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

Question Evolution Day is February 12

YOU can be a part of Question Evolution Day, no sign-up, no charge.
To find out more about this annual event, click here!

Friday, February 21, 2020

Creation and Biological Production Clocks

When an engineer is contracted for a project, many things must be established from the beginning. Production clocks are essential because a project would be chaotic if things were not done properly and in order. Embryonic clocks support a creation science model for biological engineering.

Embryonic clocks support a creation science model for biological engineering and show that our Creator knew what he was doing.
Credit: Freeimages / Frederic Carmel
In a study of chicken embryos, researchers saw that development progresses in a distinct order. There are several biological development clocks in organisms, some work faster, slower, adjust speeds, and more. They also sense conditions in their environments and adjust accordingly. This specified complexity cannot be explained by molecules-to-mother evolution, but makes complete sense when we realize that we have a Creator. This Creator has explained himself in the Bible.
Two recent findings in biology add confirmation that biological functions are best characterized by engineering principles. This research describes a number of sophisticated internal clocks that control the timing of key events during embryological development. These clocks are part of systems that function just like a construction schedule used to guide decisions by human project managers.

. . .

Both embryological development and human-engineered building projects assemble materials into a final pre-determined product. It would seem, therefore, that a design-based framework to model embryological development could be readily created. It is true that intra-cellular information and DNA do, in many ways, correspond to the plans and specifications produced by human engineers.
You can read the entire article in context by clicking on "Embryonic 'Clocks' Mimic Human Construction Schedules".





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

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Ancient Seeds and the Master Engineer

During some archaeology work in Israel, some seeds were discovered dated at about 2,000 years old. Date is the operative word with two meanings because they were date palm tree seeds. Using controlled conditions, some of those seeds were coaxed into growing.


Date palm seeds from the time of Jesus were discovered and coaxed to grow, illustrating the ingenuity of the Master Engineer.
Phoenix dactylifera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Wilfredo R Rodriguez (CC0 1.0 PD)
An engineer will develop something for a purpose, and more advanced techniques are included to deal with adverse contingencies. The Master Engineer loads a tremendous amount of genetic information into seeds, and they can die and then come back. More than that, the organisms that come from seeds are also designed to reproduce. Dates are popular for their taste and health benefits, and even medicinal qualities; clearly they are one of God's provisions for humanity.

The extinct Judean variety of Phoenix dactylifera seeds grew, their genome was sequenced and agricultural processes from way back when were discerned. The clever folks used what is now called artificial selection. Researchers now have both male and female trees, and hope to have some pollination happening and bring back the original date palm trees. Of course, homage to Papa Darwin was used. It was nothing but a distraction and was completely irrelevant to the actual science involved.
Trees of a now-extinct date palm celebrated for its fruit have sprouted from 2,000-year-old seeds recovered from Israel.
. . .
Date seeds, growing in clusters from certain varieties of palm trees, have long been relished for their taste and medicinal properties. Date palms are familiar sights to travelers in deserts of Israel and southern California. One particular variety of date palm named Phoenix dactylifera, “described in antiquity for the quality, size, and medicinal properties of its fruit,” had been lost for centuries, say Sallon et al., publishing in Science Advances.
You can read the entire article (bring a date along if you like) by clicking on "Seeds from Time of Christ Sprout, Grow Trees in Israel". The short video below from 2016 has some interesting information from before further developments occurred.






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

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

The Genesis Flood and Roman Concrete?

We have seen many examples of how evolutionary anthropology and chronological snobbery leads people to think that since we are living in a technologically advanced society, we is far more smarter than ancient folks. Neanderthals proved that wrong, but we can see that the ancient Romans were also intelligent.

Some ancient Roman concrete still exists today. The science they used is similar to sedimentation in the Genesis Flood.
Ancient Roman concrete wall image credit: Flickr / Xerones (CC by-NC 2.0)
Think about it. There are remnants of Roman construction that are a couple thousand years old or more, yet we have concrete buildings constructed by the cheapest bidder that may not last more than a few decades — even with above water. Those old boys way back then knew what they were doing, and this shows in their seaside construction. Similar scientific principles were used by the Romans can also be seen in sedimentation from the Genesis Flood!
The ancient Romans used a type of concrete that is far more durable in seaside applications than our modern concrete. Modern cement in constant contact with the sea eventually weakens, and the steel reinforcing inside then rusts as salty water travels into cracks in the structure. It takes only a few decades for the concrete to begin crumbling away.

