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 31, 2020

Can Astrobiology Ever Become a Real Science?

In the previous post, we saw that secular astronomers are all wound up about yet another exoplanet and what they think is hope for extraterrestrial life. Up yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have themselves a highly profitable enterprise that they call astrobiology. 

The pseudoscience of astrobiology could possibly be changed into something useful if secularists had that desire.
Astronomy / Gentile da Fabriano, ca. 1400s
As we have already seen, astrobiology is a pseudoscience that is used to promote atoms-to-alien evolution; the faulty reasoning is that if it happened out there, then it must have happened here and humans can dismiss the necessary responses to our Creator. 

However, there is a tremendous amount of observed data produced while working in astrobiology. If scientists wanted to do something productive, they could drop Darwin on the trial and ride on with their observations. Of course, a name change would be in order.
Despite its propensity for wild speculation about life in space, there’s one way Astrobiology could provide useful science.
Our Darwin Dictionary defines astrobiology as equivalent to “bio-astrology,” because of its penchant for wild speculation. The new “science” that emerged in the 1990s after NASA announced bogus claims of fossil life in a Mars meteorite is nearly 30 years old, still without a shred of evidence for life beyond the Earth. There’s still no “bio” in astrobiology; that’s why it reduces to astrology. And yet its whole raison d’etre was to find evidence for life – even simple, microbial life. (This distinguishes it from SETI, which searches for intelligent life.)
To continue reading, click on "How Astrobiology Could Be Scientific".

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

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Pardon My Lack of Enthusiasm over Exoplanet ToI 700d

Let the trumpeters trumpet and the drummers drum, get a sheet cake and invite your friends, exoplanet ToI 700d may be earth-like. We have heard that kind of thing before, then the additional information drops in. If I recollect rightly, there was news about Earth's twin, but only if Earth was a ball of magma. Still, the newly-discovered planet is in the "habitable zone", so it's got that going for it.

Another exoplanet has been discovered and called Earth-like. Many factors to consider that make this less than exciting.
Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
TESS found it. No, not the woman that works in the mail room. It's NASA's own Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, and ToI is used to denote Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite Object of Interest. An astronomer may want to switch me with snakes for this, but I'm skeptical because observations are limited and conclusions are inferred. Indeed, some think that the outer reaches of our own solar system may be home to a small black hole, others think a massive planet is out there. There are plenty of unknowns closer to home, so I am a mite skeptical about the pronouncements of secularists. They have an agenda to find excuses to promote evolution and deny the Creator, you know.

The habitable zone is not a fixed number, but varies because of the stars involved. Red dwarfs (like the one above) have mixed reactions from naturalists. Some say they are the excellent candidates for extraterrestrial life, others know that flares and such are hostile to life. There are other kinds of dwarf stars (including orange dwarfs, all seven of them live in a hut with an odd woman), red giants, and others with differing habitable zones.

Even if a planet is considered to be in a zone conducive to life, there are many other factors to consider such as the planet's size, density, composition, rotation (or the lack thereof), and more. This Object of Interest may not prove to be so interesting after all, especially based on previous exoplanets.
Here we go again. A recent news story reported the discovery of the latest earth-like planet orbiting another star. This time, it’s TOI 700d, discovered by NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). Launched in 2018, TESS searches for transits of exoplanets as they pass in front of their stars each orbit. . . .
What makes TOI 700d special? Measurements suggest that TOI 700d is 1.19 ± 0.11 times the earth’s size. Therefore, in terms of size, this exoplanet is earth-like. The mass of TOI 700d is less certain than its size. Its mass is inferred to be 1.72 (+1.29, -0.63) of that of the earth’s. If one takes the stated size and mass without the error range, then the density (and hence composition) of TOI 700d is close to that of the earth, again qualifying it as earth-like. However, considering the range of possible values of size and mass given their errors, the density, and composition of TOI 700b could be almost anything.
To finish reading, click on "TOI 700d: The Latest Earth-Like Exoplanet?"

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

The Origin-of-Life Phosphate Problem

In A Scandal in Bohemia by A. Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes said, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” A related remark penned by Agatha Christie in The Mysterious Affair at Styles has Hercule Poirot saying, "Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory—let the theory go". Darwin's acolytes should have heeded these ideas long ago, even though they appeared in mystery novels. Indeed, the greatest mystery to them is the origin of life.

