matters had a divine substance and that the gods were subject to that and to other laws. The Stoics thought that objects had souls, and had occult qualities attached to them; sympathy would cause a man to be attracted to a woman like a iron is attracted to a magnet (I wonder if Walter Egan knew this). The Epicureans (Paul the apostle debated Epicureans and the Stoics) had evolutionary ideas. Plato and Aristotle also had some odd concepts, and this child wonders if logic had developed enough for people to ask, "How do you know that?"

Later, people believed the Bible instead of just-so stories, and many of those people were scientists. They wanted to know about how divine will and law affected nature. Of course, not all of them were orthodox. Although Isaac Newton is considered by many to have been the greatest scientist of all time, he believed the Bible but his theology was heretical. It was observed that creation is orderly and designed by the Creator, so science began to grow. Indeed, modern science is rooted in the work of people who believed the Bible. Christian theology liberated science from the foolishness of ancient Greek philosophies. Now if modern secular scientists would put away evolutionism...
In order for science to progress, it was necessary to reject the erroneous view of nature handed down by Greek philosophers, and which dominated among the intellectual elite during much of the medieval period. Leading historians of science acknowledge that the Christian doctrines of God and Creation played a pivotal role in this process. The Greek view of nature as a living organism was replaced by the biblical view that only people and animals have souls. This led to the rejection of the Greek explanation for motion as arising from tendencies internal to objects, and its replacement with the concept of external, divinely imposed laws. The Greek view that natural processes are governed by eternal principles binding even on the gods was replaced by the biblical view of God’s omnipotence and His freedom to create as He willed. This led to the belief that the laws of nature were determined entirely by God’s choice and could, therefore, only be discovered by observations.
To read the rest, click on "Christian theology and the rise of Newtonian science—imposed law and the divine will".





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

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Creation Science, Biomimetics, and the Bombardier Beetle

Creationists have been using the bombardier beetle as an example of irreducible complexity before that that phrase was first used by Dr. Michael Behe. Essentially, everything has to be in place from the start or nothing works. The bombardier beetle has also inspired some scientific applications.

The bombardier beetle has been frequently cited by creationists as an example of irreducible complexity. It becomes more fascinating from an engineering perspective, and practical applications were gleaned.
Australian bombardier beetle image credit:
Wikimedia Commons / Peter Halasz (CC by-SA 3.0)
There are many species of these beetles. Some of them are the explosive types that fire off bursts of hot liquid accurately at predators, and others have similar approaches. #Liar4Darwin Clinton Richard Dawkins told half truths and left out important information while denigrating creation and affirming evolution. Of course, his "it evolved" non-answer was typical of Darwin's acolytes.

Professor Andy McIntosh was familiar with the common fascinating information, but he has a different perspective and education, so he asked different questions than the rest of us may ask. His collaboration and examination led to practical applications (biomimetics/biomimicry) for us humans.
Looking at high-speed photos of a bug blasting chemicals from its behind might fascinate most of us for only a few minutes, but not Andy. Someone with a doctorate in combustion theory doesn’t look at the world the way we do. He knew that there must be more to the story.
Biologists have known about the beetle since the early 1800s, when the first reports were published about beetles shooting “artillery.” Later in the 1960s and 1970s, the world’s leading expert on the bombardier beetle, entomologist Thomas Eisner, made some exciting discoveries about the beetle’s complex chemistry, but many mysteries remained.
What caught Andy’s attention in the new report was the obvious evidence of combustion, his area of expertise. Something amazing must be going on for an insect to set off a series of explosions and then to machine gun its enemies.
To read this article in its entirety or download the audio version, click on "The Mystery of the Exploding Beetle".

We’ve all seen pictures of animals doing battle or predators stalking their unsuspecting prey. But the Bombardier beetle is equipped with what scientists have described as a chemical cannon.



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

Friday, January 3, 2020

Secularists Still Puzzled over T. Rex Soft Tissues

When soft tissues of dinosaurs were discovered, they were considered oddities or misunderstood. Problems for secularists continued as more soft tissues were found as well as proteins, so rescuing devices were attempted. Another effort was made that does not bode well for evolutionary ideas.

More T. rex soft tissues, more rescuing devices from puzzled secularists with cognitive dissonance.