However, Roman marine concrete actually cured into a very tough material identical to hard rock. Two millennia old Roman piers and breakwaters are still standing rock-solid today.
To read the rest, click on "Ancient Roman concrete … just like natural rock".





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

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Dark Energy May Fade to Black

First, a word of caution. We keep seeing how materialists get all excited and shoot holes in the saloon ceiling in their exuberance about something they think proves something, then it turns out to be nothing. Research shows big problems in the belief in dark energy.


Image is a type 1a supernova. Dark energy is one of the rescuing devices for the Big Bang. New research causes serious problems for secularists.
Type 1a supernova 2005ke image credit: NASA /Swift /S. Immler
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Big Bang took center stage as the main cosmogony by secularists and compromising churchians. However, observations and additional calculations found flaws, so rescuing devices like dark matter and dark energy were cobbled together. They may look good in models, but since they presuppose naturalism instead of the Creator, it is no surprise that further adjustments are frequently necessary for cosmic evolution.

You know how fundamentalists evolutionists will say foolish things like, "Write a paper and get it peer reviewed, then get a Nobel Prize!" The prize is not all it's cracked up to be, and the paper giving evidence for dark energy won it, but like so many other secular research, it used incomplete methods. 

New research shows that dark energy is not as helpful as was once thought. There was no actual evidence anyway, it was taken by faith because it was required by the Big Bang and cosmic inflation. There are many details involved in the story, but let's be a mite cautious before we go hollering, "Yippie ky yay, secularists!" You savvy? We need to see how it plays out and keep watching for further developments.
The cosmological world was upset in the late 1990s when two teams of astronomers independently found evidence for dark energy. To put this into context, we must briefly survey modern cosmology.
. . .
Dark energy quickly became widely accepted and adapted to the big bang model. But now a new study has called into question the reality of dark energy. These researchers found evidence that other factors could cause type Ia supernovae to appear fainter than expected. They argue that the peak brightness of type Ia supernovae depended upon properties of the galaxies that the supernovae are in. Factors included the morphology (shape), mass, and inferred star formation rate of the host galaxies. The paper suggests that this implies a link between type Ia supernovae brightness and stellar population.
You can read the entire article in context by following the link to "Rethinking Dark Energy: A Fly in the Cosmic Ointment".

The video below is from a secular source and discusses some of why the new dark energy paper is such a big problem:






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

Monday, February 17, 2020

Secularist Religious Hypocrisy in Brazil

Since politicians are known to light a shuck out of there when confronted by loud special interest groups, it should be interesting to see how long this lasts. In January of 2020, the administration of Brazil's president appointed a creation advocate for their graduate study programs. Secularists are angry.

Secularists are outraged that Brazil has an official creation advocate for education that has a religious background. However, secularists are religious as well.

Angry, I tell you! The advocate is Benedito GuimarĂ£es Aguiar Neto, and Katie, bar the door, he has a religious background! Worse, he wants to introduce Intelligent Design! First of all, if he's talking about using material from the Intelligent Design movement, they are most certainly not creationists. Don't be riding on ahead of me now and rein in a moment: the ID movement is not creationist, but creationists frequently use intelligent design arguments and examples. You savvy that, pilgrim?

As far as Benedito's qualifications, those are not under consideration. Secularists have a nasty habit of using someone's religion as leverage against them as if that was the primary focus. Here in the United States, religious people in political offices have been attacked, such as questioning John F. Kennedy's Roman Catholicism and his loyalty to the Pope or the Constitution, Mittens Romney's Mormonism, Sarah Palin's religion was in question, and many more.

This is yet another example of the secular science industry inserting itself into leftist political activism.

The hypocrisy comes in because atheism is a religion, whether hiding behind titles like secularist, the gelastic "freethinker" or humanist. (Ironically, Secular Humanism is a religion as well.) We just came off Question Evolution Day, and the atheists and secularists were practically having worship services in the street for "Darwin Day". These owlhoots have their godless religions, but cannot abide by the possiblity that someone who may be "religious" could threaten their dominance of secular indoctrination. Evolution is a foundation for atheistic indoctrination, as we have seen here many times. Like the global warming cultists, secularists get on the prod when their suppression of unpleasant truths is threatened by contrary facts.
The Science article begins by addressing “the encroachment of religion on science and education policy.” Non-evolutionists maintain there is already plenty of religion masquerading as science in public schools—including Brazil. For example, because a Creator is ignored, then it is taught (or inferred) that everything somehow came from nothing in a big explosive event. That is an overtly religious position, because one must have a substantial measure of faith to believe that something can come from nothing.
To read this short article in its entirety, click on "Brazil Appoints 'Creation Advocate'".