Evolutionists believe and theorize despite the evidence, not because of it. In this case, speculations about phosphorus in the alleged first cells fall flat.
Credit: Unsplash / Elevate
Evolutionists have a bad habit of theorizing without facts and with erroneous assumptions. They also have a strange "science of the gaps" idea, believing despite lack of evidence or in the face of contrary data that maybe somehow someday the data they seek will appear. This is unscientific and irrational, yet they do not throw out the origin and evolution of life beliefs. That would mean that they have to admit there's a Creator, and he's the one who makes the rules, not atheistic interpretations of science.

In materialistic terms, nobody knows how life began, yet they desperately cling to that belief anyway. Every attempt to conjure up an idea has met with dismal failure because of actual science. In this case, phosphate is vital for cellular life. They do not have any idea how phosphorus came to Earth in the first place. Chemistry concepts for how life would have developed have been unable to determine a means that various required ingredients do not cancel each other out. In a flurry of imagination and assumptions, researchers "solved" the problem. But the scenario exists only in their fantasies, not in reality. Abiogenesis is contrary to the law that life only comes from life.
Research associated with the Simos Foundation’s Collaboration of the Origins of Life offers a new answer to an old problem for getting a soup of chemicals to somehow turn into a living cell. Assuming that life arose spontaneously, how did the rarely available element phosphorus get concentrated into high enough amounts to supposedly incorporate itself into the many essential biochemicals that contain phosphorus?
To read the rest, click on "Solving the First-Life Phosphate Problem".

The origin of the first cell is one of evolution’s biggest problems. Though the cell is the basic building block for life, its design is actually very complex. Its functions can be compared to those of computers, building projects—and even whole cities.

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

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Shrews Chowing on Hot Peppers?

Shrews are like rodents in many ways, but they are unrelated. Both can look for food and shelter in your house, and shrews smell worse than mice. But at least they eat insects and the like that you may not want around. It might be fun to feed them hot chili peppers and see what happens. It's been done.

Shrews have been found to eat hot peppers. It was discovered that a mutation and loss of information allowed this, and has falsely been called evolution.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / jeswin
Actually, they were not fed the peppers so much as found and ate them all by their lonesome. Researchers did what researchers do and checked out the critters. It turns out that there is a slight change in their DNA that makes them less sensitive to the hot spice. But those peppers are not in their usual environments.

Their habitat has a different kind of pepper that has a similar chemical, so the mutation has been called "beneficial" by universal common ancestor propagandists and hailed as evidence for evolution. Hail Darwin, blessed be! There's a big problem, however. Genetically, this is the loss of information, which is the opposite of evolution.
A lot of us may like hot spicy foods, but we also know that they produce a burning sensation. So most animals avoid them—probably why plants have them in the first place (as well as to repel insect-borne fungal infections1). The burning sensation is due to a chemical called capsaicin, named after the Capsicum genus in which it was discovered. This stimulates a type of ion-channel receptor called TRPV1, producing similar sensations to burning or abrasion, and also causes the same types of inflammatory response.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Shrews eating peppers — NOT evolution in action". If y'all feel curious, here is an article on what you do not want in your chili cook-off from adventures in artificial selection: "The World's New Hottest Pepper Can Close Your Airways Immediately".

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

Monday, January 27, 2020

Spectacular Remnants to Make Evolutionists Cry

Soft tissues of dinosaurs and other critters are becoming more and more common, and so are remnants that are termed spectacularly preserved. These are existential threats to universal common ancestor beliefs, as we will see in the three posts below. Faint not, brethren, most are not lengthy.

Soft tissues in fossils are becoming almost commonplace. Evolutionists are having problems with the facts, as we see in these three articles.
Plesiosaur skeleton credit: Flickr / Kim Alaniz (CC by 2.0)
The first article is about the discovery of well-preserved brains and nerves in the Cambrian period. These things ought not to be because of the alleged long ages! Or is it because of global warming? Instead, fossils are showing great detail. It was thought by archaeologists — yes, I know, should be paleontologists, but the writers made the easy mistake — that soft tissues could not fossilize. Surprise! They could do that during the catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood, and that is the best explanation.
Exquisitely preserved fossils of Cambrian arthropods show minute details of brain and central nervous system.