Count Krosstich told me that these folks have to deal with a great deal of cognitive dissonance. True, they are presuming that dinosaur bones have been in the ground for millions of years, but also knowing that soft tissues and proteins cannot last anywhere near that long. The toast concept and Maillard reactions have been invoked, but nothing popped up with them. New studies have tremendous flaws. These people should admit that the evidence supports recent creation and the global Genesis Flood of only a few thousand years ago.
The latest fossil biochemistry paper, published in Scientific Reports, describes “blood vessel structures” recovered from inside a T. rex femur. This is the same femur in which the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology featured collagen fibers, protein remnants, and possible DNA signatures back in 1997. Since then, debate has raged among experts. On one hand, fossil experts keep reporting more biochemicals in all kinds of fossils. On the other hand, protein experts keep confirming that biochemicals cannot possibly last millions of years. This new report attempts to bridge those two parties.
The Scientific Reports paper focused on mechanisms that might help protein last for 65 million years—the length of time that secular scientists insist the T. rex bone rested in the earth. Such mechanisms bear a big burden. Assuming normal temperatures, proteins and other biomolecules fall apart after only thousands of years.
To read the rest of the article, click on "More T. rex Soft Tissues". Yippie ky yay, secularists!



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

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Still More Dinosaur Feather Fake News

My old pal Miles Prower stopped by to let me know that the hands at the Darwin Ranch were cranking up the propaganda mill again, this time to give more fake news about fossilized dinosaur feathers. Here we go again.


Excited claims that dinosaur feathers were found at the South Pole. However, the truth is far different than the propaganda.
Assembled with components from Clker clipart
We saw that proponents of particles-to-paleontologist evolution are riding hard and fast to use space aliens for propaganda, but they are especially enamored with using dinosaurs to promote evolution. People with a modicum of critical thinking skills and some degree of science knowledge should be able to see that this report is nonsense.

One significant problem here is the same as we experience at The Question Evolution Project — a frustration common to Page owners. Namely, lack of reading. People see headlines and summaries but tend to avoid actually reading the material and thinking about the poor science and reasoning involved.

Ride up on the hill for the bigger view. What did they find? Fossils of feathers. Where did they find them? Southeastern Australia. Where did the fake news say they were from? The South Pole. What is the evidence? None. Assumptions, presuppositions of evolution and deep time, circular reasoning, and basic storytelling were found. If grant money was based on actual science instead of propaganda value, these jaspers would be relegated to selling pencils outside subway terminals. Unfortunately, they are locked in with their naturalistic views, so they won't cowboy up and admit that the actual evidence they find is in keeping with recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Galileo Figaro, they're frightened!
Dino-bird evolution frequently causes excitement on social media platforms so my attention was grabbed by a picture of a fully feathered dinosaur with a sensationalist National Geographic headline that read, “In a first, fossil dinosaur feathers found near the South Pole”. However, what had actually been found differed so significantly from the headline that words such as overreaching speculation and grandiose story-telling immediately came to mind. In what follows, I have broken down the article’s salient points to highlight the highly misleading nature of National Geographic’s claims.
To read the rest of the article and learn the facts, click on "Separating fact from fiction in a farcical story! — Were fossil dinosaur feathers really found near the South Pole?"






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

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Slow and Gradual Naturalistic Poison

My unregistered assault keyboard is ready to go on this New Year's Day (happy Calendar Changing Day). While it is wishful thinking that people will be able to see twenty-twenty (see what I did there?) about origins, we still have to present the truth. It is up to them what they do with it.


Evolution and an old earth were not sudden revelations, but introduced as a slow poison against biblical creation.
The portrait of Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon
was run through PhotoFunia
Today's atheistic and anti-creationist activists are ready to go on the attack at full gallop and with lack of reasoning abilities. (I believe atheopaths nowadays do not even want to think rationally, let alone use science or civil discourse. Emotional reactions are used in place of thought.) People were more respectful and circumspect in earlier times.

As far back as the 16th century, there were people advocating naturalism and to replace biblical truth. They hated creation and the Genesis Flood. Since many people still respected God and believed God's Word to some extent, it was unthinkable to go charging in with sabers drawn and guns a-blazing.

No, they took a far more subtle approach by using slow poison. Disparage the Bible, make up straw man arguments, argue from ignorance (and it's ugly kid brother, the argument from incredulity), and other irrational just-so stories. However, people trusted these so-called thinkers who had seemingly good arguments. Naturalists disparaged the Flood and introduced uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes over long periods of time), forms of evolution were postulated, then Papa Darwin came along and made his own presentations. He increased the dosage of poison as well.
One early strategy used straw man arguments to demote the biblical Flood. In this all-too-common break with logic, opponents of a view attack an imagined version of that view instead of the real one. Combatants claim victory over their opponents when all they really did was beat up a flimsy conception of their own making. 
. . . from 1749 to 1788 Comte de Buffon used his high position in Paris’ Royal Academy of Sciences to promote his own ideas of vast ages for the earth in his 36-volume work Histoire Naturelle. . . . Buffon mentioned Noah’s Flood, but his straw man version of the Flood was too gentle to disturb Earth’s supposedly pre-existing rock layers—or even its trees and plants.
To read this insightful article in its entirety, click on "The Plan to Replace God". You may also be interested in an article on three "scientists" of the past who had no science degrees at "Those Scientists Who Revived Evolutionism".






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

Labels