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

Saturday, February 15, 2020

Let Me Be Polystrate With You

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As we have seen, there are numerous problems with particles-to-paleontologist evolution as well as deep-time dogma. Rusty Swingset and his crew at the Darwin Ranch get mighty ornery about all the discoveries of soft tissues and other remnants, but many people overlook polystrate fossils.


Evidence against deep time and supporting the Genesis Flood is plentiful. Polystrate fossils also support the Flood but are often forgotten.
Polystrate tree in Nova Scotia image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Michael C. Rygel (CC by-SA 3.0)
You may want to save this article for reference. Creationists have used polystrate fossils for many years as evidence for the Genesis Flood. Most commonly used are vertical trees in rock layers, often coal seams.

"B-b-b-but Cowboy Bob! We have Wikipedia, Propaganda Talk Origins, strong opinions, and other excuses!"

Like geological theories, rescuing devices and "explanations" for polystrate fossils are contrived. Cognate on it for a spell. The layers are alleged to be millions of years in the making but the tree was considerate enough to stay put and let layers form around it, never mind shifting and other geologic activity. The tree should have broken apart and essentially become unrecognizable. Uniformitarian conjectures (gradual processes over long periods of time) fail.

Did y'all know that it's not just a few trees that appear like this? Maybe if there were just a couple of trees, it would be reasonable to say that further research needs to be done and then move on. Nope. There are many polystrate fossils, and they're not just a few trees. Genesis Flood models from biblical creationists make sense of observed evidence.

Now I'm going to turn you over to Real Science Radio. (As usual, I caution you to avoid Bob Enyart's open theism stuff, but the Real Science Radio section has strong creation science evidence.) There are three recorded broadcasts of about half an hour each The first broadcast linked also has a huge article that has material that would challenge secularists to wave off. As usual, the audio to which I link is free to download or listen online.

The first one with the article is "RSR's List of the Kinds of Polystrate Fossils".
Second, we have a recording plus another article, but this one is shorter, at "RSR's Polys Pt. 2". We conclude with "RSR's Polys Pt. 3". The article with this recording is a duplicate of the previous one. Also, the video below has some interesting points for your edification.






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

Friday, February 14, 2020

The RubisCO Enzyme and Evolution

Believers in universal common ancestry evolution are known to appeal to dysteleology, which is essentially saying that the Creator fouled things up. Such feckless arguments are primarily based on personal preference and often include a fundamental lack of knowledge of the object in question. Fore example, the RubisCO enzyme.


Arguing from an assumption of evolution as well as personal preference, the RubisCO enzyme is said to be evidence against creation. Look more closely.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ericlin1337 (CC by-SA 4.0)
This is evosplained as "inefficient" by people who lack sufficient knowledge of the subject. The enzyme is slow compared to other internal mechanisms, and is one of the earliest to have evolved (evidence not required, just assume). In reality, it is more effective than those who deny the work of the Master Engineer want to admit.
One of our readers, J.D. from the U.S., asked us a question about the efficiency of the RubisCO enzyme, which takes part in plant respiration:
Hello! So, a certain person I interact with claims that RubisCO, an enzyme in the body, is ‘proof’ that evolution is true, because of its rather poor efficiency and its tendency to accidentally use oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. He says this shows that evolution has selected what works, instead of a well-designed system. Of course, this is patent nonsense; all the other irrefutable evidences show that this argument is fallacious somewhere. I was only able to find one paragraph on the subject in your website, and it did not satisfactorily answer the question: how is he incorrect, and why did God make the enzyme so seemingly poorly?
CMI-US’s Dr Matthew Cserhati responds:
To read the rest of this rather technical response, click on "Is the RubisCO enzyme an ineffective leftover of evolution?"






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

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Apophis, Asteroid of Doom?

Watchers of the skies have some rather sophisticated equipment, and they detected 99942 asteroid Apophis in 2004. This bad boy is named after the Egyptian deity of chaos and darkness, an enemy of the sun god Ra. Fearmongers are saying that it fits Bible prophesy and will strike Earth.

There is some concern about asteroid Apophis striking Earth in 2029 as a part of Bible prophesy. This idea fits neither the Bible nor science.
Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech
The chances of impacting our blue marble in 2029 were small at first, and NASA ruled it out later on. (There are uncertainties in tracking these distant things.) Some people may be able to see it as it makes its pass then, and the chance of an impact in 2036 are also ruled out. When you have someone saying that everyone else is wrong and he is the one to believe, recalculate with his standards, scientists ignored him.