Paleontologists have seen remains of nerves and brains in Cambrian fossils before, but these newly-announced ones exceed all previous ones for detail. Coverage in Phys.org shows that Harvard scientists are befuddled that this much detail of soft tissue could survive before fossilization, and remain visible for over 500 million years.
You can read the rest of this first installment by clicking on "Cambrian Brains Found". Hope you come back for the next one.

Howdy, welcome back! Because Darwin's disciples must keep to the deep time framework, they are convoluted and attempting to explain away the truth. All sorts of phrases are used in their "explanations", so mayhaps the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ would come in handy right about now. This discovery raises inconvenient questions, and points to (wait for it) the Genesis Flood.
Scientists at Lund University say, “Remarkably preserved fossil sea reptile reveals skin that is still soft.”

An ichthyosaur (a type of marine reptile thought to have died out with the dinosaurs), if it could talk, would boast, ‘I’m young! Feel my soft skin.’

But watch how evolutionists distract attention from the main thing – the apparent youth of the fossil. Their evolutionary worldview obligates them to keep this fossil with the mythical Darwin timeline. The opening paragraph in the press release from Lund University could be considered a model of confabulatory obfuscation:
You can finish reading this one by swimming on over to "Marine Reptile Found With Intact Skin". Don't forget to come back for the final piece.

Thanks for staying along for the ride. So, how about them hadrosaurs? Think they'll have a good season next year? No, of course not, they're extinct. But boy howdy yee haw, gray skin pigment molecules have been preserved! Not only that, but blood vessels. The story about the find is fatuous, so it needs (and receives) further examination. Yet still again, the best explanations are recent creation and the Flood. You savvy?
So well preserved is a hadrosaur’s skin, the remnants of blood vessels and pigments are still visible with original molecules present.

It’s a phenomenal case of exceptional preservation for a dead dinosaur, but all the scientists seem excited about is the color. Michael Marshall in New Scientist titles his article, “Mummified skin suggests duck-billed dinosaurs were grey like elephants.” But is the skin color the biggest news?
To conclude this trilogy, click on "Dino Skin with Blood Vessels, Proteins Found". If they extricated their heads from Darwinism, scientists might be able to cowboy up and have some doubts. After all, Question Evolution Day is there to remind them — and us — annually on February 12.

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

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Too Many Assumptions Taint Gene Study

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Here is another change from our usual fare. A reader of The Question Evolution Project posted a link to an article on Phys.org about genetics and asked me to comment, so I thought this might be a good opportunity to point out some of the assumptions and neglected considerations in the research. I will only be responding to the Phys.org article.

A little exercise in reading evolutionary material and seeing faulty reasoning. In this case, genetic researchers did not admit that their work supported creation and the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Image from RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg modified through PhotoFunia
Actually, I had indirectly posted a creationist's response to this some time ago, but I wanted to give additional comments. The article under discussion is "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution", from May 2018, which inadvertently supported recent creation and the Genesis Flood. But if they dare mentioned that the evidence supports those things, they risk having their careers thrown into the Gorge of Eternal Peril.

As is often the case, the elements of the research seem straightforward. A system of DNA barcodes, collected and stored in the GenBank database, was accessed and data were compared. Unfortunately, they used the fallacy of begging the question: assuming evolution to prove evolution. They wanted to understand evolution more truly and deeply, but the results threaten long-held Darwinian dogmas. Do organisms become more genetically diverse over long periods of time? Not hardly! 

According to the researchers, most species on Earth "came into being" 200,000 years ago or less. Ad hoc rescuing devices were conjured up to escape the possibility of recent creation instead of universal common descent. Was there an extinction event that caused a population bottleneck? Well, yes, it's called the Genesis Flood.

Mitochondrial DNA was examined (but obviously not the part where creation back to Adam and Eve is affirmed). So-called neutral mutations were considered and found to be irrelevant, but they are actually worse than irrelevant. So, mass extinction and repopulation? It doesn't fit. The article concludes with, "The absence of 'in-between' species is something that also perplexed Darwin, [Thaler] said.

In a previous (and easier) exercise, we looked at how people can question the reports out of the secular science industry. When people take the time and become familiar with biblical creation science materials, we can ask more questions and even raise some objections. There are many resources, and sites like this point you to many of them. You can tell because I used links to previous articles that in turn linked to those resources.

Remember as Question Evolution Day approaches again that secularists tell you what to think, which is probably why so many secular scientists are more concerned with advocating evolution. However, biblical creationists want to teach you how to think: ask questions, have healthy skepticism, spot logical fallacies, use resources, and so on. You savvy that, pilgrim? Good!

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

Friday, January 24, 2020

Submarine Canyons and the Genesis Flood

Biblical creation geologists like to talk about rocks and geological formations, and we benefit by learning from their studies and conclusions. Think back to the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Leftist Propaganda Guy and you may recall his false assertion that there should be more canyons like the Grand Canyon. There are, and he should have known that. Mayhaps he did know.

There are underwater canyons that are larger than the Grand Canyon. Uniformitarian geologists cannot adequately explain what is observed, but creation science Flood models provide adequate analyses.
Hudson Canyon map image credit: NOAA
There is a network of canyons under Greenland (among others), but what interests us today is the abundance of submarine canyons in the oceans. The Hudson Canyon is within riding distance of me —

"Do you ride your horse to it, Cowboy Bob?"

Sure, I ride through Manhattan like Sam McCloud, then head into Long Island. But seriously, you can't see submarine canyons very well without special equipment. A submarine would be mighty helpful. What's really interesting is that many of these canyons are bigger than the Grand Canyon, and they look like those that are found on the surface. Uniformitarian geologists try to offer some explanations, but they don't rightly hold water. Creation science models involving recent creation and the Genesis Flood, on the other hand, fit the observed evidence very well.
Many have stood at the rim of Grand Canyon awed by its great depth and enormous size. Surprisingly, our Earth has other even larger canyons, but they are unseen since they lie underwater. . . These are submarine canyons that run away from the coast, sometimes starting close to shore. Submarine canyons are incredible landforms that point to the catastrophic impact of Noah’s Flood.
Submarine canyons differ from deep-sea trenches, like the Mariana Trench, the deepest place in the oceans. Trenches generally run parallel to the shoreline in deep water. 
. . . 
Submarine canyons differ from slope canyons, which are common. Slope canyons have an average spacing of 33 km (20 miles), and there are around 6,000 deeper than 100 m (330 ft).
To immerse yourself in the full article, click on "Submarine canyons bigger than Grand Canyon". You may also want to see the video, "Canyons everywhere". 

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

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Creation Science Research and Fossil Forests

Creation science is nowhere nearly as well-funded as the secular science industry, but creationists have still managed to do serious work. However, some areas need development, such as stellar astronomy models. Another area of challenge is that of fossil forests, including botany and geology.

Creationists are developing the petrified forest of the Genesis Flood model, and several criteria have been established.
Fossil forest on Speciman Ridge, Yellowstone National Park
Credit: NPS  /Neal Herbert (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Using a Genesis Flood model, it needs to be determined if fossil trees were buried in situ (where they are found) or were transported before burial by the Flood. There are some expensive words in this somewhat technical article, but the two most common are defined for us: "One must keep in mind that the term “autochthonous” refers exclusively to trees that are buried in position of growth and “allochthonous” is applied exclusively to transported, especially Flood-transported, trees.

To tell the difference in those kinds of trees, several criteria have been developed. Examining forests today as well as the events of the Mt. St. Helens eruption and Spirit Lake are used. Other criteria were added to those proposed originally, and the authors are hoping that their material will be helpful in developing this aspect of a Flood model. Creationists have disagreed on some details, then shake hands and depart friendly. But hopefully, they can work things out  for a more uniform model.
The presence of purported fossil forests in the geological record have occupied the attention of creationists ever since they began to publish scholarly articles in the 1970s and 1980s in secular journals on the topic of the Yellowstone fossil forests. Nothing has appeared in secular journals by creation scientists on the general topic of fossil forests since that time. Creationism’s focus on the Yellowstone “fossil forests” has faded into the past as far as field research goes. In the meantime, secular scientists have published scores of studies on purported fossil forests in the last four decades. The central issue among creationists is whether any purported fossil forests are truly in situ, or autochthonous. To help resolve this issue a list of criteria has been developed from a creationist standpoint to identify what is in situ. This can have profound implications for the establishment of Flood models.
To get to the root of the discussion, you can finish reading the article by clicking on "The Challenge of Fossil Forests for Creationist Research".