Still, people want to sell books. We saw that before with previous predictions and false prophesies involving blood moons, global warming, CERN, end-of-the-world date setting (biblical numerology), and so on, and books did indeed sell. People like the sensationalistic stuff, but they seem to lack knowledge of both Scripture and science. Apophis is not a problem, and we know that our Creator is sovereign. Now we can let astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner discuss this further:
There has been some recent interest in the asteroid 99942 Apophis and its close encounter with earth expected in 2029. When discovered in 2004, the preliminary orbit for Apophis indicated that it might crash onto earth on April 13, 2029 (yes, that is a Friday). However, as is always the case, follow-up observations improved our knowledge of the orbit. We now know that Apophis will pass close very close to the earth that day, but it will miss. How close will Apophis come? Its closest approach will be about 20,000 miles (about one-tenth of the distance between the earth and the moon). Apophis’ longest dimension is nearly 1,500 feet. No object of such size is known to have passed that close to the earth. When nearest to the earth, Apophis ought to appear as a third magnitude star moving about 40 degrees per hour. It would be quite a sight for people with moderately dark skies that night.
To continue reading, click on "Apophis, Bible Prophesy, and the Year 2029".

Sound for this short video is not necessary:





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

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Naturalism and Question Evolution Day

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Riders for the Darwin brand are usually committed to and presuppose naturalism, the belief that natural laws and processes are the only things that exist, as their foundation. Naturalism is essentially an atheistic view, so this is something with which we must contend on Question Evolution Day.


We see that evolutionists generally presuppose naturalism. From this they interpret evidence or even manipulate it to fit their views.
Original image before modification from RGBStock / Dave Dyet
QED is an existential threat to those who try to suppress intellectual and academic freedoms, as well as freedoms of speech and thought. Militant Darwinists who are riding herd do not tolerate their folks expressing doubt about evolution. Some who are safely established have done so, but they still imperil their careers and reputations in the secular science industry and academic institutions. Who will they please, and at what cost (Mark 8:26)?

Although there are secular scientists who have not heard of creation science and are taught to believe that evolution is the only possible view of origins, there are also militant evolutionists who promote their worldview at practically any cost. This includes ignoring the hard truth about fossils that are out of order (according to their schemes) and even denying that the fossil "record" has any problems.


Thanks to Why?Outreach for the graphic
As we have seen numerous times, the issue of origins is not strictly about evidence. If that were the case, there would be no evolutionists. The commitment of the secular science industry to naturalism and materialism makes it difficult to get an evolutionist to consider the truth of creation — especially when they are manipulating the data to help them justify their rebellion against their Creator. Here are two related articles on this subject.
Because Darwinism is built on philosophical naturalism, evidence can be moved around as needed.

Evolutionists never seem worried about out-of-place fossils. Why is that? The reason is that the philosophy of naturalism is the driving force that keeps Darwinism going. Darwinians think like this: (1) Naturalism must be our worldview. (2) Darwinism seems to be the best theory within naturalism. (3) If problems are found in Darwinism, there isn’t any competition, so we can just shuffle parts of the story around. This non-falsifiable strategy allows them to believe in the Popeye Theory of Evolution (17 Aug 2019), the Cambrian explosion, and any other rearrangement as long as naturalism is preserved. Even a Precambrian rabbit could probably be accommodated by a sufficiently talented just-so storyteller.
To finish reading this first article and see the examples, click on "Darwinians Excuse Out-of-Order Fossils". There is one more article linked below.

In addition to indulging in storytelling and manipulating facts, these committed evolutionists will also resort to science of the gaps and evosplain their narrative by simply putting the fossils in the order that they prefer. (Of course, no consideration of the reality of the Genesis Flood is allowed.) Recent chicanery includes rewriting history for how Jurassic dinosaurs made their way from Africa to Europe, evolution went at full gallop after dinosaur extinction, the spines of mammals showed evolutionary changes — yep, naturalists play fast and loose to convince folks that their story is true and God was nowhere to be found. Assuming evolution to prove evolution is circular reasoning, old son. To read about all this, click on "Shoving Fossils Onto Darwin’s Timeline".






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

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

First Degree Atheopathy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While we want to reach people with honest inquiries and remove stumbling blocks on Question Evolution Day, those of us who spend any amount of time discussing biblical creation science online encounter furious atheopaths (see atheopath definition in footnote 1, here) and militant Darwinists. While pretending to be harbingers of science and reason, they frequently display little knowledge of either.