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Genesis Timeline Re-Confirmed by Chromosome Study

Despite the assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys™, there is a great deal of evidence for the Genesis Flood and the young earth. Interestingly, it is not only found in geology, but also in biology. With the known rate of mutations, genetic entropy shows that humans could not have been around as evolutionists claim. Research supports the biblical timeline, and a recent study re-confirms it.

While evolutionists say that humans have been around a long time, biological research shows that we have only been here about 4,500 years.
Credit: Unsplash / Matthew Kwong
The Y-chromosome is more genetically stable than the X-chromosome. It was studied more extensively than before, and the results provide strong confirmation for the 4,500-year biblical chronology going back to the bottleneck of the Flood.
Based on biblical chronologies, we can determine that the global Flood recorded in Genesis occurred about 4,500 years ago. After the Flood, the earth was repopulated by Noah’s three sons and their wives. So we should find genetic signatures of this timeline in human DNA. While a number of previous studies by both secular and creation scientists have supported this general timeline, a recent study using extensive newly available high quality DNA sequence data for the human Y-chromosome spectacularly confirms the earlier research and solidifies the Bible’s history of modern human origins.
To read the rest, click on "Y-Chromosome Study Confirms Genesis Flood Timeline". For related in-depth material, see the links at "Population Genetics and the Genesis Flood".

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

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

New Words on the Origin of Speech

Believers in universal common ancestry long believed that since humans and apes diverged ages ago, apes should be able to talk as well as humans. Well, they have had enough time, but it did not happen. What about environment? Putting young chimps with humans was expected to give chimps speechifying ability.

Evolutionists have been telling stories about why apes cannot speak like humans. New research made things worse for them.
Modified from a photo at Freeimages, original from Jeramey Jannene
Since that failed, hands at the Darwin Ranch fired up the rescuing devices, and it was decided that a passel of storytelling was in order. It was figured that the larynx was lower in humans than in apes, so the Descended Larynx "theory" was conjured up (without any evidence supporting it). That supposedly made it possible for humans to make the necessary sounds that are heard in the world's languages.

"Does that mean apes didn't have vowel movements, Cowboy Bob?"

So anyway...

We have seen that there are many factors involved in communication, and critters are just not designed by the Master Engineer for complex communication and speech itself — especially understanding one another. Creationists know that such foolish speculations will fail because we were created separately from the animals. Newer research has Darwinists thinking that primates made some vowel sounds long ago, so the origin of speech was pushed back a few million years. Once again, get out the pen and ink well and commence to rewriting the evolution books again.
Speech is considered the cornerstone of the human species that separates us from all lower primates. Speech requires numerous essential articulators, including the teeth, tongue, jaw, lips, a descended larynx and several critical brain structures including Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. No earthly creature has speech except humans, in spite of controversial efforts to train various primates to learn sign language as an effective means of communication. 
To read the rest of Dr. Bergman's article, monkey around with this here link until you get to "Is Speech Far Older than Once Thought?"

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

Monday, January 20, 2020

Meteorite Patterns and Storytelling

The way most people understand science is often called operational science, dealing with things in the present. This is contrasted with historical (forensic) science, which uses things found in the present in an attempt to reconstruct the past. Which do you think applies to patterns in meteorites?

Secular scientists claim that Widmanstätten patterns in meteorites is evidence that they are millions of years old. This is based on assumptions and faulty science.
Widmanstätten pattern in Gibeon meteorite credit: Flickr / James St. John (CC by 2.0)
By the way, the distinction between these two types of science was not "made up by YECs" as some anti-creationists asseverate. The distinction has been around for quite a few years.

There is something called a Widmanstätten pattern that is found in iron-nickle meteorites. Let's engage our think bones for a few moments. What do you have? A meteorite with a pattern. When does it exist? In the present, like us. How do those patterns with the long name form? That can be determined by other metals that have been heated and then cooled. Do these pattern in meteorites take millions of years to form? Not hardly! That's the realm of historical science, but it is not even science. Nobody was there, so they resort to storytelling to keep the old universe dogma afloat. The stories are based on circular reasoning and assumptions have have no place in science — and they are not a threat to the biblical timeline and recent creation!
Today’s feedback is from Troy J. from Canada asking about Widmanstätten patterns in iron meteorites and how long they take to form.