When atheists and other anti-creationists want to slap leather with us, they seldom display knowledge of the subject. Such bad logic can be used against them.

Critics of Christianity, the Bible, biblical creation, and so on use social media when they seek to slap leather with us. They know that God exists (Romans 1:18-23. Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7) and presuppose philosophical naturalism. I fully believe that they are intent on validating their rebellion against God and biblical authority (Job 40:8). If someone holds a position that they dislike, the positions are misrepresented; the person is called an idiot and a liar, but they only succeed in displaying their own corruption. As I have said many times, some tinhorns refuse to distinguish between lying and disagreement: if you say something they dislike, you're a liar. 

It is not surprising to find an atheopath who displays vitriol from the safety of a computer keyboard, acting like ridicule somehow proves atheism right and gives them the intellectually superior position. Ironically, atheism as only harmed humanity while Christians are doing the heavy lifting by building hospitals, spearheading relief efforts, and much more.


Click for larger. Count the fallacies. Feel the bigotry.
Those who claim to be "former Christians" seldom exhibit knowledge of theology, and can be unmasked by Christians who actually know and believe the Bible. When creation is attacked, they appeal to their own opinions, baseless assertions, the tendentious "authority" of uninformed and often anonymous sources, outdated material, and so on. Indeed, knowledgeable creationists often have to correct them!

For example, one tinhorn was so desperate to cling to his faith, he provided the long-refuted story of horse evolution as "evidence":


It is not uncommon for angry atheists and evolutionists to attack by machine-gunning a list of objections and complaints (Bill Nye used this stunt in his debate with Ken Ham) and the fallacy of elephant hurling. It is almost amusing that those who pretend to be more intelligent than creationists will consistently display lack of thinking skills, and their "refutations" read like boilerplate material from the Darwin Ranch and Atheopathy Excuses Warehouse. The article linked below illustrates that we do not have to roll over and play dead, and that some complaints of atheists can be used to refute their own incoherent religion.
This week’s feedback is an example of the uninformed misotheistic elephant hurling that we normally don’t publish because it breaks our feedback rules. But we wanted to show the sort of thinking out in cyberspace, and also show that there are good answers to objections to Christianity. The response shows that Christianity has provided the foundation for science, alleviation of poverty and rejection of superstition.
To read the rest of this enlightening examination, click on "Mangling misotheism".






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

Monday, February 10, 2020

Evolutionists Disliking Lichens

We have probably seen lichens in many places in various forms, but tend to pay them no nevermind. Some resemble houseplants, but they are far more complex and have baffled scientists for many years. They are actually different organisms that comprise individual entities.

Lichens are far more complex than evolutionists thought, and their symbiotic relationships thwart Darwinian beliefs.
Wolf lichen image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Jason Hollinger (CC by-SA 3.0)
In the television show Stargate SG-1, there was a complicated storyline involving Symbiotes, creatures that had humans as hosts but also gave them strength and healing. However, these things were wicked and took over the hosts' personalities. This is similar to a view that the symbiotic relationship between fungi and algae consisted of the fungus dominating the algae. This is not the case.

Despite the view of Darwin and his followers that organisms competed, there are many living things in symbiotic relationships — all the way to the beneficial microorganisms living on and in each of us. Lichens not only show symbiosis, but they shock evolutionists by displaying a relationship that the Master Engineer designed them to have.
Lichens resemble plants or fungi, with elaborate branches like ocean coral, tiny cup-like structures, or leaf-like fronds. They can be found growing in forests, deserts, arctic tundra, or even in your backyard on rocks or walls. And contrary to hundreds of years of overly simplistic speculation as to what lichens might be, scientists are surprised to find they’re actually complex multi-creature systems consisting of up to four different organisms.
To read the rest, click on "Symbiotic Lichens Showcase Our Creator's Ingenuity".





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

Saturday, February 8, 2020

Baby Yoda and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is not a review of Star Wars-related entertainment, although I did like the first three movies that were released (Episodes 4, 5, 6) somewhat. However, an evolutionist took a notion to use an almost fanatical devotion to Darwin and commence to asserting that The Child ("Baby Yoda") figures into human evolution.


Some evolutionists think that Baby Yoda and other babies are the product of evolution. There is no science involved.
Credit: Pixabay / K.
Some time ago, we looked at the science of cuteness and how evolutionists have tried to make it seem that we evolved to respond to cute things. We like babies. Near the first of the year, stores are filled with calendars, and you can expect to see some of baby animals. Someone offers to show pictures of their children or grandchildren, and people (usually the women folk) make ooh and aww noises over them. I find other ways to be occupied. From my observations it seems that males are less inclined to involve themselves in the adoration of infants.

All of this is supposedly based on an evolutionary urge to respond to cuteness. Uh, define cute. It's not objective, it's subjective. Look on YouTube for "cute" and you'll find many different things, especially animals. Mr. Bean's teddy bear is cute to some people. The entire evolution cuteness "argument" has nothing to do with science or logic.
A woman got on a bus holding her baby. The bus driver said, "Wow, that's got to be the ugliest baby I've ever seen!"

The woman angrily slammed her coins into the fare box and took a seat. The man sitting next to her asked what was wrong. "The bus driver insulted me," she fumed.

The man sympathized with her and said, "Why, he's a public servant and shouldn't say things to insult passengers."

"You're right," she said. "I think I'll go back up there and tell him off!"

"Yes, you do that," the man said. "Here, let me hold your monkey."
The cuteness idea is based on circular reasoning and the presupposition of human evolution. The provocative title of an article indicates that we evolved to love The Child. Not hardly! We are created in God's image, and neither that truth nor the possibility that God gave us an appreciation of cute things may simply be a gift from him, those considerations to not enter the minds of materialists.

From here, I'll turn you over to Dr. Mohler, whose The Briefing podcast was the inspiration for this article. He has some very interesting things to say. I'd be much obliged if you would click on "Why Do Humans Love Babies? Evolutionists and Christians Answer the Question Differently" to listen or read the transcript. The next segment about the child saved from the mountain lion is also interesting.



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

Friday, February 7, 2020

The Worship of Artificial Intelligence

Many advances have been made in the development of AI, and such non-human intelligence is usually based on the particles-to-programmer worldviews of the designers. They even tie evolution into ethics (see "Artificial Intelligence and Evolving Morality"). It is possible to have AI that is, well, disturbing (see "Artificial Psychotic Intelligence"). Despite the obvious possibilities of disaster, some owlhoots want to design a church based on artificial intelligence.


Since humans reject God, they want to replace him with something to worship. A church of AI is being planned.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Although science fiction stories have been written about people with good intentions making a powerful intelligence for the good of humanity, disaster usually ensues. Have you ever heard the old Emerson, Lake and Palmer song, "Karn Evil 9, Third Impression"? It involves a futuristic war and a computer. At the end, the man says that he is all there is. The computer argues with him, "I let you live". He objects, "But I gave you life!" That doesn't seem to have gone well, what with the servant becoming the master and all.

As we saw in the recent post on atheism, people are designed with knowledge of God but seek another way to express religious yearning. Man has tried to replace God the Creator with himself and man's own creations to worship. But we are sinful beings in need of salvation, so when we built things that we think are superior, we are only putting our own imaginations on the throne. The one discussed below is expected to be very big, and thankful to those that built it.Nice demon you have there, Hoss.
In the West, due mainly to Christian influence, the practice of worshipping physical idols has been largely abandoned for many centuries. But today, the Christian foundations of the West are crumbling away as more and more people forsake God (just as the Jews did in Jeremiah’s day). With this shift away from Christianity, we find another shift—back to the practice of worshiping the works of our own hands. This time, one of the forms this may take is the worship of artificial intelligence.

Multi-millionaire Silicon Valley engineer Anthony Levandowski has made headlines in recent years by announcing a new official religion: the Way of the Future.1 It is Levandowski’s contention that the human race is currently building artificial-intelligence that is so powerful it will become like a god compared to humanity, and will eventually assume control over this planet. This is an event he calls The Transition.
To read the entire article, click on "Summoning the Demon: Worshiping Artificial Intelligence". Unless your device has other ideas.





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

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Research with Necks to no Evolution

Far too often, we see research that is interesting and moving along nicely that is tainted by homage to Darwin., such as this one. There are times when researchers saddle up and simply do their jobs. Like we saw in the futile effort to link retroviruses in koalas to human evolution, sometimes they try to compare living creatures with what may have happened in the past. What about critters with long necks?

Researchers wondered if the long necks of giraffes had similar characteristics of those in some dinosaurs. They did this without tainting the study with Darwin.
Credit: Clker clipart
A characteristic of giraffes is their extended necks, but so did many sauropod dinosaurs. The Master Engineer designed giraffes with tremendous detail to raise and lower their heads for eating, drinking, and other things. Could certain dinosaurs (which were much larger and taller) had similar characteristics? It is a distinct possibility.
What do giraffes and sauropods have in common? A new paper shows how you can seek answers without Darwin’s help.