I recently picked up a slice of a meteorite fragment that shows Widmanstätten patterns in the metal. The argument goes that this pattern only forms as the meteor slowly cooled over millions of years, permitting the metallic crystal growth. What is a young earth counter argument for this? Thanks
CMI writer/speaker Dr Tas Walker responded:
To see how Dr. Walker responded, click on "Widmanstätten patterns in meteorites".

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

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Deluded Guardians of the Planet

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems that the more people deny their Creator, the stranger things get. As we have seen, evolutionism is rooted in pantheism, and both of them saddle up and ride friendly-like with the New Age brand. (Nothing "new" there, it is just repackaged paganism.) Darwin's death cult is a big part of it.

Environmental extremism is becoming more irrational and more dangerous. Some are angry at being born, others want to save the world by eliminating humans.

A hero of the anti-natalist movement is suing his parents because he regrets having been born. Interesting that he claims to be close to them, and the amount of money is "symbolic", because he wants to send a message. Apparently people do not ask to be born. This telegram just came in over the singing wire, pilgrim: they never do ask. (Tell me how anyone is supposed to do that. Tarot cards and other hocus pocus, I reckon.) It is a part of the global warming movement to reduce the population, and rejects the biblical teaching that children are a gift from God. This movement should be flushed. 

While that anti-natalist stuff is just plain silly (indeed, the court didn't take none too kindly to having its time wasted), the next one is an example of a more dangerous aspect from climate activists: voluntary human extinction. At least it's not like some sidewinders who actively want to kill off people right away. Pagan pantheism is at the forefront, as are Darwinism and old earth beliefs

According to Les Knight, we must kill off the people to save the planet. This, too, is related to the leftist-globalist climate change cult. The global warming movement is socialist as well as pagan at its core, so it is not a surprise that Knight also detests capitalism (like Child of the Corn Greta Thunberg). In addition, some people insist that the Australian bushfire crisis is the result of anthropogenic global warming, but that is the opposite of the truth.

Note that pantheism is prominent. Earth is more important than the people on it. This is a denial of the truth, where the Creator gave us the world to care for and live on, and Earth is not a living being. Also, something we've noticed before is that they are inconsistent. These tinhorns affirm evolution, but they are inconsistent by saying that we cannot live according to evolutionary ideas. That is, we crawled up to the top of the food chain, so we should be able to do what we want. By saying something is right or wrong, they are tacitly admitting that atheism, pantheism, naturalism and all the rest do not work, and they are inadvertently standing on the biblical creationist worldview!

As Chris Plante (who was my source for the first two stories, you can hear his comments at this link) has indicated, being a leftist means never having to admit you're wrong. In this case, numerous failed predictions for the end of the world. What is their course of action when these doom and gloom predictions fail? Make excuses, ignore the failures, or best yet, make new predictions and keep going. Elton John's song title "Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word" is often true, but apologies and admitting mistakes are pretty much nonexistent for evolutionary globalist apparatchiks.

There is no room for free speech and even free thought if these types get their way. There have been calls to punish climate change skeptics, and this has been happening for several years. Just recently, the fun folks in Deutschland are calling people who dare to think for themselves (and worse, who express themselves) as "saboteurs". They will be punished with fines and imprisonment. Can't have anyone go against "consensus science" because if you disagree with the views of totalitarians blackguards, you are a "science denier". One loathsome humbug plays God and condemns people to Hell for presenting contrary evidence to secular global warming beliefs! Oh, please.

Keep your eyes and ears open for complaints that people are publishing things that are "not true" or outright lies — these generally can be translated as, "Things we don't like, and we refuse to allow evidence contrary to our agendas". Those people want to control the narrative, and you may have noticed that they accuse others of being dishonest and intolerant, which is a distraction tactic because they are being dishonest and intolerant. See how that works? It's who they are and what they do.

While some of these things seem humorous and irrelevant at first, they actually come from a wretched worldview. Knight based part of his life on the failed Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, and there is obviously no room for the Creator and Sustainer of life in his philosophies, or in the worldview of these naturalists. Atheism and evolutionism have been detrimental to science and society, and people are in rebellion against God, whether consciously or without realizing it. Earth is not more important than humanity or the Creator who provided it for us.  Ever notice how these people are perpetually angry? The only hope for truth and meaning is repentance and submitting to the God of Creation.

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

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!