From an evolutionary perspective, sauropods (dinosaurs) and giraffes have almost nothing in common except being vertebrates and having long necks. Giraffes did not ‘evolve’ from sauropods, so it would be a remarkable ‘convergence’ to have these large beasts end up with similar neck vertebrae and the ability to lift and swing their heads on their magnificent necks. Call Darwin to help explain this, please!

A team of five led by Daniel Vidal apparently didn’t need Charlie’s help. There is nothing about evolution, convergence, mutation, selection or any other Darwinian concept in their open-access paper in PLoS One, titled “Ontogenetic similarities between giraffe and sauropod neck osteological mobility.” That’s ontogeny (development of the embryo to adult), not phylogeny (evolution) – no apologies to Haeckel. Instead, they consider just the facts: how these animals’ vertebrae possessed similarities and differences that allowed heavy lifting. The Abstract says,
To find out more, click on "Long Necks Without Evolution".



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

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Atheists Are Indeed Religious

Although they deny it, atheists show that they are very religious. It is also a fact that atheism is a religion through court rulings and more.
We all have a knowledge of God built into us, but when people reject the true God, they do not actually believe in nothing, but substitute false gods. Like evolution, the word religion has several definitions. The original definition of an atheist is someone who believes there is no God, but Modern atheists pusillanimously redefined it to mean "lacks belief". Professing atheists also vehemently deny that they are religious by using the common understanding that a religion involves God or false deities. However, through court rulings and by their own activities, atheism is a religion, including evolution as their preferred mythology of origins.

Surveys have indicated that there is a group of people known as "nones". That is, when asked if they hold to a particular church, denomination, or religion, they answer with "none". Atheists cheer the belief that their hellish horde is growing, but that's not necessarily the case. People who are in-between churches but still believe all the basic tenets of Christianity could still answer "none" but not be irreligious or anti-theistic.

Your typical village atheopath spends an inordinate amount of time and energy attacking the God that he or she claims does not exist. It is amazing to this child that many seek their identities in attacking the God they deny. These sidewinders along with other anti-creationists do not show knowledge of the biblical creation science claims that they misrepresent because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-23). Indeed, they do not even show knowledge of rudimentary logic. When encountering atheists on social media (they frequently attack Christians and creationists) or in their anti-theist campaigns, we can easily see that they are typically joyless and angry. Such devotion to hatred of God is done religiously.

Aside from official rulings and such (linked above) and irrational obsession, there are valid reasons to demonstrate that atheism is religious by its very nature.
Because of the secularization of the Western World, many people today now identify as not religious (“the nones”). In 2016 and 2017, according to some national surveys, 48.5% of people in England and Wales and 72% of people in Scotland say they have no religion! Many of these people identified as atheists. But are atheists not religious? Atheists will tell you they are not religious, but several characteristics identify atheists as religious. In this article, I deal with seven of those characteristics.
To learn more, follow the link to "Seven Ways Atheists Are Religious".





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

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Nanotyrannus is Actually T. Rex, Junior

Back in 1942, a small dinosaur skull was examined and classified as a relative of Tyrannosaurus rex. However, paleontologists did not have much to work with. Eventually, more parts were found as well as a nearly-complete skeleton in 2003 for Nanotyrannus. Upon further examination, it was determined that Nanotyrannus did not exist.

Taxonomy problems bother scientists, especially evolutionists who classify dinosaurs. A long-standing fossil turns out to have been misidentified as a juvenile T. rex.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / MCDinosaurhunter (CC by-SA 3.0)
"You mean like Nanny Pelosi, Cowboy Bob?"

Ummm...sure. While Nanotyrannus was not real under that name, it turns out that it was a teenager. The first of the two articles features is shorter and focuses on the error of growth rings, which seems similar to dendrochronology. Since dinosaurs were unique and there was a lack of data, it should not come as a surprise that this method failed. Young dinosaurs like this one are considered by many creationists to have been on Noah's Ark, and they would have matured after the Flood.
A new analysis of a small pair of T. rex-like fossils, called Nanotyrannus, shows they were actually teenage T. rexes.

Holly Woodward, from Oklahoma State University, and her colleagues reporting in Science Advances, counted the growth rings in the leg bones of the two Nanotyrannus specimens. Their results showed the specimens were not a new species. Rather, they were just 13 and 15-year-old T. rex dinosaurs.
To read the rest of the first article, click on "Teenage T. rex Fossils". The next article is more detailed.

Determining taxonomy has been problematic for a long time — especially for dinosaurs. There is prestige in making a discovery, but there have been many dinosaurs that have been reclassified as juveniles as well male and female of the same type. This is compounded by arrested growth patterns.
The latest research on one dinosaur called Nanotyrannus (Nano- or dwarf and tyrannus or tyrant) has finally firmed up what it was, a teenage T rex. Most of our information was known primarily from a single proven specimen, CMNH 7541. It was originally believed to be a new distinct genus based on a handful of cranial and postcranial features. Now, additional research on the creature’s bone tissue confirms it was merely a juvenile T. rex. The story of arriving at this conclusion is a good example of a big problem in the science of taxonomy, namely determining what is (or is not) a new species. This case also illustrates the problem of extrapolating conclusions about evolution from the fossil record.

The problem is actually central in documenting evolution. What one may conclude is a transitional form between one species and a more evolved species may well be only a juvenile of a known species, and not a new species. Paleontologists admit that “despite its iconic status as the king of dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex biology is incompletely understood,” even though since its discovery in 1905 the famed King of Dinosaurs “was met with intense scientific interest and public popularity, which persists to the present day.”
To finish reading, click on "Kid dinosaur was misidentified as a new species".





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

Monday, February 3, 2020

Koala Retroviruses and Human Evolution

Some proponents of universal common ancestor got a notion that perhaps retroviruses gave humans part of our DNA, but they had no observational evidence. After all, this supposedly took millions of Darwin years. So they decided to see if the retroviruses in koalas provided them some clues.


Evolutionists think that part of our DNA came from outside through retroviruses. An examination of koalas did not support this idea.
Credit: Morguefile / cooee
Such a notion is not entirely unreasonable since scientists have speculations and want to see if there is some evidence to support them. A retrovirus adds its own genome into a host without even asking permission of saying thanks. Koalas have the KoRV that infects genomes, so researchers attempted to correlate this activity to our own genome. However, they neglected many important pieces of information and reasoning, including what the virus does to the koalas, and that the creation explanation is that the retroviruses began with the host organism instead of being interlopers.
Some evolutionists allege that 8% of the human genome originated from viruses. This number is ambiguous, since different authors include different genetic elements as viruses, such as SINEs and LINEs. For example, Alu elements make up at least 11% of the human genome. According to another study, 22.4% of the genome is covered by endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They claim that this came about when viruses infected humans and inserted their DNA into the human genome. This process is believed to have taken place over millions of years of evolutionary time. However, this has never been scientifically proven by direct observation.
. . .
But how do retroviruses such as KoRV manage to insert themselves in the genome of a species? . . . Usually, retroviruses spread horizontally, from individual to individual, sometimes causing illness as they go along. But this process does not allow them to insert themselves permanently as part of the genetic material of a given species. What researchers want to see is whether the virus can transmit itself vertically, from parent to offspring.
To read the entire article, click on "Do koalas prove that humans got part of their DNA from viruses?"



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

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Age of the Earth and Nuclear Fission Dating

We have examined radiometric dating on this site many times, and the article linked below provides some information that is inconvenient for those who believe in deep time. The age of the earth is calculated this way by testing meteorites, not rocks on Earth. However, the dating methods are unreliable.

Secularists confidently assert that they know the earth is billions of years old because of radiometric dating. However, the methods are actually unreliable.
Assembled with graphics from Openclipart
It should raise the suspicions of almost anyone that there are numerous dating methods used on rocks. This is because they are not consistent and have results that vary wildly with one another, and there are numerous assumptions that must be made. Creation scientists have done their own calculations and shown how secular systems are flawed. Further, a Genesis Flood model is a far better fit for the facts.
Have you ever pulled apart a large mass of taffy and watched it break into two approximately equal masses? This is an illustration of what happens in the subatomic world when a 238U or 235U atom undergoes splitting, or fission. Nuclear fission is often used to date rocks to millions or billions of years old. But are these methods valid?
To finish reading, click on "Nuclear Fission Dating Methods Are Unreliable". Also, you may like to hear the Scripture on Creation podcasts (about thirteen minutes each), "Too Much C-14 To Be Contamination. Part 1" and "Too Much C-14 To Be Contamination. Part 2", which refer to a much more technical article from the Creation Research Society, "Deep Time Philosophy Impacts Radiocarbon Measurements".



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

Labels